The problem of media competence in the political culture of young people in Russia

Medvedeva Mariya Vladimirovna Postgraduate Student, Department of Public Relations in Politics and Public Administration, St. Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, Leningradskaya oblast', g. Saint Petersburg, ul. Universitetskaya Naberezhnaya, 7-9 magma.air@yandex.ru

In the era of post-truth and fainews, there has been an increase in the importance of the term media competence. Today, thanks to the penetration of information technologies into our lives, news and any information spread much faster than one can imagine, and the reliability of information is often not verified or the data cannot be verified at all. Manipulation of public opinion occurs everywhere, and ordinary people often do not even realize this, as a result, when making decisions, they may well be guided by illusions or unverified information. In this regard, the problem of media competence, and the media competence of young people, in particular, comes to the fore. After all, it is the new generation that often plays a significant role for the future of the state and the entire political process as a whole.

The purpose of the study was to describe the problem of media competence in the political culture of Russian youth. The design of our study is a two-part model. This is the theoretical and empirical part, respectively. In the theoretical part, we solve important problems for our research on the operationalization of concepts. First of all, it is important to determine what media competence is and what place is assigned to it in the political culture of young people. We analyzed the scientific literature and various sources and also formed our own definition of media competence of young people. To create the empirical part, we conducted four expert interviews. They were held in the period from January to March 2022. Each interview lasted about an hour. Then the data was decrypted and analyzed. In view of the request for anonymity, we will not disclose the names of the experts, we will only say that they were: Candidate of Sociological Sciences from St. Petersburg State University – N. O., ex-employee of the Committee on Youth Policy and Interaction with Public Organizations of the administration of St. Petersburg - P. A., professor from P.G. Demidov YarSU, member of the expert council of the State Duma Committee on Youth Policy of the Russian Federation – S.A., as well as an employee from the Government of the Saratov region – P. D. Conditionally, it can be said that 2 theoretical specialists and 2 practical specialists participated in expert interviews. Theorists are N. O. and S. A., respectively, and practitioners are P. A. and P. D.

Let's start the review of the research results with the theoretical part. The very concept of media competence is absolutely not new and has been found in the scientific literature for quite some time. It is primarily related to such concepts as media literacy and media education. Probably, one of the most common definitions of media literacy should be cited, it was announced for the first time in 1992 at the National Conference on Leadership in the Field of Media by P. Auderheide: "The ability to find (access), analyze, evaluate and transmit an information message in various forms" p^{[11, p. 290]}.

M. Bulger and P. Davison give the following definition: "Media literacy is most often described as a set of skills that promotes critical interaction with messages created by the media. At its core, media literacy is an active study and critical understanding of the messages that we receive and create" ^[10].

Richard Wallace and David Buckingham in their works note the fact that at the moment the concept of media literacy is partly considered an element of cultural policy. In addition, they say that media literacy is incorrectly understood solely as a kind of critical thinking, since this phenomenon is much broader than the specified framework ^[14].

Some authors currently insist that media literacy should be developed to the concept of media competencies. H. Martens and R. Hobbs give one of the most successful definitions of digital and media literacy competencies. "Competencies should include the ability to make responsible decisions and the ability to access information by searching and sharing materials and understanding information; analyzing messages in various forms and formats, the purpose and intention to view and evaluate the quality and reliability of content; creating content for different forms of language use (image, sound and new digital tools and technologies) thinking about one's own behavior and behavior in communication, resorting to the application of social responsibility and ethical principles. Also, the concept of competencies implies some social responsibility. Competencies should serve for the benefit of both the individual and his family, and the whole nation" p^{[12, p.123]}.

According to one of the scientific concepts proposed by the Russian scientist A.V. Fedorov, in many respects the founder of Russian research in this field, media competence, along with media literacy, are part of a larger and global concept – media education ^[9].

A. A. Nemirich offers a concept according to which media education is personally represented by several levels: "(preschool age), media education (from grades 1 to 9), media competence (from grade 10 to the 3rd year of university), media culture and media mentality (from the 4th year onwards to the beginning of professional activity)" ^{[7, c. 53]}.

A. A. Kazakov, who recently defended his doctoral degree in media literacy, believes that there is no fundamental difference between the concepts of media literacy and media competence: "If competence is understood as having the experience and knowledge necessary for successful activity in a particular field, then in this case it will clearly fit into the meanings that are commonly put into the concept of media literacy" p^{[5, p.20]}. As arguments for using the concept of media literacy, rather than media competence, he also notes the fact that literacy today is basic, what everyone needs, while competence is rather the desired result.

S. L. Troyanskaya gives a slightly more specific definition of media competence directly in relation to personality: "Media competence of a personality is a set of its motives, knowledge, skills that contribute to the selection and use, critical analysis, evaluation, transmission and creation of media texts in various types, forms and genres, analysis of complex processes of media functioning in society" ^{[8, c.257]}.

The position on media competence of I. N. Blokhin, who is a representative of the St. Petersburg school, is also interesting. He asks the question of media competence in the context of journalistic media education. In his opinion: "Media competence as a target function of education is a complex set of knowledge, skills and abilities, the specific list of which depends on both the level of education (from primary to postgraduate) and its subject specifics"[1 p.138]. In addition, speaking about the media competence of a person, he notes that today there is already a fairly significant division by people's media competence and gives in his work a list of authors who offer their options on this score. I.e. today the very concept of media competence is simply necessary if we want to somehow measure and calculate its level in people.

In general, we can say that media competence today is a complex concept, there is no single understanding of this term in the scientific literature, there are separate models that equate it with media literacy, there are models that define it as the next level of media literacy. It is important for us that in the XXI century media competence seems to us to be one of the key skills necessary for a modern person. It not only allows you to navigate information flows, but also includes skills that allow you to create and even direct them in the right direction.

But, however, how does it fit into the modern political culture of the youth of Russia? First of all, it should be noted that the concept of youth is a rather controversial term and we will find many different interpretations in the scientific literature. It seems to us fundamentally important to consider the concept of youth through the prism of the quite popular today "theory of generations" by N. Howe and V. Strauss. In general, the essence of the theory is well-known today: approximately every 20-25 years a new generation appears based on socio-economic, political and many other conditions that exist in the world. In the XX-XXI centuries, they identified the following generations: generation GI ("generation of winners") - people born in 1900-1923; "silent generation" - people born in 1923-1943; "baby boomers" - people born in 1943-1963; "generation X" - people born in 1963-1982; "generation Y ("millennium)" - people born in 1983-2000; "generation Z" is actually the modern generation ^[13]. Based on it, it can be concluded that the definition of youth as a whole may differ depending on the generation, since, according to the theory of generations, the process of socialization plays a significant role in the formation of any generation. For our research, the "generation Z" is actually of key interest.

"The "network Generation", "Internet Generation" (Network Generation, Net Generation), or generation Z, are those who were born in the period since 2000. It grew up on “liquid crystal” images, and already in the early years of its life its representatives became active online consumers. Moreover, this happened simultaneously with the formation and increasing maturity of new Internet markets. The strong dependence of Generation Z on technologies in general and online technologies in particular, their unique behavior on the Internet has predetermined a significant interest in them from representatives of the scientific and business community. For example, marketers can use them to stimulate the sale of PR promotion, HR specialists - to address issues of development and training, talent management, motivation for the work of representatives of generation Z. By 2025, generation Z will make up about 25% of the entire workforce" p^{[6, p.272]}.

Socialization, including political, of this generation also takes place on the Internet, and not offline, unlike all previous generations. "It [the Internet] acts simultaneously as a factor of political socialization, but also as a means of its implementation. On the other hand, the global network can be used for political manipulation – psychological influence on the political behavior and consciousness of people, aimed at covertly controlling them and forcing them to act, neglecting their own interests. The most common mechanisms of interaction between the Internet and youth are represented not only by manipulation, but also by suggestion, persuasion, reflexive management, hoax and others" p^{[2, p.136]}.

According to her estimates, today this influence can be both positive and negative. "Speaking about the impact of the Internet on young people, it is necessary, first of all, to pay attention to its informational impact. Thanks to him, not only "the walls of apartments are pushed apart to the borders of the planet," but contradictory, disparate ideas about the peculiarities of life and behavior of people of different social strata, countries, continents often develop. The subjective world that is formed in the course of such influence may differ significantly from the views and ideas of parents, friends, fellow students and work colleagues. As a result, the value orientations and lifestyles of people who are in the same living space do not coincide. In addition, the Internet forms a system of non-formal education that is significantly different from the system of education in educational institutions, which can have a significant impact on young people" p^{[2, p.136]}.

At the same time, in relation to Russia, it is also important to bear in mind the fact that the political socialization of young people and, as a consequence, political culture has significant regional specifics. In view of the unequal penetration of the Internet, as well as such a phenomenon as digital inequality. E. L. Vartanova and colleagues in their research reveal today the existence of a trend towards higher Internet penetration and a higher level of digital development in the Central and Northwestern Federal District, while in the periphery these values are much lower ^[4].

Thus, today the political culture of Russian youth is quite heterogeneous and ambiguous. And the fact that its formation today largely takes place on the Internet carries significant risks, especially in light of the current information wars, when fake news has become, by and large, part of everyday reality. This means that the political culture of youth itself can be formed in distorted versions, or, alternatively, the new generation will be characterized by maximum apoliticality and lack of any interest in the development of its state.

In this regard, for a more detailed study of the political culture of the youth of Russia, we have developed and conducted an expert survey. The purpose of which was largely to identify the place of media competence in political culture, as well as the attitude of young people to information today in general. The survey itself was a continuation of a larger empirical study of media competence in the youth environment, which is based on a survey of young people directly and the study of issues within focus groups ^[3]. Actually, based on the data obtained in the framework of this study, we have formed questions for expert interviews.

In general, we can say that each of the experts has his own opinion on the views on media literacy and media competence of young people, on critical thinking, as well as on the modern generation of young people as a whole and its political culture.

The general opinion is that today the Internet and social networks have a significant impact on young people. Theoretical experts N. O. and S. A. also note in interviews that the current generation of young people is not just more focused on getting information and news from there, but also literally "live" there. For them, online life and online risks seem more real than life offline. In addition, both theoretical experts confirmed that the socialization of the younger generation is really happening on the Internet and it is simply impossible to change it today due to objective reasons.

The expert practitioners were not so unambiguous in their assessments. They preferred to describe the youth as a rather disjointed category today. They confirmed the significant influence of the Internet and social networks on young people, but preferred to clarify that young people today are quite different. In addition, it was noted that today there really are difficulties with the formation of any general work with young people. The existing youth policy is not comprehensive and solves only some tasks. Indeed, today there is a fairly large stratum of apolitical youth, as well as opposition youth, and the existing youth policy programs in Russia are practically not aimed at working with them. Basically, due to the fact that, again, such young people for the most part do not go offline, but online they can distance themselves from these programs.

With regard to the current level of media competence of modern youth, the experts were also not particularly harsh in their assessments. A source in the government of the Saratov region clarified that today's youth are generally not very well versed in any information resources. He does not particularly ask questions about who owns certain media outlets and whether the news presented there is biased.

The expert S. A. gave this opinion regarding the digital competencies of young people and the prospects of teaching them media literacy and media competence at school: "It seems to me that, in principle, the education system affects media competence very indirectly, because children come to school already have a lot of experience working with gadgets now. And rather, many teachers, as I think, lag behind the first-graders who have come, rather than they teach them something in media competence. Rather, the education system can introduce some highly specialized services, gadgets, and so on, which are only built into the already existing amount of knowledge, skills, knowledge, skills and abilities of students or young people, only to somehow complete it for their needs. This is, relatively speaking, how a particular bank gives its application, and the user thanks to this application does not increase his media literacy and rather receives a new service, or I do not really understand the education system, but I just look at our work with young people, I look at the school. Educational institutions do not give any special big competencies in media literacy, they are just trying to set up the student himself and sometimes to further enlighten him on some individual issues, and so that it is in media literacy and media competence that I do not see such a thing among students." In general, experts talked a lot about the high level of digital literacy of young people.

Regarding the introduction of a separate subject at school — media literacy, experts also expressed skepticism. Among the disadvantages, it was noted that it is not very clear who and how will teach and again, as well as how much such a subject can fit into school curricula and workload today.

The low level of trust in the media by experts was not related to generational characteristics, but rather to the level of the Russian media. It was noted that the content generated by pro-government media today may be of low quality and out of date, so young people often prefer opposition publications. In general, the younger generation has quite high requirements for the quality of content and its quantity. Products like talk shows, both on television and on the Internet, are completely not perceived by young people due to the fact that, by and large, they are not designed for them. In addition, the modern generation has a completely different attitude to the value of information, in view of its accessibility, hence there is no desire to learn more, why if you can watch it at any time. In this regard, perhaps, the not very high level of competence in the field of working with information is explained. Young people just aren't particularly interested in analyzing it, in general. It's more like momentary content for her, which she is not ready to take seriously.

Thus, we can say that the political culture of modern youth today is a construct formed mainly on the Internet, with great influence from social networks and messengers. Young people treat the positions presented in the official media differently. According to the study of the responses of expert practitioners, it must be said that they note the existence of a proportion of young people with a high level of pro-government political culture, but at the same time they say that there is also a proportion of young people with a high level of opposition political culture, work with which is difficult today due to the fact that they go offline to pro-government events. they do not go online, thanks to the capabilities of the Internet, they are able to distance themselves from the pro-government agenda as a whole. Theoretical experts note that the youth of the current generation, due to the availability of information, are not particularly interested in any interaction with it. We can separately assume that, perhaps, even that the share of apolitical youth is actually a separate kind of political culture. Passive due to the fact that he does not see any sense at all to react to what is happening due to the fact that there is a high level of disappointment in his importance and the significance of his position for the state. In general, young people today are somewhat media-competent and can defend themselves from fake news and the influence of unverified content, however, there are also young people who have a certain perverted level of media competence, due to the high level of critical thinking and skepticism, they do not perceive any information in the media at all: they do not believe in anything. This poses certain risks for the state. After all, such young people are least interested in participating in the political life of the country and in general any support for the current regime and system.