Non-State Visual Authority and the Transformation of Evidence in Global Media Systems

by

Abstract

This article examines the transformation of visual evidence in contemporary global media systems, focusing on the emergence of non-state actors as producers of authoritative visual narratives. It argues that the traditional monopoly of institutional media over the construction and validation of evidence has been significantly weakened by the expansion of digital platforms and decentralized content production.
The study analyzes how visual materials produced by individuals, independent creators, and transnational networks increasingly function as sources of verification, documentation, and public knowledge. It explores the conditions under which such visual content gains legitimacy and influences perception, particularly in contexts of crisis, conflict, and restricted media environments.
Particular attention is given to the interaction between visual evidence, platform-mediated visibility, and institutional trust. The article proposes that contemporary visual communication systems are characterized by a shift toward distributed forms of authority, where recognition is negotiated across networks rather than determined by centralized institutions.

Keywords:

visual evidence, media systems, non-state actors, digital platforms, crisis, perception, authority, transnational communication

Author:

  • Artur Sukhoiarskyi ORCID: 0009-0002-8018-813X

Peer Reviewers:

  • Yurii Savchuk — ORCID: 0009-0005-3147-5425
  • Aleksandra Voronina — ORCID: 0009-0004-3155-9824

DOI: pending

Full Text (PDF)

Non_State_Visual_Authority_and_Transformation_of_Evidence_in_Global

References

  • Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. Columbia University Press.
  • Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Polity Press.
  • Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Community, culture, difference (pp. 222–237). Lawrence & Wishart.
  • Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. Routledge.
  • Hryhoriev, O. (2020). Media as a field of conflict. The Magazine Interview Ukraine.
  • Hryhoriev, O. (2022). Journalism in conditions of armed conflict. The Magazine Interview Ukraine.
  • Hryhoriev, O. (2023). Journalism under conditions of protracted conflict. The Magazine Interview Ukraine.
  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press.
  • Khokhotva, M. (2022). Ethical responsibility and risk in conflict photography. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 3(1).
  • Khokhotva, M. (2023). Visual evidence and human rights documentation. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 4(2).
  • Khokhotva, M. (2024). Visual evidence in conflict reporting. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 5(1).
  • Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2012). Migration and new media: Transnational families and polymedia. Routledge.
  • Nedeva, K. (2021). Women’s informal labor and media invisibility in Eastern Europe. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(4).
  • Papastergiadis, N. (2010). Cosmopolitanism and culture. Polity Press.
  • Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography (3rd ed.). Sage.
  • Tytarenko, O. (2024). Regimes of press freedom restriction during armed conflict. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 5(1).
  • Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. Routledge.
  • Wessendorf, S. (2014). Commonplace diversity: Social relations in a super-diverse context. Palgrave Macmillan.