|
|
 |
POLITICA >>Bourdieu | ||||
Menu
|
Politica is a forum for independent analysis of political events around the World |
|||||
|
Bourdieu, P. 1996. Sur la télévision. Raisons d'Agir, Paris,
France. Rating: JJ About the Author: Pierre Bourdieu was a sociologist at the Collège de France. He died early in 2002. Books by the same author: Sciences de la science et réflexivité;
Contre-feux. Propos pour servir à la résistance contre l'invasion
néo-libérale; Réponses (with Loïc Wacquant). |
||||||
|
Review Bourdieu
was an exception among sociologists, because he was allergic to
postmodernism. In the face of constructivisms of all types, he
stood as the defender of truth and scientific objectivity. In
his pamphlet " sur la télévision",
he scolds the mass media for their lack of concern for any kind
of objectivity. Such postmodernist tendencies, he argues, can
lead to very serious consequences, such as wars or worse. He also
regrets that even the scientific world has been caught in the
postmodernist net of the media, with the most mediatised scientists
tending to obtain more funding. Thus, the quality of research
becomes subordinate to the communication skills of the scientists.
In other words, a "famous" (i.e. media-friendly) "expert"
will have great influence on policy-making, even if his hypotheses
are incorrect. Moreover, he objects to the influence of the media
on resource allocation in the scientific world: a heavily publicised,
fashionable field, will get more grants than a less exciting,
but equally important (for humanity) area of research. But the media have other ways of obscuring the truth.
For example, by flooding the viewers with mindless entertainment
(e.g. reality shows), it diverts their attention from the true
problems of this world. Moreover, since the press tend to heavily
plagiarise each other, the result is a uniform information soup,
with no room for diverging opinions. Competition, the fear of
missing out on sensational news contributes to this mutual plagiarism,
and reduces the chances of properly checking facts and sources.
Similarly, journalists are in servitude to the market forces,
which dictate what news will sell and what news won't. In the
eyes of Bourdieu, this is the most effective form of censorship,
because it is largely unconscious. The media have certain, demagogic,
idea of what they think the public wants, and in turn the public
is influenced by what the media feed it, turning the original
idea into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Faced with these affronts to objectivity, Bourdieu suggests
that journalists undertake their work with the rigour of scientists,
with no preconceived ideas as to where their investigations should
lead. He further suggests that "experts" should be interviewed
only in relation to their specialisation, rather than being paraded
as onmiscient. He also suggests that the expertise of these people
be judged by their work, as assessed by their peers, rather than
by the amount of TV time they get. Bourdieu's book is an interesting source of debate, but it lacks the solid facts and evidence whose abscence the author deplores in the media. Moreover, it was written at a time when Bourdieu was becoming one of these fashionable "media intellectuals" that he loathed so much. Nevertheless, his pamphlet is a refreshing text to read. |
||||||
|
||||||