The neo-authoritarianism of the media in Russia is a reflection of the relationship between society, the government, and the media community, in which power, through economic, legal, and administrative means, controls the media, thereby instilling authoritarian stereotypes in the audience. In this mode, the audience does not have enough consciousness to use the media as a platform for a productive dialogue, but sees the propaganda apparatus in them. Media, in turn, unknowingly perceives the audience as an object of propaganda.
Content
Neo-authoritarian media in Russia
Neo-authoritarian mass media in Russia are mass media that have features characteristic of authoritarian mass media, including government interference in the public public life of the population.
Prerequisites for the emergence of neo-authoritarian media in Russia
Modern society has signs of a free, independent of the state, but the results of studies show that under conditions of neo-authoritarianism, society considers the media as a tool for propaganda, and not a free platform for an open dialogue. A vivid example of the authoritarian regime of the Russian media, which was the reason for the formation of the neo-authoritarian media system - "anti-Soviet propaganda", materials that were declared inflammatory or treasonous. Those accused of anti-Soviet propaganda were laid off, imprisoned or executed. Similar practice by the state excluded cases of disobedience.
In 1986, a tragedy occurred in Chernobyl at a nuclear power plant . The authorities that controlled the activities of the Soviet media for a long time hid the tragedy until it turned out that it was too large to provide information about it. The Politburo decided to publish data on the tragedy because of fears that the destroyed power station would be visible in satellite photographs. Information was issued little by little and with a delay, which significantly undermined the authority of the Soviet government.
From 1990 to 1993, the regulation of the media in Russia underwent changes, led by Boris Yeltsin, who advocated freeing the media space from state control. In 1990, the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media was adopted, which affirmed freedom from censorship and independence of the media from owners. In 1991, the "Media Law" was passed. Despite the many laws that strengthened media freedoms, the audience still considered the media as a mechanism of state propaganda.
The definition of “neo-authoritarian media” reflects precisely the attitude of the audience towards the media, which currently prevails and has developed over the years of censorship. The study, which was conducted by M.A. Abalkina in the 1990s. showed that during this period the severity of the authoritarian regime in Russia was lower than that of the inhabitants of America at that time, due to high democratic expectations. In 1992, other studies showed that authoritarianism in the Russian realities of that time significantly strengthened. Basically, authoritarian sentiment was supported by social groups such as workers and teachers.
The period 1994-1995. in Russian history was characterized by the appearance of a number of privileges in the media. At the same time, in these years the media was returning to the Soviet model of work, which suggested that the media became dependent on a certain circle of people. The activities of the media became freer in 1996-1999. The political situation in Russia after 1999 was characterized by the leading role of the executive branch, which made the media dependent on the presidential cabinet.
Reasons for the emergence of neo-authoritarian media in Russia
The study “Syndrome of authoritarian radicalism in the Russian mass consciousness” identified the main signs of the authoritarianism of mass consciousness. They were a tendency towards nationalism and xenophobia, the desire for state control over the public life of the state, a sense of insecurity, the need for a tough management style on the part of the state. Sympathy for an authoritarian social system was described by Erich Fromm in his work “Escape from Freedom”. According to the psychologist, people are afraid of freedom and, paradoxically, free of it. Freedom, according to Fromm, is loneliness.
Sources
- Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation, Russian Newspaper, 9.09.2000. [Electronic document]. - Access mode: http://www.rg.ru/oficial/doc/min_and_vedom/mim_bezop/doctr.shtm .
- Samoilova V. A. The radical renewal of society and the problem of an authoritarian personality // Man in a changing world: social and psychological problems: materials conf. SPb., 1993.
- Abalakina M.A., Ageev V.S., McFarland S. Authoritarian personality in the USA and the USSR // Man. 1990.No 6.
- Adorno T. Research of an authoritarian personality. Under the general editorship of d. Philos. V.P. Kultygin. - M .; Silver Threads, 2001.