Suchergebnisse

Ideological restraints are dysfunction of journalistic work. This phenomenon is often detected in "not free" countries. In this article the Russian case is analysed (140th place in "Press Freedom Index 2010" by Reporters Without Borders and "not free" country in "Map of Press Freedom 2011" by Freedom House). Journalists in Russia often fall under pressure of central government and local politics in the regions. Internet is an area of free information circulation. It's main point of internet effect. Information makes imprint in the World Wide Web. In terms of copy/ paste and share traditions information there is quite safe, because it's hard to block or remove "undesirable" content from Internet. World Wide Web becomes an alternative political space without possibility of direct influence by single political power. Journalists can use Internet to turn ideological restraints. When there is no possibility to publish information in official mass-media, this information could be leak in private Internet sphere: blogs, social networks, private web pages etc. But "Internet diffusion cannot be considered a democratic panacea" (how it is noted by Jacob Groshek). Internet effect is more powerful in democratic countries and less powerful in countries, which are "not free". Therefore the author of this article concludes that: 1) Internet could be a tool to turn ideological restraints; 2) Democratic effect of Internet becomes significant in terms of general democratic changes; 3) In Russia Internet sphere becomes an important alternative to public sphere, which is under political control. The role of Internet in Russia could grow up if evolution of politic system of the country would move towards democracy.

Ideological restraints are dysfunction of journalistic work. This phenomenon is often detected in "not free" countries. In this article the Russian case is analysed (140th place in "Press Freedom Index 2010" by Reporters Without Borders and "not free" country in "Map of Press Freedom 2011" by Freedom House). Journalists in Russia often fall under pressure of central government and local politics in the regions. Internet is an area of free information circulation. It's main point of internet effect. Information makes imprint in the World Wide Web. In terms of copy/ paste and share traditions information there is quite safe, because it's hard to block or remove "undesirable" content from Internet. World Wide Web becomes an alternative political space without possibility of direct influence by single political power. Journalists can use Internet to turn ideological restraints. When there is no possibility to publish information in official mass-media, this information could be leak in private Internet sphere: blogs, social networks, private web pages etc. But "Internet diffusion cannot be considered a democratic panacea" (how it is noted by Jacob Groshek). Internet effect is more powerful in democratic countries and less powerful in countries, which are "not free". Therefore the author of this article concludes that: 1) Internet could be a tool to turn ideological restraints; 2) Democratic effect of Internet becomes significant in terms of general democratic changes; 3) In Russia Internet sphere becomes an important alternative to public sphere, which is under political control. The role of Internet in Russia could grow up if evolution of politic system of the country would move towards democracy.

Ideological restraints are dysfunction of journalistic work. This phenomenon is often detected in "not free" countries. In this article the Russian case is analysed (140th place in "Press Freedom Index 2010" by Reporters Without Borders and "not free" country in "Map of Press Freedom 2011" by Freedom House). Journalists in Russia often fall under pressure of central government and local politics in the regions. Internet is an area of free information circulation. It's main point of internet effect. Information makes imprint in the World Wide Web. In terms of copy/ paste and share traditions information there is quite safe, because it's hard to block or remove "undesirable" content from Internet. World Wide Web becomes an alternative political space without possibility of direct influence by single political power. Journalists can use Internet to turn ideological restraints. When there is no possibility to publish information in official mass-media, this information could be leak in private Internet sphere: blogs, social networks, private web pages etc. But "Internet diffusion cannot be considered a democratic panacea" (how it is noted by Jacob Groshek). Internet effect is more powerful in democratic countries and less powerful in countries, which are "not free". Therefore the author of this article concludes that: 1) Internet could be a tool to turn ideological restraints; 2) Democratic effect of Internet becomes significant in terms of general democratic changes; 3) In Russia Internet sphere becomes an important alternative to public sphere, which is under political control. The role of Internet in Russia could grow up if evolution of politic system of the country would move towards democracy.

Ideological restraints are dysfunction of journalistic work. This phenomenon is often detected in "not free" countries. In this article the Russian case is analysed (140th place in "Press Freedom Index 2010" by Reporters Without Borders and "not free" country in "Map of Press Freedom 2011" by Freedom House). Journalists in Russia often fall under pressure of central government and local politics in the regions. Internet is an area of free information circulation. It's main point of internet effect. Information makes imprint in the World Wide Web. In terms of copy/ paste and share traditions information there is quite safe, because it's hard to block or remove "undesirable" content from Internet. World Wide Web becomes an alternative political space without possibility of direct influence by single political power. Journalists can use Internet to turn ideological restraints. When there is no possibility to publish information in official mass-media, this information could be leak in private Internet sphere: blogs, social networks, private web pages etc. But "Internet diffusion cannot be considered a democratic panacea" (how it is noted by Jacob Groshek). Internet effect is more powerful in democratic countries and less powerful in countries, which are "not free". Therefore the author of this article concludes that: 1) Internet could be a tool to turn ideological restraints; 2) Democratic effect of Internet becomes significant in terms of general democratic changes; 3) In Russia Internet sphere becomes an important alternative to public sphere, which is under political control. The role of Internet in Russia could grow up if evolution of politic system of the country would move towards democracy.