We often hear the termin "new media". Can you please explain what is new media and why is it different from traditional media?
New media is all media that are based on the Internet. Why they are different? Because they allow interactions, first of all, between sources of information and consumers. And this is a big knowledge, as to traditional media, that we are based on the mass audience and there is more possibility of interaction. Now Internet consumers can interact the sources of information. This is the starting point. The second point: because of the Internet everyone can spread, can circulate stories, news, information. Ten years ago you needed a structure, an organization, facilities, that cost a lot. Now with the Internet I have news, I have a story and I can spread this story. What we call "citizen journalism" – is means that every citizen can become a journalist because he can spread the story. And these are new media. They don't need structure, an organization. They allow interactions because I circulate news, a story, and if you receive the story, you can react to me, you can tell "this is true", "this is not true".

Of course, this new way of spreading news causes many problems. First of all, speed. There is no time to verify, to check the truthfulness of news. I spread the story without any checking. Because … I spread the news at the moment in which I get, someone else will do for me. So, competition in time. This doesn't allow any verification of news. Verification of news that instead was the main professional label of professional journalism. You have to check the sources of information, you don't check anymore now.

Fake-news is another big problem. I mean because of the speed of circulation of news. With resources whether not. With the legacy media we knew what newspaper we were reading, which television daily news we were watching. Now through the Internet, through the new media I get a story but I don't know which is the source. And this is a big problem. Because this source may be not reliable. I cannot verify the story and so on. So this is a big problem with the new media.

So, while the new media is developing so quickly there is still traditional media, such as TV, Radio and Press. So, how can they stay alive in this world of quickly developing media?
First of all, mass media, television, is still the main, the major source of information for people all around the world. Keep in mind this. In spite of rapid development of new media still the television, in particular, is a real mass media, still. But nevertheless we know that more and more young people don't get news from television but they get news from new media. Very improving, very developing advertising resources. If we look at numbers of advertising resources, numbers will show very clearly that more and more money from advertising go to new media, in spite of television, even if television is still the medium which gets the majority, the larger amount of money, nevertheless new media get more and more economical resources from advertising. This means that clearly ads investors know, know for sure that more and more people are moving from legacy media, from traditional media, to new media. And this makes new media even more powerful. So, to answer your question. First of all, do not forget that most people still get news from traditional media, mostly from TV. Nevertheless there's a tendency to go towards new media. And advertisers have a very good knowledge, a very good feeling of new tendencies. They understand that future is on new media, rather than on traditional media, even if traditional media, television, is still the main source of information.

As we have noticed modern media, traditional and new, are doing a lot to entertain audience, but a bit to educate it. Is it a strategy or should it be changed?
When we say that more and more people rely on new media for information – it is true also that more and more people go to new media for entertainment. Games, games, games, gossip, a lot of gossip. Which is not news, of course. But at the same time the amount of news in new media is increasing. So, entertainment… yes. But together with entertainment here come the news. But very often entertainment contains also news, contains also stories, or they are close to stories. So in a way entertainment is away to spread news. Because entertainment can spread news itself or can get close to news. Together with entertainment here come the news.

Can we state that today the news are also part of entertainment? Because now we've noticed that there are many funny pieces of news, about kittens for example – both in social media and traditional media. So, can we say that using this way people try to attract the attention of the audience?

My catchword to answer your question will be fragmentation. It is absolutely true what you're saying. But at the same time we have to be aware that we're facing very fragmentally media environment. That mean that there are an enormous number of resources of information which address very specialised niche audiences. It is true that there are kitten stories, blogs, social networks focused on kitten. But at the same time there are many other sources of information that are very specialised and may have very educative topics, content. So fragmentation is the issue. Very likely this will produce a very fragmented society. The society divided into many different publics that get together because they are facing a problem, because they are facing a common interest, because they are facing a common fashion also. So, fragmentation, different publics segmented by publics. The consequence of this will be the polarisation of society. That means there will be many contrasting views. Both in terms of kitten, but ecentionally in terms of politics, in terms of ideology. Because when we talk about niche audiences, we have to think of niche audience…

Kitten, you mentioned kitten blogs on kitten, social networks constructs around kitten, it is true but this means that those people read those blogs already share some interests. This happens with kitten and this may happen with politics, with ideology, with culture. Niche audiences means what Cass Stine defined as the echo chamber. New media, internet, Facebook, social networks are constructed along the logic of echo chambers. A chamber where I just hear my voice. Or a voice similar to mine. Again, reinforcement already exists opinion and polarization of different opinions competing with each other. And this is a big problem for society because the liberation for public policies, the liberation on problems of general interests need a common square and instead the society of the future will likely be constructed around niche audiences. Small squares where people are sharing the same opinion meet each other but don't talk with people sharing different opinion and this is a big problem in society because it means segmentation of society, polarization of opinions, polarization of points of view and this is a problem.

So, you mentioned that news come together with entertainment but does is reflect the quality of the news?
Yes, there is no doubt that news become more trivial more simple, if you want also more stupid, because you have to mix together entertainment and news, true. But at the same time this means that more and more people will consume those news. So yes, qualities go down, there is no doubt. But at the same time the amount of people consuming news is increasing. And at the same time as fragmentation there will be segment, niche audiences addressing to people we don't want to use their brain but also people that rely on so sophisticated news. So again fragmentation is the future, simple news on one side against news that that can become more and more complex because they are addressed to very educated very sophisticated audience. So my point is that with new media with the changing environment of media we have to have and optimistic view. More and more people can have information, can control power, so the amount of people that get informed is increasing. At the same time we have to have a sort of a pessimistic view. There are problems. Not everything is clear, not everything is good. So double contrast view, ambiguous view. So look on the changes in a positive way but don't forget that this positive change can bring a lot of problems and negative ambiguous consequences.

In recent years there have been a lot of events that also reflected the content of news, such events like economical situations, politics, wars, crisis. What does it mean for journalism? Does journalism change according to the events that happen in the world?

Yes, it becomes more complex, more and more difficult to look for the truth, in a way. Think of the story about the Syrian girl who was raped by Syrian rebels. The story completely out of everything was invented by a British guy living in UK, never been in Syria but the story of that blog rumor became a story for all the world, the story that did not happen. So the fact is that more and more people can be informed about different events and stories, can get their own time news but at the same time those stories are not true at all. Again positive, more and more stories and circulation. More and more people can become informed but what is the information that they get in other ways that this is true and real information, real stories. Something that never happened as in the case of a Syrian blogger who was raped, a story that never existed at all. So of course then new media can become an engine for changes, that means- think of a story you know for sure, you know what I'm referring to the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring took place in large part, not just because, but large part was based on use of new media, of Facebook, of portable telephones and so on.

A new media had caused a complete change, a revolution in society, a revolution in several Arab countries something that could never happen without new media. And of course, reality is adapting to the reality of new media to the new occasions offered by the new media.

So, the world is developing, we have new media. How should universities where journalism is being taught change their program according to the changes?

Well, I think that our mission, the mission of professors is becoming more and more difficult. Because once it was clear which was the direction of education. Now the direction of education is not clear anymore. The world of new media is changing dramatically journalism. It is changing dramatically journalism because it becomes less and less institutionalized. That means there are not anymore norms, there are not anymore rules. There are number of actors, of professionals, if you want to call them professionals, that come from everywhere. So, there is no anymore an education trail, there are not anymore rules for the profession. All those rules they are becoming blurred, confused, ambiguous. And this makes even the job of a professors and teachers more and more difficult. The reality that you are looking at does not exist anymore, in a way is moving and you don't know which direction, the reality is escaping from your answer, from your thinking. You don't know which is the direction of this reality which is moving in a very high speed. This is the other problem, again. The speed of a changes it's increasing day by day. We don't know what will be in a new media tomorrow. If a new media will appear, if something close to Facebook will destroy Facebook, will replace Facebook, we don't know. Technology is developing in a very fast way, not allowing to understand the direction of this changes. So, it's, how to say, it's reality which deserves to be observed, because it's a very fast moving reality that moves our curiosity but also it is very difficult to catch. And we have to be aware that yes, we are looking very fast changing world and we don't know where this world is going, to which direction.

In your opinion, what journalists are more useful for up to date world, those who are professionals in some particular area, for example, the Arab Spring, or those, who can do everything, but the level of their knowledge is quite questionable?

Again, we have everything, we have both. More and more people would rely on news that very from the most different sources. Young boys, young girls who can spread information. At the same time we have other niche media which are based on very sophisticated knowledge. So, this is the problem. In a way up to few years ago we were observing newspaper and at the same time good knowledge of a field but also the possibility of spreading out, talking to a large audience. Now these two groups of people, these two different groups of news are taking different directions. You can never... very sophisticated, very elaborated, very educated sources of information have a good, very good level possibility of interpretation, but at the same time you will have other blogs, other websites that address very general, not educated sources of information. And this is why the profession is becoming more and more difficult. because you are facing a large... how to say... large possibilities of different kind of sources of information.

What do you think about Russian journalism education? Is it traditional or is it more innovative?

As far as I understand it's both, again, I don't want to give you any answer. It's both, why it's both? It's both in the sense that it's very traditional. It's a mix of tradition and attention to the new possibilities, new opportunities, which are offered by technologies.

The problem is that you can not apply traditional text to the new technology, to the new environment. So very likely, yes, you have to study, you have to know classical text books such as Denis Mcquail. But be aware please that those texts don't apply anymore to what you define an innovative society, innovative tendency, which was not the frame work of profession proceedings, to which Denis Mcquail was surfering in his classical books. I'm against the unique view. Society is very complex, very plural, needs are different and even often contrasting interpretations of points of view. And today the reality of technology is very complex, blurred, needs are different.

So, classical education – yes, absolutely necessary. But think also what are the needs of technology apply to journalism, which is different from classical text books we're looking at.

Do I understand correctly, that you mean that basis of journalism is less and less useful for journalism students nowadays?

Very bright interpretation. Yes, it's true. The example I brought was an emergency number 911 in the southern United States, that was completely replaced the occasion of recent hurricanes by Facebook groups 'Hurricane Harvey 2017". It's the name of Facebook groups that are replacing the traditional, institutionalized emergency number. So new media were more useful. In this case Facebook was more useful than the institutionalized, because the government of Florida put a lot of money on 911 emergency number, and nevertheless it didn't work. So, do we still need traditional, institutionalized emergency organization? Yes. But at the same time, we're sure that for instance in case of disasters new media works much better than traditional instruments of occasions of emergency. At the same time, we have to be aware that while traditional emergency tools were based on formal rules, informality is what is ruling new media when we apply to emergency. Once we were sure there were formal rules, I call 911, they answer and they tell me what to do because the hurricane is arriving. Now I rely on "Hurricane Harvey 2017", I get the news where it is, when is the hurricane arriving, and I get the news in real time, when it's happening, but I don't know if that's news is true, if that story is true, how it reflects the reality. While listening to 911 I have a real story, but it arrives later. This becomes a difficult choice: what to rely on. Informal news, real time news can be fake news. And on the other side I call 911 and I don't get the news, I have to manage this.

Coming back to the topic of education, can we compare the European school of journalism to the Russian one? What educational trends are the most popular in European school of journalism?

I understand that Russian schools of journalism are more and more adapting to the European way of teaching. My point is different. The fact that Europe is a small number of counties. And there is more portion of counties, if we compare with the rest of the world. In the rest of the world journalism is something completely different from what journalism is in Europe. It means that Europe and USA have a leading role in teaching journalism but they represent more portion of the world. More advanced, but at least it's a small portion of the world. Don't look at Europe as at something that you have to copy, because what happens in Europe, in the USA is based on the specific historical revolution that you don't find in the rest of the Western world. So what is the problem? Don't apply the western-based principals of journalism to reality which has developed following a different historical path. There is a hegemonic view of professional journalism. My colleague Jean Chalaby wrote a very important article a few years ago, and the title was "Journalism as an Anglo-American invention". His point was that journalism – what we intend for journalists today is what was born in the United States and Britain. But, for instance, it is not what was born in France, which had a completely different development. So the issue is: can we apply to different realities, what we observed and what we still observe in UK and in USA? Can we apply these observations to completely different realities? Realities political, social realities, that have gone through the completely different historical development. This is a problem.

Russian journalism, Russian journalism education is getting closer and closer to European, but the fact is that I doubt that European professional education in journalism can be applied everywhere. It is very peculiar to Europe. Not because Europe is better, or worse than any other reality, it's just a very specific reality, and you cannot apply what European realities have produced to different social and political contexts.

So, journalism in different countries of the world is different and we can't copy it?

Yes, absolutely. I'll quote a phrase from the famous textbook «Four theories of the Press» by Siebert, Peterson and Schramm. They wrote a very important sentence: "Journalism always takes the form and coloration of the society within which journalism develops'. So, journalism reflects the social and political realities in which it develops. So, Russian journalism is very specific and it's different from other journalism, because the society is different. Because British society is different from Russian society and as Siebert, Peterson, Scgramm wrote, Russian journalism takes the color of Russian society which is different from the colors of Italian, British societies.

Can you please tell me what the modern journalist student should do and what does he have to know to succeed in journalism?

My answer will be "curiosity". Curiosity and innovation. Don't follow the traditional trails, try to look for something new, for something that you think is developing faster. So, curiosity. Pay attention to where the tendencies are moving forward.

Talking about tendencies, can you please also tell me what is the main trend of 2018 for mass media?

Fragmentation, increasing fragmentation. Many more different competing sources of information, sources of news. We have to manage this new landscape. So yes, if I see the tendency, it's fragmentation. But also, speed. The fact that more and more news are fast. Now it's 5:51. At 5:52 there'll be another news. At 5:53 there is another news. At 5:54 there is another news. And this is the speed of today's society, the speed of today speed system. And we have to manage this fast changing world. If we have to learn something, I don't think I didn't mention it so far, is how to manage the world that is changing in a very rapid way, and the world of news that is changing very fast.

Ivan: Let's move forward to the next topic. We would like to talk about politics. there are several countries in the world, I won't name them, who's government system is far from democratic. and due to the globalization we can get news about their media and understand that media there is under pressure. So, can we state that media became submissive or does it still have some power to revive and be free and live in the democratic system?

Again, optimism and pessimism. What you say is true, government is controlling the floor of news, the floor of information, no doubt. But at the same time because of the new media more and more people can circulate completely different, contrasting point of view. Government will close and shut up the sources of information, yes, but there will be new ones. Again, how was the Arab Spring was successful? Because Tunisian, Egyptian governments were not able to control the Internet. There has been a moment, I don't know if you remember, when the Egyptian government decided to shut off the Internet. They did for a day, but they couldn't do longer because the economical system was falling down. Exchange rates were not working anymore because there was no more Internet, so they had to make possible. Again, the life of the Internet. In a way, even in China, Google is censorship itself, Facebook it censorship itself, but Chinese people know how to go behind (get past) censorship, there are many tools that allow to overtake the censorship of Google and Facebook. So, it's a mixture. Yes, the possibility of controlling the news, but at the same time Internet allows many different sources of information. In a way, when I talk about this to my students, I give an example of the Lutheran catholic reform and the translation of the Bible. Luther used the print press. There is a nice book by Elizabeth Eisenstein about the revolution of print press. She said that the print press was a protestant invention rather than a catholic invention. Why? Because the catholic church those times was a dominant institution, it wasn't able to control the print press. That's why the print press became a protestant invention, protestant instrument rather than a catholic instrument. The same with the Internet. The Internet has become an instrument of people contrasting the regime of Tunisian and Egyptian leaders, of Mubarak and so on. They were not able .. they could not have the possibility to control, to stop, to shut down the internet, as the Catholic church did not have the possibility to shut down the development of the printing press. So, yes. Politics, governments are trying to control, to limit the circulation of news but, at the same time, the enormous possibilities offered by new technologies, and here comes the positive optimistic view, does not allow the government to control everything. Uh ? And new media were the instrument of the Arab spring. Not the only reason, not the only cause. There were many other causes, but of course, it was an important reason because the government was not able to … Even if they were … try to control the situation, the news, nevertheless, the internet was escaping this control.

Well, as far as I remember, not so long ago, Donald Trump was the author and the initiator of shutting the internet down. He said it on Twitter, and a couple of experts tried to understand how it would be possible. Can we state that, with the development of new media, that the government has no instruments to control the whole system, and that total control is absolutely impossible?

Total control is absolutely impossible, even if big corporations now… I'd say, that more of the governments, big corporations, google are controlling the circulation of news more than government because big corporations such as Google and many others, Facebook itself, have a possibility of limiting, of controlling the circulation of news. Even if new occasion for circulation will come up. So, in this case I'm more optimistic than pessimistic. While I'm pessimistic about the future of profession of journalism, because, as I've said, because it is going to … of deinstitutionalization, deprofessionalization. At the same time I'm optimistic about the new tendencies about the controlling of news. My idea is that the control of news by totalitarian regimes, also by big corporations, the control of news by these institutions is becoming more difficult. Almost impossible.

Next year we'll have the president elections. What is your advice to the candidates? What media strategies should they use to win?

I don't know enough the Russian situation. Looking from abroad I have impression that again, Internet is offering a large number of possibilities for candidates. So, there will be a tend to control the new of the part of prison power holders, but at the same time more and more new competitors may have opportunity to spread their news.

So, we read about the rest of some Putin competitors, but at the same time probably new competism will come up. Because again, the world of new technologies is offering many opportunities to be active, also in the political sphere.

So, they should hope for the new media and as much platforms as they could to be mentioned in?

Yes, the fact is that the new media by themselves isn't enough. As I said before, still the main source of information in the most parts of the world is still the legacy media. That means essencionaly television, there is no doubt. New media has to be able and, I don't know if this will be possible because of the control, to be on legacy media. As British author Chadrick wrote: "We're facing to the hybrid system, in which new media goes together with legacy media". "Hybridity" is the word today together with "fragmentation".

Legacy and new media are living together. This means that if you want to win elections, new media isn't enough. New media has to find a place in traditional media, that means a story, which circulates. Just a new media to be a winning story has to be also a traditional media.

A story from Facebook has to become a story for print press, for television. Because otherwise it won't be successful. So, you need both media. New media, but it has to find a place in the legacy media, otherwise it won't reach the mass audience. Very small niche audiences, but not the large audience. This sort of hybridity is absolutely necessary.