Nichole Bourdieu

When I first began reading this article I thought the direction it was beginning to take was quite the opposite. It says that “the political and cultural effects are clear when the information supplied by a single news medium becomes the universal source of news” (328). I thought the clear direction was that the leading means of news would begin to spread false information much like a tabloid would do as well as push for one or so products in advertising because there are no competitors and could monopolize the advertising world. However, the article took quite the opposite position and said that in order to not offend ANYone, the news would be glossed over and “soft” media information like the weather forecast is.

Bourdieu continues on to explain that this happens at times when people don’t necessarily WANT it to happen but somehow seem willed to happen. This quote reminds me of Lyotards essay which discusses revolting against the things that happen unwillingly; to challenge the normal and let creativity rein once again and not to fall into the cracks as Bourdieu describes is happening with television news vs. print media at present.

I don’t particularly care for his argument on journalists dominating members of social superiority. Obviously there are certain people, journalists associated with a particular paper or magazine, that have continual access to expressing their vision on one topic or another. Although they strive to remain neutral obvious biases to one side or another will occur and unfortunately readers may be suaded with the argument to one side or another. That much I agree with, but I think in no way that journalists want to break down the “experts” (we talked about in class) by dis-crediting them of their knowledge. They are not out to break down the intellectual crowd to gain a step up from them. I can, perhaps, see where his argument might come from: the most popular news articles, especially right now, are the cons of the presidential candidates (perhaps why people say they are going to vote for “the least bad candidate”), because its easier to point out where people mess up than when they bring up a good point (The recent blooper by Hillary that made headlines says she “was under sniper fire”). The journalists, I feel, are simply sharing information that others should be aware about; not to bring powerful people down.