Revealing the concept of "communication," the author emphasizes its imperative meaning as a two-way process of interacting subjects. However, when interpreting the concept of "mass communication," almost all researchers consider it as a unidirectional and targeted effect, which, in his opinion, is completely incorrect. The author proposes and justifies the need for two-way mass communication. Reveals its structure in the diagrams. Mass communication functions are discussed in detail. It is shown that the manipulative nature of the use of mass communications in political management is already losing its effectiveness, does not correspond to modern realities, that the mass communication system must be rebuilt in accordance with the model proposed by the author.

Keywords: communication, mass communication, political management, manipulative management.

Communication arose along with the emergence of human communities as a person's need to provide another person with information necessary for joint action. Communication not only provides a connection between the structures of social systems, but also their reproduction, organization, management, broadcasting of the culture and mentality of the people, etc. Without communication, the emergence, existence and functioning of society of any level is unthinkable. It permeates the entire life of the social world. Essentially, communication is the binding fabric of society. The Swedish scientist J. Ekekrantz is absolutely right, who said that modern "reality cannot be comprehended without understanding the ways in which societies create themselves in the process of communication".¹

The category "communication" as an extremely general concept, reflecting the most significant characteristics of modern social reality, appeared in science at the beginning of the twentieth century.[1] Since then, there has been a continuous search for its generally accepted meaning, clarification of its role and functions. Half a century ago, in 1976, American sociologists F. Dan and K. Larson calculated and analyzed 126 definitions of the concept of "communication".² Since then, the number of definitions of this concept has increased significantly. Therefore, we will not bore the reader with their detailed analysis.

The most universal definitions include the following definition of communication: "Communication (Latin communicatio, from communico - I make it common, connect, and communicate), 1) the path of the message, the connection of one place with another. 2) Communication, the transfer of information from person to person is a specific form of interaction between people in the process of their cognitive and labor activity, carried out mainly using language (less often using other sign systems).³

The generalization of a huge set of definitions of communication allows us to distinguish two main meanings that are meant by this term:

1. Means or technology enabling information interaction between subjects (telegraph, radio, telephone, Internet, transport, etc.);
2. The very process of information interaction between communication subjects.

If we leave aside the technological meaning (communication line) of the concept of "communication" and focus on its ontological component, then the above allows us to propose the following definition: communication is the interaction of entities connected in some way through generation, transmission to each other and perception of information. Communication requires the presence of two or more entities that have the ability to interact with each other. Thus, communication is necessarily a two-way process. And this is very important.

How is this concept transformed when we are dealing with mass communication?

The ancestor of the scientific study of mass communication is the outstanding German sociologist Max Weber. It was he who at the beginning of the twentieth century, from the standpoint of understanding sociology, laid down the principles of the study of mass communication, its role in society.⁴ Later, in the 40s, such foreign sociologists as G. Lasswell, ⁵ G. Marcuse,⁶ P. Lazarsfeld, R. Merton⁷ and others. It was G. Lasswell who developed in the late 40s of the twentieth century which has become "classical" and has not yet lost its defining value model of mass communication as a unidirectional process ("WHO," "WHAT," "on what CHANNEL," "with what EFFECT").⁸ Among Russian humanities scientists, the tendency also prevails to understand mass communication as a system functioning in accordance with the type of impact, that is, to take it for granted (indeed, the usual "mass communication" works according to this scheme) as an entity, no counter interaction is allowed. Subsequently, this model was supplemented and expanded by other scientists (G. Gerbner, B. Westley, M. McLuen, etc.), who introduced feedback elements into it. Generally speaking, it can be concluded that all named authors consider communication 1) as unidirectional; 2) intended influence (impact)

If we now recall the main meaning of the concept of "communication" as information MUTUAL actions of equal entities, it will become obvious that it is precisely communications in the existing system of mass dissemination of information that do not exist, and it is simply incorrect to call it communication. It does not have a counter information channel that would allow the "audience" to act as an equal partner of information interaction in relation to the current "subjects" of the information space.

[1] There is a point of view according to which the science of communication begins with Aristotle's treatise "Rhetoric." However, in it was considered from the point of view of the origin of social norms, morality, law and state, problems of dialogue, etc. To take these considerations as the beginning of the science of communication, in our opinion, would be a very strong exaggeration.

The most popular and traditional definition of mass communication remains the following: "Mass communication is a system for disseminating information (through print, radio, television, cinema, computer technology and communication lines, etc.) and actively influencing people's ideas, assessments, opinions and behavior, on mass consciousness as a whole in order to affirm the spiritual values ​ ​ of this society".³ It is easy to see that in this definition there is no question not only of any equality in the process of information interaction, but there is not even a hint of this interaction. We are talking exclusively about the impact of the subject remaining outside the definition of the subject on the mass consciousness. It also remains unclear who formulates and justifies goals and values. The specificity of mass communication understood in this way is the combination of organized production of certain (in accordance with the goals!) Information (information), its accumulation and storage with its dispersed, mainly unaddressed distribution. No counter channel of interaction is provided.

Understood in this sense, "mass communication" may well be represented as a control system (Scheme 1).

As a SUBJECT OF MANAGEMENT (not mentioned in the definition) in this scheme, one can consider a combination of three elements: 1 - the Subject of Management itself (as a rule, these are power structures, media owners); 2 - support infrastructure (system of training and retraining of journalistic, technical, technological and other personnel, the legal basis for the functioning of mass communication, the corresponding level of development of the economy, production, science, etc.; R&D, etc.); 3 - information production structures (journalism, news agencies, press services of various government, political, private and other bodies).

The media in this scheme are considered in the literal sense - as technical and technological means intended for mass replication and dissemination of information. The meaning of such a view, that is, their separation from the structures of information production, is to remove the traditional slyness of using the term "media" as a source of information. The source of information is in the previous (according to Scheme 1) Element. With the help of the media, only the replication and broadcasting of information from the subject of management to the object of management.

Scheme 1 The structure of mass communication in the traditional sense.

The object of management in the system of "mass communication" (in its currently generally accepted understanding) is public consciousness and, to a significant extent, the social behavior determined by it.

The information and analytical structure (IAS) shown in Diagram 1 is a mandatory, necessary element of any control system. In modern mass communication, IAS are adjacent directly to the structures of information production, "built" into them. These are various kinds of departments (sectors, services, etc.) for analysis and audience relations. The main function of the IAS is to ensure the receipt of information about the state of the control object, its analysis and presentation of the results of the analysis of the SUBJECT OF MANAGEMENT. This structure, together with the entire relevant infrastructure, plays only the role of a feedback information channel. It cannot be considered as an oncoming communication channel. IAS are initiated by the SUBJECT OF MANAGEMENT and serve solely for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of its information impact on the OBJECT. The most important element of feedback information is that empirical information that is obtained mainly by means of sociology. Thus, IAS are the main structure within the framework of which the sociology of mass communication finds a direct constructive application.

Figuratively speaking, there is a "one-goal game." The IAS structures available within the framework of modern media provide the "SUBJECT" with information that allows it to achieve the necessary "effect" as one of the mandatory elements of mass communication according to the G. Lasswell model (see above). This means that there is only one communication channel. And it functions only according to the control scheme, and it does not even imply any communication (that is, interaction). This circumstance, in particular, is one of the decisive (in essence, provoking) factors that enable the "subject" to use manipulative information technologies in relation to an unrequited, non-communicative "object." Indeed, in the presence of an oncoming information channel that complements the system to the level of full-fledged communication, the "object" would have the possibility of adequate informational, including manipulative, actions. At the same time, the levels of counter and direct manipulation would be quite correlated with each other. In this situation, mass communication would inevitably enter a positive feedback mode, in which, as you know, any system cannot function for a long time (it is "peddling"!) And is destroyed. It is easy to understand that bringing the existing system of mass dissemination of information to the level of genuine mass communication would very quickly eliminate the conditions for any kind of information manipulation. For the same reason, such "burning" and invariably exciting certain circles "painful questions" as "freedom of speech," "fourth power," "freedom of the media" and similar reasons to shake the air with empty disputes around problems with a wholesale cost of one eaten egg would disappear quietly and imperceptibly.

If we consider mass communication in the first of these meanings, then it is quite obvious that the technological basis of all mass media and communication is technique. The creation of new technology, its distribution and control over it are the most important aspects of the activities of modern government, which determine its ability to dominate. Indeed, in modern society, the possibilities of mass communication are predetermined by the quality of the technological and technical means used. Needless to remind that the already considerable cost of these funds is growing rapidly, and almost never corresponds to the financial capabilities of potential communicators. The share of the cost of these funds in the total cost of information that is directed to the mass consciousness is constantly increasing due to the fact that the cost of intellectual resources spent on its production remains practically unchanged. Therefore, the authorities, providing access to the media for information production structures (journalism itself), thereby tightly integrate them into their management mechanism and have a decisive influence on the nature and direction of the information products that they produce for mass communication.

The ideal (that is, not existing in reality) configuration of mass communication is presented in Scheme 2.

Scheme 2 The ideal configuration of mass communication.

Support system in Scheme 2, this is the infrastructure that is necessary for the full functioning of mass communication: the appropriate level of development of the economy, technology, technology, science and scientific and technical developments, the legal and regulatory framework, the system of training and retraining of professional personnel, etc.

Mass media (aut) are those media with which the authorities provide the ability to replicate and disseminate information

Mass media (pub) - public media with the help of which public organizations are able to enter into communicative interaction with society and the authorities.

It is on this basis that a real dialogue between society and the authorities is possible, and only by such a scheme can genuine mass communication function.

It should be noted that there is a fundamental drawback in the presented ideal configuration of mass communication: it lacks a mechanism for balancing between channels, mutual regulation of information flows in it occurs at the spontaneous level, which is fraught with the potential for conflicts. Indeed, under certain conditions (for example, in the event of a significant increase in one of the channels, it will begin to suppress the competing) confrontation is inevitable. Obviously, a mechanism balancing the capabilities of the two channels, a link, is needed. Given this circumstance, a modified scheme is proposed, in which this is the key to stability - the coordinating link that ensures the balance of information interaction (Scheme 3).

Scheme 3 The ideal configuration of mass communication with a corrective structure.

As can be seen, both information channels share a common link and coordination link, the structure (CS). In it, if necessary, preliminary coordination of positions at the consultation level takes place, and there is also a common data bank that provides information to both the government and the public channel of mass communication. The information base of the CS is formed due to both channels of mass communication, that is, its information content is provided by merging certain segments of the archives of each of the channels on a corporate basis. At the same time, they are equalized in the rights and possibilities of information impact due to equal rights and opportunities for access to information. This helps to maintain parity in the information space, equal opportunities for information impact, reduces the likelihood of excessive amplification of one of the channels and, as a result, increases the stability of society. It is assumed that both channels through their representatives have equal opportunities to influence the nature of the functioning of the CS. The initiator of the implementation of this structure can, for example, be the Grand Jury of the Union of Journalists of Russia.

It is well known that the main problem of the functioning of mass communication and, in particular, for information production structures is the availability of access to the media. In its practical basis, this is a financial problem. The inevitable question arises: "From what means will the counter channel of mass communication be financed?" The answer is very simple: "Of the same, of which the direct channel is financed." Both channels should be funded by taxpayers. It is necessary that some kind of honor of tax revenues (for example, 0.1%) be purposefully received to ensure this particular counter channel of mass communication. This will be the first step towards true democracy, the establishment of equal communicative interaction between society and government.

Based on a general understanding of the meaning, place, role of mass communication in society, its most important social functions can also be determined.

A functional approach to the study of systems of any nature has convincingly proved its fruitfulness in science and in almost all areas of social activity. Therefore, its use when considering a mass communication system seems quite justified.

The function (from lat. Functio - duty, purpose, nature of activity, performance of duties) is usually understood:

1. A stable way of active relationship of things, in which changes in some objects lead to changes in others (the most general, non-specific, universal interpretation).
2. for the social sphere as a whole:

1. The role played by a certain object of the social system in its organization as a whole, in the implementation of the goals and interests of social groups and classes;
2. Standardized social action, regulated by certain norms and controlled by social institutions.

The obvious dichotomous pair of function is dysfunction (failure, lack of function). Among the functions, there are explicit and hidden, deliberately selected (assigned) and spontaneously formed, real and imaginary, etc.

The generally recognized classic of the development of communication problems, the American sociologist G. Lasswell, thus denoted the functions of the act of communication:

1. Observation or supervision of the environment (information function);
2. ensuring the interconnection of parts of society in accordance with environmental changes (backbone function);
3. Transfer of social heritage or experience from one generation to another (educational, cognitive and cultural function).⁸

It is clear that this is a very general sketch, it too frankly shows the standard scheme of the structural and functional approach, which was rapidly gaining popularity then (40s of the twentieth century).

Around this time (but somewhat later), the equally well-known American sociologists P. Lazarsfeld and R. Merton also investigated the problems of mass communication. Of all its functions, they paid special attention to three, in their opinion, the most important:

1. assignment of status (its meaning is that the QMS, in a certain way covering events or positioning an individual or a social group, thereby endowing them with one or another - positive or negative - status in the public consciousness);
2. Strengthening social norms (QMS, drawing public attention to certain violations of social norms, initiate processes aimed at their elimination. In our usual terminology, this is a function of social control);
3. Narcotic dysfunction (widespread QMS creates the illusion of high awareness, but develops social apathy and political inertia).⁹

It is easy to see that in its totality this number of functions reflects not only social, but to a large extent political aspects and consequences of the functioning of mass communication, its place in the structure and political system of society. The main thing that needs to be highlighted in the political orientation of these functions is the rather clearly manifested manipulative orientation of mass communication. At the same time, its unidirectionality remains unchanged.

Developing the typology of G. Lasswell, P. Lazarsfeld, R. Merton, D. Mackuel, J. Blamler and J. Brown proposed the following number of functions of the mass communication system, which, along with those proposed by the named authors, expand its capabilities in relation to the object of influence (public consciousness):

1. distraction (a kind of escapism, escape from reality, escape from problems to another reality, emotional rehabilitation);
2. replacement of interpersonal communication with social activities (generation in a person of the illusion of involvement in what is happening in the world, inclusion in a different reality);
3. a person's awareness of himself as a person (helps a person to increase his level of self-esteem, instill in him a conviction of his own importance);
4. Social supervision (instilling in a person certain standards of thought and behavior).¹⁰

The "agenda-setting" function was identified in the mid-70s by American researchers M. McCombs and D. Shau. They argued that the main point of the influence of the media on society is not so much how people will relate to something or how they will talk about it, but what they will talk about.¹¹

Indeed, due to the limited information space, the problem of priorities and dominance inevitably arises. In setting priorities, giving each quantum of mass media a kind of "passport" for the duration of its presence in the information space and thereby focusing more or less attention on it, the most important role of the "agenda-setting" function lies. It has already become a common place to recognize that in a mediatizing society, a real event only becomes public when it is reflected in the media.

In addition to those named in the literature, you can find many more different classifications of the functional palette of modern mass communication. However, in all classifications, the informing function is in the first place. Summarizing the known approaches to the classification of MK functions, we note that in addition to the information MK itself, it performs many other functions,¹ from which we will distinguish a group of system-forming functions of the mass media. These include:

1. communication and information, which ensures interaction between all elements and structures of the social system based on the organization of communication (communication) between members of society and contributes to their socialization, awareness of their status;
2. regulatory, which is implemented in the process of interaction of the mass media with the authorities in the process of information support of management decisions and ensuring information control of their results in the form of feedback;
3. spiritual and ideological, the purpose of which is the formulation and introduction into the public consciousness of certain worldview ideas, the formation of ideological, moral, artistic, aesthetic and other ideals and values;
4. Explanatory and analytical, within the framework of which the meaning and goals of the decisions made (especially "unpopular" ones) are explained, their possible consequences are analyzed, etc. In general, it is designed to form a certain (usually positive) idea of ​ ​ the object of information support - its image.

The minimum necessary conditions ensuring the possibility of implementing mass communication functions are:

1. Availability of information interaction subjects (in combination with information production structures);
2. Availability of technical means and personnel ensuring the possibility of replication and distribution of mass volumes of information;

¹ These, in particular, include: cognitive, educational, socializing, value-orienting, educational, cultural, regulatory-controlling, socio-psychological, compensatory-recreational, etc. See about this, for example,¹²

Here, apparently, it is advisable to say a few words about what, in fact, is understood by the media (QMS).

Mass media include everything that allows the delivery of information to a mass audience. In accordance with this, the QMS includes the media (media) - television, radio, press - cinema, telephone, books, magazines, theater, Internet, mail. Recently, the media system has been intensively transforming into an information and communication industry. In addition to these elements, it includes the largest business, printing, film industry, communications, research institutions, educational institutions, creative associations, trade unions, etc.

The intensive merging of the system of modern mass communications with large corporations (economic, industrial, financial, trade, services, etc.) has generated a number of unexpected processes in modern Russia: regionalization and rupture of the previously common information space, monopolization and concentration of the media, increasing their dependence on the relevant power structures and almost complete loss of independence, increasing differentiation and specialization depending on the goals and interests of the relevant power structures, etc. The media communication system is much more rigid than before, turned out to be built into the "vertical of power."

Basic, carrying the main functional load of mass communication, of course, are the media. Neither books, nor cinema, nor magazine publications, nor theater can even closely compare with television, newspapers, radio, the Internet in terms of audience volume, frequency of circulation, and the final effect on public consciousness.

The interactive possibilities of communication based on the latest computer technologies should also not be overestimated. The growth of interpersonal network contacts in itself does not automatically lead to a corresponding increase in the socio-political activity of citizens. Moreover, the existing experience testifies to the opposite: the motive of escapism, the exit from mass communication, is at the heart of the resulting virtual network communities. One of the negative consequences is that many small groups of people, whose interests are focused on problems, as a rule, do not have real social and political significance, which leads to the departure of these "virtual communities" into the corresponding "virtual world."

It is quite obvious that the presence of such colossal opportunities for influencing public consciousness in mass communication could not but turn it into the most important means of political manipulative management, the main tool for conducting political campaigns. However, the objective nature of political processes in the country indicates that the effectiveness of manipulative management is steadily decreasing, that in the conditions of a multipolar information space, its capabilities are steadily decreasing. And the reason for this phenomenon, as is easy to understand, is precisely in the truncated, unidirectional configuration of the existing mass communication. An obvious way to overcome this contradiction is the formation of a second, oncoming information channel, the transformation of the mass information space into a really communicative structure.

Let us emphasize that the effectiveness of public administration, including political, decisively depends on the quality of the subject of management, that is, on whether how professional the activities of the authorities are, that is, how deeply and correctly they understand the requirements as the current moment, and the prospects for the functioning of the state as a whole and its individual segments in particular, to the extent that their decisions and mechanisms for their implementation meet these requirements. In turn, the quality of authorities is predetermined by 1) the principles in accordance with which they are formed, as well as 2) the procedures for their formation. However, both are based on the conceptual substrate of the ideology that the state has adopted. It is she - ideology - who unites and consolidates into a single whole the three "branches" of power declared "independent": legislative, executive and judicial. It is not difficult to trace the ideological basis of all three:

1. Legislative power develops laws in accordance with the principles of ideology;
2. The executive branch manages and manages the company on the basis of "laws";
3. The judiciary monitors compliance with this "legality."

As you can see, the constitutional ban on ideology in the modern Russian Federation is nothing more than slyness (as, indeed, the "independence" of the authorities). After all, any ideology performs three most important functions:

1. It justifies the political and economic dominance of the ruling group;
2. Asserts its basic principles through the control of this group over the media and education;
3. By all means and in various forms proves to the population the correctness and usefulness of the policy pursued on the basis of such principles, so that at least a significant part of it accepts it.

It is ideology that is designed to answer the question: where and why are we going, what our goal is and what are the main methods of achieving this goal. Therefore, no one in fact was going to abandon ideology! Simply liberal - "market" - ideology, which is explicitly totally introduced in modern Russia, due to its frankly destructive content, is not presented to society. However, it is implemented extremely efficiently. It is sometimes subtly and imperceptibly, sometimes completely distinctly, "roughly and visibly" mounted in every low-grade film released on film and television screens, in poor crafts from literature that flooded bookstores and the Internet, in debilizing "talk shows" and many other products of "democratic" propaganda.

The sad fruits of political governance under the canons of this ideology are quite obvious. The underlying social Darwinist ideology - the cult of profit at all costs, competition, individualism, cruelty, etc. - also gave rise to the corresponding mechanisms for the formation of government bodies. Parties have formed that, apart from themselves and the "sponsors" interested in them, resolutely do not represent anyone. Under the guise of "representative democracy," these parties are waging a ferocious struggle for power. At the same time, the population is considered by them exclusively as an electorate, as a means that is used in the most shameless way to achieve the desired goal and which it is customary to immediately forget about until the next "democratic" fun, which is called "elections."

Thus, an urgent need arises for a different ideological basis of the state and a corresponding restructuring of the political system on new grounds. Another electoral system will be required, as a result of which the authorities will not have to receive representatives of the "oligarchs" or thieves - "owners," as is currently happening, but people whose political interests coincide with the objective, vital interests of the entire people. It is easy to understand that to realize this opportunity, another structure of mass communication will be required, namely its ideal option, which is discussed in this article. Only in this case, the managerial actions of political actors will be aimed not at unrestrained personal enrichment, but at solving problems that are urgent for the whole country, at its development.

A single social organism of intelligent people is formed, instead of a disunited, atomized crowd fighting with each other for the survival of "free" "individuals." A society should be formed that has the features of the so-called "corporate state." The whole country should become one huge corporation owned by all citizens on an equal footing, building society in the interests of the whole people, and not a gang of thieves appointed by someone as "owners".

With the change of the political system in accordance with the new ideology, the system of public administration will radically change. Liberal hopes for the magical possibilities of the "invisible hand" of the market will be replaced by full-fledged planning, put on a solid scientific basis - strategic, tactical, and operational. Strategic goals from the future will determine and shape our present, uniting the population into a people, fastening it into a single state and society, reconciling the contradictions inherited from the past. These goals will be aimed at implementing a program of creation in accordance with the interests of the whole society, the majority of its citizens, and not a bunch of financial parasites - "oligarchs." They will easily transform to the personal level and be perceived by each person as their own, personal. In this program of creation there will be a place for everyone, and everyone will control himself in accordance with his interests and capabilities. And neither "personnel management," nor "management," nor personnel technologies and other troubles of parasitic functioning will be required separately and additionally. It is easy to understand that in this case, public administration will be identically political, and the technologies of political management will practically coincide with the technologies of social management.

This sees the upcoming development of the system of mass communication and state political administration.

None.

Author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

1. Ekekrantz YA. Post-communism and global culture. In: Media and Modern Society. St. Petersburg; 2000:6.
2. Dance F, Larson C. The Functions of Human Communication: A Theoretical Approach. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1978.
3. Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary. Book 1. Moscow; 2001.
4. Weber M. Selected Works. Moscow: Progress; 1990.
5. Lasswell HD, Smith BL, Casey RD. Propaganda, Communication and Public Order. Princeton, NJ; 1946.
6. Marcuse G. One-Dimensional Man. Moscow: Refl-book; 1994.
7. Lazarsfeld P, Merton R. Mass communication, popular taste and organized social action. In: Lasswell HD, Bryson L, eds. The Communication of Ideas. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers; 1948.
8. Lasswell HD. The structure and function of communication in society. In: Bryson L, ed. The Communication of Ideas. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers; 1948.
9. Lazarsfeld P, Merton R. Mass communication, popular taste and organized social action. In: Schramm W, ed. Mass Communications. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press; 1960.
10. McQuail D. Sociology of Mass Communications. London; 1972.
11. McCombs M, Shaw D. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1972;36:176–187.
12. Prokhorov EP. Introduction to the Theory of Journalism. Moscow: 2011.