FEATURE AS THE FUTURE? IS IT STILL REPORTING? ON THE PROBLEM OF CHAOTICITY IN CONTENT DELIVERY

Content in the mass media remains a professional journalistic product. At the same time, the models of presenting this content are surprisingly diverse, and professionals in the media field can offer various models of their own representation in authorial presentations. In a changing media space, the journalistic “I” can become a powerful signal for hermeneutic synergy between the author and the audience. Or it may not become so – and then comes the time of chaos of perception and inadequate understanding of journalistic material by the audience. A journalist in the authorial content market works one-on-one with the audience, and if his main goal is to professionally present his own vision of a person or problem, then he must present such a presentation on his own behalf, without unnecessary adaptation to the audience’s habits, otherwise stigmatization will lead to real communication chaos. What exactly can (or should) be such a synergy that will not cause such chaos? What tools should a journalist use to propose his own visions of the interpretation of his work? New arguments or new descriptions? New notations or new notes? New facts or new factors?.. At the same time, the author’s content industry faces two challenges related to the potential technology of proposing an author’s vision regarding the coverage of the topic, origin, course, prospects for solving the problem, portraying the hero, etc. It is proposed to consider the specifics of presenting author’s content in journalism based on two technological planes of the functioning of the author’s “self”. The first – feature – involves a journalistic vision of the content of the material from a third person. The second – reportage – is based on the journalist’s direct participation in the event in question. The article examines the conditions of representation of these two technological planes of the functioning of the author’s “self”, under which the author’s intentions to quench his thirst – oh, not the audience’s, but his own ego – are buffered as correctly as possible, the framework of such representation, the figurative properties of operating with portrait or photographic methods of presenting the author’s “self”, the author’s techniques for avoiding the chaos of the audience’s perception of the content presented by him.