November 2017, № 12 (212), pages 106–111
Volkova I.I., Lazutova N.M. SCREEN MEDIA AND HUMAN ECOLOGY: FROM CHARMING TO JOININGThe authors of the article made an attempt to comprehend the process of the influence of the on-screen mass media on public opinion in the context of human ecology. As a result of the study of manipulative media technologies (the most powerful of them are on-screen technologies), in the homo-ecology the critical analyzing perception of media texts in the subject-subject (democratic) model of communication is considered optimal, but not ritualized uncritical, inherent in the subject-object (transmitting) model. The audiovisual screen speeds up communication postulating visibility and simulates a new reality, not the same in the case of different communication processes or different media. But any screen is a means of access to another space. The authors analyze two variants of screen space: cinematography and television. Cinema screen reality is a means of “enchantment” which abstracts from the viewer’s reality and draws him into its special space. The TV screen has a natural feature of joining the existing process. During the telecast, the physical parameters of the waves are deciphered by instruments but for the viewer these are phenomena of the unconscious. Cinema reality is sovereign but TV reality is actively projected onto the reality of the viewer, turning into its expansion.As a result, the authors come to the following conclusion: the information field is not equal to the physical field containing the ontological equivalent of the significance (shot) and the means of its transmission (signal). Gnoseologically linearity of physical influence of television is overcome at the level of moral space where feedback is formed. The feedback can be an indicator of the dynamics of information impact. In the model of subject-subject information relations the problem of the difference in the culture of thinking is not so much important as the discrepancy between the moral development of the journalist and the audience which is the main barrier for establishing a connection.Gnoseologically linearity of physical influence of television is overcome at the level of moral space where feedback is formed. The feedback can be an indicator of the dynamics of information impact. In the model of subject-subject information relations the problem of the difference in the culture of thinking is not so much important as the discrepancy between the moral development of the journalist and the audience which is the main barrier for establishing a connection. The authors raise the question: is it possible to talk about information ecology if in the process of using screen technologies with their enchanting potential the human will is suppressed, the orienting and exploratory reflexes of the spectators are suppressed, and their behavior is programmed by the joining process. The article has an interdisciplinary character.Key words: human ecology, screen media, audiovisual language, physical nature of television, post-truth theory, information ecology, moral space, cognitive activity, media ethics.
1. Averincev S.S. Philology // Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990.
2. Berezin V.M., Volkova I.I., Grabel’nikov V.M. Screen Communication in the Modern Information Society. Moscow: RUDN, 2008. 347 p.
3. Budantsev Yu.P. Icon and Advertisement URL: http://budancev.ortox.ru/ povesti_i_stati / view / id / 1130153 (accessed: 5.09.17).
4. Matters of cinema art. Issue 15. M.: Art, 1974.
5. Mihalkovich V.I. Essay on the Theory of Television. Moscow: Gos. Institute of Art Studies, 1996. P. 93–196.
6. International Standards of Professional Ethics for Journalists. St. Petersburg: S.-Petersburg. State University, 2012.
7. Muratov S.A. Moral Principles of TV journalism: The Experience of the Ethical Code. M.: Human Rights. 1994.
8. Fjodorov A.V. Media Literacy and Media Education. Taganrog: Publishing house of Kuchma,, 2004.
9. Harlow H. Motivational Forces Underlying Learning (Learning Theory and Clinical Research. The Kentucky Symposium). New York, 1954.
10. Keyes R. The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life. St. Martin’s Press, 2004.
11. Malpas J. Truth, Lies and Deceit // International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):1-12, 2008.
12. Masterman L. A Rational for Media Education. In: Kubey, R. (Ed.). Media Literacy in the Information Age. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1997. Pp.15-68.
13. McLuhan M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. N.Y.: McGraw Hill, 1964.
14. Patzlaff R. Der gefrorene Blick. Die physiologische Wirkung des Fernsehens auf Kinder, Vlg. Freies Geistesleben, Stuttgart, Neuauflage, 2013.
15. Susułowska M. Reakcje poznawcze dzieci w wieku przedszkolnym na sytuacyjnie nowe bodźce. Zeszuty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace Psychologiczno-Pedagogiczne. 1960, zesz. 2.
16. Volkova I. Four Pillars Of Gamification // Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 13 (Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities): 149-152, 2013.
17. Word of the Year 2016 is.. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016 (accessed: 5.09.17).
About this article
Authors: Volkova I.I., Lazutova N.M.