000ooo000ooo Bordieu

Through out the readings this semester one thing that has really frustrated me is that few of the theorists we read ever propose ideas on how to solve any problems. They can all spend countless pages pointing out what is wrong in the most confusing ways possible but none of them seem willing or able to provide any solutions to these problems. If we aren't going to solve problems, what is the point of pointing them all out?
Given this, I was happy to see Bordieu proposing some solutions to the problem he sees in the field of television and newspaper journalism. However, I can't say that I necessarily agreed with all of his suggestions. His first suggestion is a very good one. On page 334 he basically explains the need for news that focuses on societal systems and patterns as opposed to episodic human interest stories:

"You can't understand anything if you don't understand the field that produces [it]... This understanding is important both to remove the analysis form the level of drama and to direct action rationally."

This concept makes a lot of sense to me, if we stop seeing individual instances as "significant" and start looking at what is going on on a grander scale, the emotions of individual situations will be removed and we can act rationally towards changing problematic social systems. Bourdieu also suggests that perhaps journalists from different media and companies could work together to cover stories so there wasn't a constant rush to get the scoop and one reporter could do an in-depth report instead of a whole bunch doing "water ski" types of reports.
However, it is Bourdieu's next suggestion that makes me nervous. He is talking about how TV has the power to give people a voice and whoever shows up on TV can have their opinions heard. In this sense TV is empowering and since reporters have the ability to decide who ends up on TV, they can decide who has power. To this end he suggests, "journalists might agree to forget about audience ratings for once and refuse to open their talk shows to political leaders known for and by their xenophobia. Further, they could agree not to broadcast what these figures say. )This would be infinitely more effective than all the so-called refutations put together.)" While I understand the idea behind this suggestion and I certainly don't think that people with the particular issue of xenophobia should be given the time of day on TV, it is a scary suggestion to propose that the media edit out whose voices we hear. This can become dangerous very fast and is actually something that has already happened to a large extent. We already only hear those people who can say things that work in the TV companies favor. I think a change in the system would be much more effective than a call to morality becomes when it comes to matters involving money, morality rarely wins out.