Via television

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About television (German 1998) is a book by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu , which was first published in France in 1996 under the title Sur la télévision .

The small text contains, in essay-like and sometimes polemical form, an examination of the journalistic field and emerged from two lectures by Bourdieu on television Sur la télévision and Le champ journalistique . These were part of a series of lectures that Bourdieu had given at the Collège de France . Both are about the same length and partially overlap in terms of content: Bourdieu sees television as a "very great danger". His normative ideal of the journalist is that of a good social scientist who supports the citizens with their problems and does not try to exploit them for quotas . The actors should therefore carefully consider whether and under what conditions they want to appear on television.

First lecture: The television studio and its backdrops

Sur la télévision.jpg

In the first lecture, Bourdieu deals with various topics related to the medium, which can be divided into three blocks: the production conditions of television programs, the negative effects of these production conditions and the heteronomy of television, i.e. its dependence on external fields and actors.

The production conditions of television programs

Bourdieu thinks it is important to speak on television, provided that it is done under acceptable conditions. His situation during a lecture is fundamentally different from normal appearances on television: his speaking time is not limited, the topic is not imposed, and he has no director to discipline him. In short: he has the “power of disposal over the means of production”.

Often times, people come under bad conditions to get attention, not because they have something important to say. “In this way, the screen became a kind of mirror of narcissus , a place of narcissistic display.” It is therefore desirable to carefully consider whether or not to accept invitations to television. Because television is able to reach so many people, a few preliminary clarifications should be made about its character: “Does what I have to say concern everyone? Am I ready to formalize my speech in a way that everyone can understand? Should it be understood by everyone at all? "

An invisible censorship is associated with the appearance on the screen : the topic and speaking time are given, they are assumed. In addition, there were economic censorship bodies, e.g. B. on the ownership structure of media companies . Because of these mechanisms, television is suitable for maintaining symbolic rule .

Not only the “what”, but also the “how” (type of presentation) play a role: the examples come from Patrick Champagne, published together with Bourdieu in Das Elend der Welt (1997, French edition 1993). They concern the reporting of the unrest in the banlieues . The media focus, according to Bourdieu to the conflictual, the sensation and dramatized the usual fears and concerns of the residents to give them "a voice". “Because nothing is more difficult than making reality tangible in its banality. Gustave Flaubert liked to talk about carefully painting the mediocre. "

Negative consequences: homogenization and thinking in platitudes

Despite the ostensible diversity of journalists, according to Bourdieu they are basically similar. The tendency towards homogenization (standardization) is primarily due to media constraints. "Just compare the front pages of the weekly press every fortnight: you will find the same lead stories almost everywhere [...] Nobody reads as many newspapers as the journalists, who incidentally tend to believe that everyone reads all the newspapers." Orientation and constant reference lead to isolation and similarity. In addition, there would be social homologies (matches) among journalists, for example with regard to education, origin and milieu . The journalists mostly obtained information from the media, so that a circularity arises that is ultimately accepted without questioning.

He also criticizes the fixation on the audience , according to which one orientates. “For journalists, this measuring instrument is the divine judgment.” The market is increasingly seen as a legitimate authority for legitimation. On television, the audience rating translates into time pressure. Too little time damages public discourse, according to Bourdieu . So television has to come to terms with fast-thinkers. How do these thinkers manage to think so quickly? "The answer, it seems to me, is that they think in platitudes ."

Bourdieu also goes into political television discussions . These are a set game: the participants know each other well and know exactly how to react to each other. “Indeed, the universe of the constant television audience is a closed world in which everyone knows each other and which follows a logic of constant self-affirmation.” Bourdieu examines a debate: the one about Jean-Marie Cavada during the November strikes . There are a number of censorship measures here: moderator, guests, composition of the group (invitations) ... "And that is an extremely important problem from a democratic point of view: Obviously not all participants are equally familiar with such discussion groups." The moderator must be the clumsy to help out, as the interviewers would have done in the sociological study Das Elend der Welt .

Television heteronomy

As a communication medium, television is not very autonomous and is subject to a series of constraints that point to common interests and are related to the position of journalists in the field of symbolic production . The conflict between the autonomous and heteronomous pole, i.e. those who do not submit to commercial constraints and those who do, is particularly strong . "The tension between what is required professionally and the demands that you acquire in journalism schools and at universities continues to grow - even though those who really want to make a career adapt in advance." The journalists find themselves accordingly many disappointed and cynical .

Second lecture: The invisible structure and its effects

The second lecture contains explanations on the field of journalistic production in France and the habitus of the actors involved. In conclusion, Bourdieu proposes countermeasures against the negative tendencies of television.

The journalistic field

First of all, there is the concept of the journalistic field that Bourdieu defines. To z. B. to understand the TV station TF1 , it is not enough to be informed about the ownership structure and economic indicators. Rather, one has to reconstruct the position of TF1 in the field of journalistic production, ie also look at all actors and their relationships to TF1, the viewers, the advertisers, etc. What does this field look like today (1996)? This question can be answered better if you look at the historical transformation. "[...] In the fifties television hardly played a role in the journalistic field," but at present it is (economically) dominant. Using the example of the political daily Le Monde , Bourdieu illustrates shifts in position in the field.

Bourdieu deals with the consequences of the increasing importance of television compared to the print media. First of all, there is the range that makes television superior to the press. In addition, television has a conservative tendency to which a certain moral content belongs. The medium promotes conformism and academism , and journalists can impose their problem and worldview on society as a whole . Despite different points of view, "the journalistic field [...] is inevitably based, beyond all differences of position and opinion, on a set of basic assumptions and dogmas shared by everyone ." The journalists exercise "merciless censorship" without their knowing it ( Illusio ).

The journalistic habitus

According to Bourdieu, actors in the journalistic field often have stereotypical views about their professional colleagues (e.g. critical position of the press towards television). These are both opinions and strategies. However, press journalism is clearly in retreat compared to television, which is expressed in the subordinate position of newspaper writers in contrast to TV people. With television becoming more prominent, sensational reporting is becoming increasingly influential. The newspapers have to ask themselves whether they want to follow the logic of television or stay true to their own logic.

In contrast to other fields of cultural production, that of journalism is more dependent on external forces. In addition, there were hardly any internal sanctioning bodies in journalism , unlike in the field of science , in the political field and in the field of business . According to Bourdieu, the journalistic field is under the influence of the economic field (see: economic capital ) and in turn exerts pressure on other fields. Auguste Comte said: “Science follows prognosis, prognosis follows action.” According to Bourdieu, all fields of cultural production are currently exposed to journalistic pressure.

Bourdieu then deals with the relationship between journalism and intellectuals . In his opinion, the media interferes in other fields, e.g. B. in science or in art. In order for them to do this, they must hope for complicity. Bourdieu wonders: who is collaborating and who is resisting? The empirical study shows that actors who are highly valued by their colleagues tend not to collaborate. "If it seems essential to me to fight these heteronomous intellectuals, it is because they are the Trojan horse through which heteronomy , that is, the laws of commerce , of economy, find their way into the field." Also in politics television calls into question the autonomy of the field. The media could become arsonists here by inciting popular anger. "It shows how a logic of vengeance is being re-established against which the entire legal and also the political logic has been built."

Countermeasures

From Bourdieu's point of view, the terms of appearing on television need to be better negotiated. "In other words, you have to fight to ensure that the conditions of production necessary for the promotion of the universal are made available, and at the same time work on the generalization of the conditions for access to the universal so that more and more people meet the conditions to appropriate the universal [...] One can and must fight the audience rating in the name of democracy. "

expenditure

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Article in the French language Wikipedia under Sur la télévision
  2. ↑ Heike Wetzig: Thinking Bodies in Landscape , transforma online, 2005.
  3. ↑ Boike Rehbein: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieus. Verlag UTB, 2006, ISBN 3-8252-2778-2 , p. 220.