GLOBAL COMMUNICATION

The globalization of the information space has promoted the creation of the so-called Global Information Infrastructure (GII) among the national priorities of many countries. The International Telecommunication Union (MST) plays a coordinating role in this process. It is not surprising that regularly held MST events attract the closest attention of top government officials. Thus, US Vice President Al Gore spoke in March 1994 at the MST conference in Buenos Aires, in September of the same year at a conference in Kyoto, in March 1995 he sent greetings to the participants of the Internet conference in Minsk ... In Addressing specialists gathered in Kyoto, he noted: “Efforts to create a GII give us the opportunity to go beyond ideology and set a common goal of creating infrastructure that will benefit and benefit all citizens of our countries. We will use this infrastructure to promote economic development, to develop health, education, environmental protection and democracy programs ...

At the conference in Buenos Aires, you adopted five principles of GII, which are implemented in practice by the countries of the world community: private investment, market competition, flexible legal framework, non-discriminatory access and universal services ”[14].

In Russia, Gore noted, there are already privatized telecommunication companies operating in 86 regions. There are also independent operator companies providing international telephone services and data transmission. This not only serves to attract investment, increase competition and improve access to information services, but also ensures the living conditions of the democracy itself - freedom of communication and information sharing.

In the new conditions, the media function differently. However, long before the modern technological revolution, the international community thought about the need for a new international information order (NIIP). His idea was put forward and articulated in the documents of the Conference of Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned Countries in Colombo in August 1976. The Political Declaration of the Conference expressed concern about the widening gap between developed and non-aligned countries in the provision of information and communications. The declaration emphasized that this provision is a legacy of the colonial past. This led to dependence and domination, in which most countries are doomed to the role of a passive recipient of one-sided, incomplete and distorted information.

In subsequent years, the idea of ​​a new information order received international support and development. In particular, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe introduced the provision that co-operation in the field of information should contribute to the strengthening of peace and mutual understanding between nations and the spiritual enrichment of the human person. It was assumed that it would be carried out in full compliance with the principles governing relations between the participating States, that is, on the basis of sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and respect for the laws of each other.

At the end of 1978, the official documents of the session of the UN General Assembly and the General Conference of UNESCO, adopted unanimously, for the first time clearly recognized the need to eliminate inequalities in the dissemination of information intended for developing countries or emanating from them. In the autumn of 1980, at the XXI session of the General Conference of UNESCO, held in Belgrade, the International Program for the Development of Communication was established, which, according to its creators, was to be part of efforts to establish a new, fairer and more efficient world order in the field of information and communication .

But these efforts of the international community ran into resistance. In particular, in 1981, Western countries came up with the so-called Talluar anti-declaration, in which informational relations between countries were considered from the point of view of “Western pluralism”. The essence boils down to a simple formula: if someone has information and the means to disseminate it, then no one dares to prevent the dissemination of this information. In short, the gap between developed and developing countries must widen.

The globalization of the information space has led to a number of social and legal consequences. Among them:

Ø the actual refusal of the world community to recognize the new international information order and support the concept of “free flow of information”;

Ø ignoring state borders when disseminating information, national norms and media laws;

Ø large-scale piracy, ignoring the rights of authors and information owners;

Ø unification of cultures, informational imperialism and expansion of developed countries into the QMS of other countries;

Ø informational parasitism.

Over time and in the position of UNESCO there have been changes caused by dramatic changes in international relations. In November 1989, at the XXV session of the UNESCO General Conference, a new communication strategy was adopted, the purpose of which is to “ensure the free flow of information at the international as well as the national levels and its wider and balanced distribution without any obstacles to freedom of speech”.

The main directions of the UNESCO information policy are as follows:

first, it is the conclusion of international agreements aimed at the free distribution of information regardless of state borders;

secondly, support for intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations engaged in the protection of fundamental freedoms: freedom of speech and freedom of the press;

thirdly, the creation of technical opportunities for free access and information in various regions of the world;

fourth, UNESCO publishing;

Fifth, the training of UNESCO journalists;

sixthly, approbation of modern information superhighways [15].

Cross-border dissemination of information has led in some cases to the neglect of national norms and laws, existing traditions. For example, satellite TV. It allows you to broadcast directly to almost anywhere in the world. In Egypt, for example, it is prohibited by law in film and television films to show Allah in human form. Television broadcasts received via satellite communications have little effect on this law, because there are other norms and laws in the West [16]. There are quite a few such examples. For example, in the Russian Federation, in cinema and television, the use of a purposeful influence on the subconscious of viewers is prohibited. In a number of other countries there is no such ban. And sometimes we thoughtlessly buy television and film products, show it to a multimillion audience, without thinking about the consequences. The following situation does not look fantastic either: journalists dug up “fried” facts that were difficult to publicize in their own country. Then they are through Sweden, where very liberal media laws are spreading information over the Internet. Now the whole world knows about it. And what about national interests? There is only one way out: harmonization, harmonization of national systems of media law with each other and with internationally recognized norms.

A lot has been said and written about the pirate dissemination of information. It would seem that legal mechanisms are worked out both at the national and international levels. But they practically do not act. In general, control mechanisms for information distribution over computer networks have not been developed. Thus, Russia remains the world leader in the illegal sale of audio recordings, which in 1995 were sold for a total of $ 363 million. In total in the world in the same year, illegal entries were sold for 2.1 billion dollars, and every fifth entry was unauthorized. The second place in the world is occupied by the People's Republic of China, followed by Italy, India and the countries of Latin America [17]. The same situation persists in distributing pirated CDs with computer software. Among the countries with the highest level of piracy in this area were Vietnam (99%), China (96%), Oman (95%) and Russia (91%). The highest among all regions of the world remains the level of piracy in Eastern European countries [18].

The widespread and in some cases uncontrolled dissemination of information by developed countries, the dominance of overseas film production and much more leads to the erosion of national cultures and their unification according to the American model. In recent years, we have ceased to use the term informational imperialism . They were designated the system that had developed in the monopolized media of the developed countries of the West, and the methods used for propaganda support of domestic and foreign policy. But no matter how we call this phenomenon, it exists. Specific manifestations of it:

Ø concentration of media and communications in the hands of powerful specialized corporations;

Ø direct subordination of a significant part of the media and communications to multi-industry monopolies;

Ø open intervention of the state apparatus of developed countries in the field of information;

Ø domination of transnational corporations in the global news market;

Ø deepening the imbalances in the provision of media and communications between developed nations, on the one hand, and young developing countries, on the other;

Ø The use of misinformation for advocacy of domestic and foreign policy.

The strategy of informational imperialism is implemented, in particular, by distributing products at dumping prices, opening branches of existing publications abroad and creating new ones, creating joint ventures in the media, buying airtime, etc. A form of its manifestation is also informational parasitism. Having created a global information infrastructure, rich countries can, on a “legal basis,” transfer important scientific, technical, economic and other information to themselves. Export abroad specialists in the traditional form becomes unnecessary. For example, we can note the following feature of the Internet: applications from the Western countries for information created in Russia are seven times higher than the reverse flow.

The globalization of the information space poses many theoreticians and practitioners of journalism and many other questions that we need to find answers in the very near future.