Ecology of Communication: the toxicity factors in media

The paper raises the problem of media ecology. The concept of media ecology is considered from the standpoint of post-nonclassical rationality: the object of research is viewed as a system that unifies communicants, their communities and the information environment within the framework of ongoing interactions, which, in turn, affect all elements of the ecosystem. The authors analyze socio-cultural changes caused by media influence and give the interpretation of the manifestations of media toxicity through five components of communication (toxicity factors): (1) subject; (2) sign code; (3) content; (4) method and (5) discourse background. The experimental base of the research is represented by a lexical-semantic analysis of materials from print and electronic media and students' essays (n>300), an associative experiment conducted with students of the direction of training “Advertising and public relations” (Moscow and St. Petersburg, n> 200). At the end the authors share the experience of holding a scientific conference dedicated to the discussed problem as an optimal format for involving students in the problems of the ecology of media communication.

1. Buryakovskaya V.A. (2019). The strategy of destructive communicative behavior. Communication research. Vol. 6.No. 3.P. 620-629 (In Rus.).

2. Buzin V.N. (2012). Social management of the Russian media space. System-activity approach. M.: Unity-DANA (In Rus.).

3. Chumakova V.P. (2015). The Concept of Herbert Marshall McLuhan: Media in Sociocultural Dynamics: Diss. thesis. Moscow (In Rus.).

4. Dzyaloshinsky I.M. (2017). Ecology of the media environment: technologies for manipulating the Internet. Moscow (In Rus.).

5. Franko E.P., Franko M.V. (2019). Ecology of languages in modern society. Political linguistics. No. 5 (77). P. 26-33. DOI: 10.26170 / pl19-05-02 (In Rus.).

6. Grachev G.V. (2000). Information and psychological security of the individual: theory and technology of psychological protection: dis. thesis. Moscow (In Rus.).

7. Ionova S.V. (2018). Toxic leader: linguoecology of speech behavior. Ecology of language and communicative practice. No. 4. P. 1-12 (In Rus.).

8. Issers O.S. (2014). Mediafakes: Between Truth and Hoax. Communication Studies. No. 2. P. 112-123 (In Rus.).

9. Ivleva M.I. (2018). Social and communicative space and ecology of communications. Social and humanitarian knowledge. No. 2. P. 230-235 (In Rus.).

10. Karaban N.A. (2014). The ethical aspect of Internet communication Internet communication as a new speech formation: call. monograph / Ed. T.N. Kolokoltseva, O. V. Lutovinova. Moscow: FLINTA. P. 158-177 (In Rus.).

11. Krasovskaya N.R., Gulyaev A.A., Yulina G.N. (2019). Fake news as a phenomenon of our time. Vlast. No. 4. P. 79-82 (In Rus.).

12. Lotman Yu.M. (1992). Culture and explosion. Moscow (In Rus.).

13. Lotman Yu.M. (2000). Semiosphere. SPb (In Rus.).

14. Lutovinova O.V. (2014). Linguistic personality in Internet communication. In: Internet communication as a new speech formation: coll. monograph / Ed. T.N. Kolokoltseva, O.V. Lutovinova. Moscow: FLINTA. P. 124-138 (In Rus.).

15. McLuhan G.M. (2003). Understanding media. External extensions of a person. Moscow (In Rus.).

16. McLuhan M. (1964). Understanding Media: the extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.

17. Meyrowitz J. (1985). No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior. Oxford University Press.

18. Meyrowitz J. (2005a). From Tribal to Global: A Brief History of Civilization from a McLuhanesque Perspective. In: The Legacy of McLuhan. Hampton Press. P. 35-43.

19. Meyrowitz J. (2005b). The Rise of Glocality: New Senses of Place and Identity in the Global Village. In: A Sense of Place: The Global and the Local in Mobile Communication. Vienna: Passagen Verlag. P. 21-30.

20. Mizintseva M.F., Koroleva L.M., Bondar V.V. (2000). Information ecology. Moscow (In Rus.).

21. Nikolaeva A.V. (2019). Language features of fake publications. Verkhnevolzhsky philological bulletin. No. 3 (18). P. 55-59. DOI: 10.24411 / 2499-9679-2019-10482.

22. Postman N. (1984). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin.

23. Postman N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. NY: Vintage Books.

24. Postman N. (2000a). Plenary talk at the first meeting of the Association for Media Ecology (Fordham University, New York, June 16-17, 2000) / Transl. V. Chumakova. Gefter Internet journal [el. source]: http://gefter.ru/archive/20734 (In Rus.).

25. Postman N. (2000b). The Humanism of Media Ecology. In: Proceedings of the Media Ecology Association. Vol. 1. P. 10-16.

26. Prins H.E.L., Bishop J. Explorations in Media & Anthropology // Visual Anthropology Review. Fall-Winter 2001-2002 Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 110-140.

27. Rudenko M.O. (2014). Negative media information and its impact on a person. Media education. No. 2. P. 108-112 (In Rus.).

28. Scolari C. (2010). Media ecology. Map of the theoretical niche. Quaderns del CAC, 34. Vol. XIII (1). P. 17-25.

29. Sharkov F.I., Silkin V.V., Abramova I.E., Kirillina N.V. (2018). Viloation of Information Ecology in Media Space. RUDN Journal of Sociology. Vol. 18. No. 4. P. 765-775.

30. Shtukareva E.B. (2014). Linguistic specifics of Internet communication. In: Internet communication as a new speech formation: coll. monograph / Ed. T.N. Kolokoltseva, O. V. Lutovinova. Moscow: FLINTA. P. 291-302 (In Rus.).

31. Sidorova N.A. (2010). Apperception base of dialogue: to the problem statement. Scientific notes of the Russian State Social University. No. 5 (81). P. 157-161 (In Rus.).

32. Skovorodnikov A.P. (2017). Ecology of the Russian language. Dictionary of linguo-ecological terms. Moscow: FLINTA (In Rus.).

33. Stepanov V.A. (2011). Mediaecology: an experience in the demarcation of a scientific direction [el. source]: http://media-ecology.blogspot.ru/2011/05/blog-post_3319.html (In Rus.).

34. Stepin V.S. (2009). Classics, non-classical, post-non-classical: criteria of distinction. In: Postnon-classical: philosophy, science, culture. SPb.: Mir. P. 249-295 (In Rus.).

35. Strate L. (2014). Amazing Ourselves to Death: Neil Postman’s Brave New World Revisited. In: A Critical Introduction to Media and Communication Theory. Vol.10. Peter Lang Publishing, NY.

36. Uglova N.V. (2016). The use of slang words in advertising text. Almanac of theoretical and applied research in advertising. No. 1. P. 49-64 (In Rus.).

37. Volkova Y.A., Panchenko N.N. (2016). Typology of destructive communicative personalities. Bulletin of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University. Series: Philological Sciences. No. 2. P. 110-117 (In Rus.).

38. Yudalevich N.V. (2016). Information waste as a phenomenon of modern society. Business education in the knowledge economy. No. 2 (4). P. 119-122 (In Rus.).

39. Zhigadlo V.E. (2021). Tasks and functions of information security in the context of information confrontation and “mental” wars. In: Information security of Russian regions (IBRR-2021): Proceedings of the 12th St. Petersburg Interregional Conference. St. Petersburg, October 27-29. St. Petersburg (In Rus.).