4. Theory of a two- (multi-) stage communication in connection with the global Internet

Before 40's - early 50's all the propaganda and political campaigns in the U.S. were carried out in accordance with the theory of mass society. However, the presidential election campaign in 1940 and especially in 1948 showed the limitations of this concept: in both cases, the candidate nominated by the mass media had lost. Particularly illustrative example was in 1948, when “only 16.2 percent of daily U.S. newspapers spoke in support of Truman that amounted to only 14 percent of their total circulation. Nevertheless, Truman received 49.5 percent of the vote in the election" (Schramm, 1964; p. 20). Lack of coincidence between these and some other cases and the theory led scholars to search for new explanatory paradigm.

Theory of a two- (multi-) stage communication became this explanatory paradigm, as articulated by American sociologists P. Lazarsfeld, B. Berelson (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, McPhee, 1968), G. Godet (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet, 1968), E. Katz (Katz, Lazarsfeld, 1955), R. Merton (Merton, 1949) and others. It was first suggested in 1940, and a detailed justification has been received in 1955 while studying the formation of opinions in Decatur, Illinois. Extensive and diverse sociological studies were used in the development and verification of the concept of a two-stage communication.

According to theorists of a two-stage communication, society is not as homogeneous as it was tried to present by the theorists of mass society. There exist so-called opinion leaders, whose opinion is very important to others. During political campaigns, according to supporters of this concept, increasing the number of political information transmitted through the channels of communication, does not lead to the formation of various strata of enlightened citizens, but to an increased dosage of the new information of the same opinion leaders who were interested in political issues even before the political campaign (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet, 1968; p. 134).

Ideas spread by the media, are not just imprinted in the minds of all members of the mass audience, considered Lasswell, but undergo comprehension and interpretation. If this or that idea receives approval from the opinion leaders, they become its active promoters. Therefore, the purpose of campaign is not just a massive duplication of information, but an attempt to reach an understanding with key figures of the society (Lasswell, 1953; p. 130).

Another important discovery was revaluation the role of different communication media. Such channels of communication as newspapers, magazines and radio were compared. In 40 - 50s., the dominant channels of communication in the U.S. were newspapers and radio, because they covered most of the mass audience. However, the studies have shown that, despite the fact that journals lose the number of readers, they win on the quality of the audience: "The leaders of opinion in two times more than ordinary citizens read newspapers and listen to the radio, and three times as much – magazines” (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet, 1968; p. 134). Thus, the authors of the “two-step” theory of communication refuted a common misconception about the direct relationship between the number of media and the results of citizen’s behavior.

It should be noted that the “two- step” theory of communication in subsequent years has undergone a major revision and thanks to the efforts of many scientists has gradually evolved. Refinement of a “two-step” communication introduced the concept of a “three- step”, and then the “multi”-communication (Lazarsfeld, Paul, Merton, 1975; p. 138-149). However, the basis of this concept, namely, that the information society unevenly distributed and passes through the filters of opinion leaders, remained unchanged, and this concept is still used by political consultants, advertisers, and specialists in public relations. As journalists considered to be opinion leaders, as providers of new ideas, so far many information campaigns are designed primarily for them (Seitel, 2007).

An interesting refraction of “two-step” communication concept in light of the global Internet has become a point of view, expressed by the famous Italian philosopher and writer Umberto Eco (Eco, 1996; p. 5-14). According to Umberto Eco, "Frequently I think that our societies will be split in a short time (or they are already split) into two classes of citizens: those who only watch TV, who will receive pre-fabricated images and therefore prefabricated definitions of the world, without any power to critically choose the kind of information they receive, and those who know how to deal with the computer, who will be able to select and to elaborate information. This will re-establish the cultural division which existed at the time of Claude Frollo, between those who were able to read manuscripts, and therefore to critically deal with religious, scientificall or philosophical matters, and those who were only educated by the images of the cathedral, selected and produced by their masters, the literate few.

A science fiction writer could elaborate a lot on a future world where a majority of proletarians will receive only visual communication planned by an élite of computer-literate people" (Eco U., 1996; p. 4).

5. Neo-Marxist contribution to studies of political communications

There is no doubt that an important contribution to studies of political communications was made by representatives of the neo-Marxist or critical approach study in the face of Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer (Adorno, Horkheimer, 1988), Herbert Marcuse (1964), Herbert Schiller (1974), etc. In accordance with the Marxist approach, the media, on the one hand, act as the tool of production and a source of enrichment of the bourgeoisie, but on the other hand as a tool of ideological control over the workers (Appelrouth, Edles, 2007; p. 23).

In 1944 Adorno and Horkheimer published one of the most influential works on mass communication of the XX century (Adorno, Horkheimer, 1988). In their study, they try to answer the question still tormenting the followers of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: why, despite the growing controversy and differentiation of society, capitalism survives and shows a remarkable ability to develop (Appelrouth, Edles, 2007; p. 23 - 24)? In their opinion, the secret of capitalism survival is due to the fact that the working class is under the ideological control. The main role played by the media, which are not only the tool of production and profit, but a way of assimilation of working class. Consolidation the media on the basis of common values and the ideological content of mass culture lead to the formation of so-called cultural industries, which is a "deliberate association of its consumers from above" (Adorno, Horkheimer, 1988; p. 51).

Professionals of culture here - philosophers, critics, historians and other humanists "are used as a tool of self-criticism of the cultural industries, which allows it to operate more flexibly and efficiently" (Adorno, Horkheimer, 1988; p. 52). The net result of production activities of the cultural industries is anti- enlightenment. Accustomed to the entertainment, the ordinary people do not seek to acquire new knowledge, they are interested only in entertainment and leisure (Adorno, Horkheimer, 1988; p. 81).

Almost from the same positions Soviet scientists criticized Western media. For example, the famous Soviet scientist Oleg Feofanov (1974) blamed the Western phenomenon of "prestigious consumption": "System" of scheduled waste "is an organization of the market in which the purchased goods are subject of rapid change, not because they are faulty, worn out, lost the ability to function normally, but only because that they have lost their "image", a symbol of "status", only because the same products appeared on the market, but in a new form, or provided with more attractive "image". The critical role in managing the behavior of consumers is given here to the media, stimulating sales of new products instead of using them more functionally (Feofanov, 1974).

Herbert Marcuse continuing the line of Adorno and Horkheimer enriched this idea with the achievements of psychoanalysis. Herbert Marcuse pointed out that modern media is "an intermediary between owners and those who depend on them” (Marcuse, 1964; p. 110). Analyzing the contemporary popular culture, he discovers its deep connection with business and politics: "The sale of equipment for entertainment and recreation in shelters, TV shows, with candidates competing for the national leadership, demonstrate complete unity between politics, business and entertainment. However, this unity is dishonest and fatally prematurely – Business and entertainment help to implement a policy of domination”. Under these conditions, only the "off television and similar media would ... give rise to the top of what could not bring fundamental contradictions of capitalism - the complete destruction of the system” (Marcuse, 1964; p. 136). Thus, according to neo Marxists, the mass media are a constitutive element of the modern capitalist system, spreading its influence in politics, economics and culture.

Until recently, American professor Herbert Schiller (1974) was one of the most prominent representatives of neo-Marxism, who paid great attention to the process of informatization of the modern capitalist system. According to Schiller, information and communication are crucial to maintaining stability in modern society, as the conflicts inherent in capitalism are remaining to this day. Thus at the present stage of capitalist development class inequality persists, as manifested primarily in the information inequality (Schiller, 1974; p. 112). In other words, class determines the possibility of receiving a certain type of information. Also, the emergence of such new technology as a global information and communications network Internet was dictated first and foremost to the needs of global corporations that are interested in a significant reduction in transaction costs for information on a global scale (Webster, 2002).

To conclude the analysis of neo-Marxist studies in the field of political communication is necessary to dwell on the Jürgen Habermas (1989), who has carried out fruitful attempt to supplement the basic provisions of the critical theory of his teachers Horkheimer and Adorno with a theory of democracy. According to this, we must distinguish the power generated in the process of communication, and the power administratively applied.

In the political sphere “two opposing processes meet and intersect: on the one hand, the communicative forming of legitimate power, which comes in free from any political repression during the public communications, and on the other - is to ensure the legitimacy of a political system with which the administrative authorities are trying to manage political communications” (Habermas, 1995; p. 31). Thus, social communication is a central term of policy because it creates a power relationship. Using only administrative authority leads to a crisis of legitimacy and needs to the new communication between the subjects of political life (Habermas, 1995; p. 55).

Thinking of structural transformation experienced by the society, Habermas in the early 1960s argued that democracy is a vital element in the public sphere, which includes public media, democratic debate and adoption of public policy (Habermas, 1989 p. 32). Habermas distinguished the following means of creating public sphere, except the media, as public libraries, free political campaigning and public control of judicial and legislative processes. In this regard, social-public sphere is in a tense struggle with the capitalist system, which is not interested in principal in spending resources to support public policy. Thus, the modern Western democracies appear to be a compromise form of government in which the tools of communication play a backbone role. In democratic political systems there is communication without any compulsion (Habermas, 1989 p. 71). For Habermas it must include the following components: first - the equality and freedom from pressure of the participants of communication, secondly - the subject of debate are common problems that are relevant to all, and thirdly – prohibition of any restriction of discourse and there must be a possibility of its renewal at the request of the participants(Habermas, 1989 p. 112). Often to describe the power model of Habermas, scientists use the term of “deliberate" democracy to emphasize the importance of political discourse in these societies (Barber, 1998).