Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field/Taking Journalism Seriously: News and the Academy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
* Benson, Rodney and Erik Neveu (2005). Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Cambridge, UK, and Maiden, MA: Polity Press, pp. 267. * Zelizer, Barbie (2004). Taking Journalism Seriously: News and the Academy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 286. These two books represent attempts to examine journalism through interdisciplinary lenses, the Benson and Neveu book by drawing together a group of contributors to apply sociologist Bourdieu's to journalism, and the Zelizer book through a literature review of scholarship on journalism in disciplines other than mass communication. They aim at two very different goals, and their results are equally varying. Bourdieu book attempts to build on the late French sociologist's book On Television with essays mostly laying out factors influencing journalists being more or less autonomous in their from media's corporate owners, their own educational and professional backgrounds, political allegiances, and more. Its cover also promises that it discuss[es] the similarities and differences between theory, new institutionalism, hegemony and theory. After an introductory chapter, the editors have included a previously unpublished essay by Bourdieu, The Political Field, the Social Science Field, and the Journalistic Field; Patrick Champagne on journalism caught between politics and economics; and Dominique Marchetti on journalism specialties (beats, etc.). These chapters are followed by case studies of sorts: Benson on comparing and contrasting French with U.S. journalism; Champagne and Marchetti on French medical news coverage of contaminated blood; Julien Duval on French economic journalism; Eric Darras on which politicians get covered the most in the United States and France; and Eric Klinenberg on teenagers' involvement in the U.S. justice movement. Neveu, Michael Schudson, and Daniel C. Hallin end the book with more theoretical pieces. book shows as a work in progress, and certainly there is value in putting a work in progress out there to provoke interest, stir debate, and so on. Parts of the book are more devoted to explaining what is not than what it is. Field is never defined clearly-apparently because it is a work in progress. But to the extent that it is defined, it seems to be partly gatekeeping (the media decide what stories to cover more, less, or not at all, and which sources to interview), partly agendasetting (if some news media cover-somewhere between vigorously and sensationalistically-a story such as tainted blood, other media will follow and it will catch the attention of politicians and the public), partly sociology of journalism (educational and employment backgrounds and conditions affect news content), partly political economy and ethics (journalists are answerable to their capitalist bosses and even nonprofit journalists are answerable to their underwriters), and so on. Overall, then, this book shows making a very small contribution, if any-certainly nothing new. In fact, as one reads this book, one increasingly realizes that it offers nothing authentically original, whether or not one has heard of field theory and differentiation theory. Moreover, the comparisons of journalism between the United States and France show only that journalism in the United States and journalism in France are different, no surprise even if each one's notable features are predictably framed as possibilities (at least historically) for the other. Comparative international studies of journalism between two countries are helpful only when the two countries have much in common to begin with, by the same token that one learns more concrete and specific information by comparing/contrasting chimpanzees and bonobos than one does by comparing/contrasting cats and elephants. We should compare/ contrast news media in the United States and Canada, or Germany and Austria, not the United States and France (or, as is now frequently done, South Korea). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,024 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».