MEDIA ARRANGEMENT AS A FACTOR OF EXTERNAL INFLUENCE IN SOCIOLOGICAL REFLECTION: THEORETICAL ASPECT
Abstract
The article provides a descriptive characteristics and classification of media support theories as a factor of external influence in conflict situations. In accordance with this goal, groups of neo-Marxist, poststructuralist, and socio-behavioral theories are identified. It is determined that the set of general theoretical postulates of the first group is, firstly, the postulate on the usurpation of media power by political and economic elites who are behind the financing and social patronage of cultural industries. Secondly, the postulate of information distortion, which consists in the fact that monopolizing classes are interested in forming a distorted picture of social reality. Thirdly, the postulate of forming a unified strategy of influence in the media space by power and economic elites, in respect of which media actors are considered mainly as repeaters of discourses. It is determined that a set of general theoretical postulates of the second group is the recognition of linguistic (rhetorical and linguistic) factors of media support as the key ones. Secondly, the consideration of media actors as relatively independent producers of discourses, which have an independent meaning in the sphere of influence in comparison with social groups and institutions. Thirdly, the postulate regarding the positioning of supranational identities through language and the use of a specific (globalistic) vocabulary is of great importance for poststructuralism.
References
2. Burde, P. (2002). O televidenii i zhurnalistike [On television and journalism]. Moskva : Fond nauchnyh issledovanij “Pragmatika kultury”, Institut eksperimentalnoj sociologii. 160 s. [in Russian]
3. Veber, M. (1990). Izbrannye proizvedeniya. [Selected works]. Moskva : “Progress”. 808 s. [in Russian]
4. Dyakova, E.G. (1999). Massovaya kommunikaciya i problema konstruirovaniya realnosti: Analiz osnovnyh teoreticheskih podhodov. [Mass communication and the problem of constructing reality: Analysis of basic theoretical approaches]. Ekaterinburg. 128 s. [in Russian]
5. Dyakova, E.G. (2001). Massovaya kommunikaciya: modeli vliyaniya. Kak formiruetsya “povestka dnya”? [Mass communication: models of influence. How is the “agenda” formed?]. Ekaterinburg : Izd-vo Gumanit. un-ta. 130 s. [in Russian]
6. Shyuc, A. (2003). Smyslovaya struktura povsednevnogo mira: ocherki po fenomenologicheskoj sociologii. [The semantic structure of the everyday world: essays on phenomenological sociology]. Moskva: Institut Fonda “Obshestvennoe mnenie”. 336 s. [in Russian]
7. Adorno T. & Horkheimer M. (1972).The culture industry. Enlightment of mass deception. N.Y. : Herber and Herber.
8. Ammon, R. (2001). Global television and the shaping of world politics: CNN, telediplomacy, and foreign policy. Jefferson. N.C. : McFarland.
9. Bandura, A. (1994). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale. N.Y. : Erlbaum. Pp. 61-90.
10. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe : Free Press. Domke, D., Shah, D.V. & Wackman, D.B. (1998). Media priming effects: Accessibility, association, and activation. International journal of public opinion research. Pp. 51-74.
11. Elliott, P. (1974). Uses and gratifications research: A critique and a sociological alternative. The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on ratifications research. Beverly Hills, C.A. : Sage, Pp. 249-268.
12. Gerbner G. (1976). Mass Media and Human Communication Theory. Sociology of Mass Communications. London.
13. Gilboa, E. (2002). Global communication and foreign policy. Joumal of Communication. Pp. 731-748.
14. Graber, D. (2001). Processing politics: Leaming from television in the Internet age. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
15. Graber, D. (2002). Mass media and American politics. Washington : Congressional Quarterly Press.
16. Herman, Edward S. & Noam Chomsky. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York : Pantheon Books.
17. Herman, E., & Peterson, D. (2000). CNN: Selling NATO’s war globally. Degraded capabiiity: The media and the Kosovo crisis. London: Pluto Press. Pp. 111-122.
18. Jakobsen, P. (1996). National interest, humanitarianism or CNN: What triggers UN peace enforcement after the Cold War? Joumal of Peace Research. Pp. 205-215.
19. Jakobsen, P. (2000). Focus on the CNN effect misses the point: The real media impact on confiict management is invisible and indirect. Joumal of Peace Research. Pp. 131-143.
20. Kaplan, R. The Media and Medievalism. Retrieved from http://www.policyreview.org/dec04/Kaplan.
21. Livingston, S., & Eachus, T. (1995). Humanitarian crises and U.S. foreign policy: Somalia and the CNN effect reconsidered. Political Communication. Pp. 413-429.
22. Livingston, S. (1996). Suffering in silence: Media coverage of war and famine in the Sudan. From massacres to genocide: The media, public policy, and humanitarian crises. Cambridge, MA: World Peace Foundation. Pp. 68-89.
23. Livingston, S. (1997). Beyond the “CNN effect”: The media-foreign policy dynamic. Politics and the press: The news media and their influences. Pp. 291-318.
24. Livingston, S., & Eachus, T. (1999). Rwanda: U.S. policy and television coverage. The path of a genocide: The Rwanda crisis from Uganda to Zaire New Brunswick. NJ: Transaction. Pp. 209-228.
25. Livingston, S. (2000). Media coverage of the war: An empirical assessment. Kosovo and the challenge of humanitarian intervention: Selective indignation, collective action, and intemational citizenship. New York: United Nations University Press. Pp. 360-384.
26. Miller, D. (2002). Measuring media pressure on security policy decisionmaking in liberal states: The positioning hypothesis. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Intemational Studies Association. New Orleans.
27. Morgan M., Leggett S. & Shanahan, J. (1999). Television and “family values”: Was dan quayle right? Mass communication and society. Pp. 47-63.
28. Regan, P. (2000). Substituting policies during U.S. interventions in intemal confiicts, a little of this, a little of that. Joumal of Conflict Resolution. Pp. 90-106.
29. Reese, S., Gandy, O., & Grant, A. (2001). Framing public life. Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Shaw, M. (1996). Civil society and media in global crises: Representing distant violence. London : Pinter.
31. Shaw, D., & Weaver, D. (1997). Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Thompson J. B. (2003). The Media and Modernity. A social Theory of the Media. Oxford : Polity Press,
33. Zaller, J., & Chiu, D. (2000). Govemment’s little helper: U.S. press coverage of foreign policy crises, 1946-1999. Decisionmaking in a glass house. Pp. 61-84.
Abstract views: 200 PDF Downloads: 150