Nadine Hourmant is not happy, and the whole of France is taken to control. FO trade unionist, she was once approached to talk with Francois Hollande on Thursday evening on France 2 in the TV special “citizen dialogues”. And in prime time. But the shock she hoped to stage will not take place. The public broadcaster has preferred to cancel their participation. Result:. Nadine Hourmant now denounces a plot of Elysium
It had to listen on Tuesday on Europe 1. Deprived of her quarter-hour Warhol, she accused the power of having zappée as she had done in the press: “It’s the president who does not want my presence I think he does not want the suffering of the employees of France from below he does not want.. hear the truth above all that the show is live. Where is democracy if it is not possible to speak? ” To believe Nadine Hourmant, Michel Field, director of information of France 2, is the return of Alain Peyrefitte, information minister of ORTF years.
The fact that the complaint complotiste and a megalomaniac strand Nadine Hourmant self-proclaimed spokesperson of France from below, designed for media baited by “good customer”, finally allowing it to be heard. Beyond the controversy over the role played by each other in the elimination of the final cast, this episode, especially the echo it creates, offers the opportunity to see that the legitimacy of journalists, as those policies, is undermined. And this phenomenon is a problem.
What finally said Nadine Hourmant when it decrees that because it will not be on television Thursday night against the President, the real questions will not be asked? That the three journalists summoned on the set of France 2 facing François Hollande does not represent France. They are not in real life. They are disconnected from reality. That all things considered, they are complicit in media power whatsoever. No matter Nadine Hourmant David Pujadas, Leah Karim Salameh or Rissouli are professionals questioning. It is sincerely convinced that it will do better than them.
When the FO trade union claims to the embodiment of France from below, it implies that the three journalists of France 2 n ‘ are not. It is a media representation of class reading of the television policy, which echoes all the polls and surveys that bloom here and there for years, and which show that the legitimacy of journalists, perceived as privileged as well as political, is in free fall.
the hatch reporter interview
Let’s measure the curveball. A private trade unionist from its heyday quarter, implicitly challenging the legitimacy of professional journalists to question the president, was laid in majesty in all media after the media business, starting with Direct Grand European media profession 1. depicts the process of its own delegitimization.
It is true that for years, political journalism deserted political broadcasts. As if those who bore the television had integrated discredit that strike. Since the issuance of TF1 devoted to the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, when François Mitterrand agreed to participate in an obstacle course where the French had arrested between Philippe Seguin and Jean d’Ormesson, political reporter became gradually flat pass the interview, supplanted by symbolic figure of the “French” which is the journalistic authority to delegate. A phenomenon that is both bad for politicians and journalists.
In the wake of the Mitterrand innovation (already tested by Giscard in 1979 to screen Records) Chirac, Sarkozy and Hollande persisted in the staging of their dialogue with the people without mediation by the journalistic inquiry. The result is inconclusive, and for two reasons. On the one hand, the average French with average concerns, seeing mostly noon to his window, the king’s body president is thereby pulled down. Where is Jupiter when he has to answer to Madame Michu, dissatisfied reimbursement rate of his glasses by Social Security? On the other hand, this same king of the body can also be found mauled by an interlocutor decided to leverage its heyday quarter. We remember Jacques Chirac, displaying his lack of youth in a program devoted to the European referendum in 2005. Or François Hollande faced last year to lawyers students Dieudonné, very happy to display their provocation based on ignorance vis-a-vis the president.
journalists in charge of policy on television themselves have dug their own graves media. From this point of view, and they come back, if Nadine Hourmant, Private TV, is emblematic.
A editorial matter in debate
Reportedly, David Pujadas himself who had slipped the union in the original cast. Because he had already used its services in another program (a number Of Words and acts as of September 2014) in which she had abandoned the delights of the television show. Determined. Vehement. Accusing each other of being “disconnected”. A “good customer” as they say in the jargon of the TV. Faced with the ultimate choice, management information finally decided to dismiss, stating the obvious: facing the president, given his personality, the dialogue would have turned dialogue of the deaf
D. where the editorial matter in debate, whose scope is much greater than the issue of whether the Elysee retoqué a impétrante: why bother to stage a clash for a clash? A buzz buzz? Because the risk was too great, knowing the qualities and defects of Nadine Hourmant, to see others the issue of stakeholders, looming already very complicated, given their profile, manage to François Hollande (a North FN voter a patron of SMEs, an adept student of Night standing, a mother who lost her son jihad in Syria) is to pass the limelight. And also fly to the President of the Republic.
The debate preceding the Thursday night show on France 2 has the advantage of bringing us to ask the right questions instead of political journalism on TV, questions that arise here without making any answers, leaving each one to conclude, according to his idea of the television treatment of the policy.
is this really the mission political journalism, applied to television, but to abdicate its function, the French delegate to castes, increasingly caricatured, so eventually unrepresentative?
Must I repeat to infinity buzz sequences, or two hours from Lyrics and acts of Alain Finkielkraut company are reduced to the minute buzz of a far-left activist wielding to perfection the television punch line, all carried by the virality of social networks?
Should we continue to seek the creation of television time, supposed to fuel the buzz, killing politics into a YouTube entertainment?
No comments:
Post a Comment