Des « hommes de plumes » parmi les « hommes d’épée » : sociabilités journalistiques et reportages de guerre en France entre 1866 et 1877.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si les premières correspondances de guerre apparaissent dans la presse française sous le Second Empire, celles-ci résultent pour une grande part d’initiatives atypiques. Aucune expertise, aucun savoir-faire spécifiques à la pratique et à l’écriture du reportage de guerre ne sont encore acquis. Alors qu’en Angleterre, le métier émerge avec la guerre de Crimée et qu’aux États-Unis, il s’impose avec la Guerre de Sécession. En France, la pratique tarde davantage à se revendiquer comme telle. Il faut attendre les années 1880 pour que la démarche de « l’envoyé spécial », parti à la rencontre de l’actualité de guerre, engendre une activité d’écriture distincte des autres catégories du journal. Or, ces premiers essais, même encadrés et surveillés par le régime, constituent bel et bien le germe d’une nouvelle pratique journalistique. Et s’il est vrai qu’en France, le reportage de guerre résistera jusqu’au tournant du vingtième siècle à se constituer en profession autonome, lorsqu’on y regarde de près, on constate néanmoins que certains enjeux liés à l’exercice d’observation directe sur le terrain accompagnent l’émergence de liens d’entraide relevant d’une condition partagée, et mettent en lumière les traits spécifiques d’une fonction commune. Ce contexte d’action génère des connivences et engendre des solidarités qui laissent leurs marques au sein même des reportages. Cet submission propose donc d’examiner ces sociabilités discursives, comprises en tant qu’expression progressive d’une expérience de groupe, et plus spécifiquement en tant que mode de construction d’un « ethos collectif », vu comme un préalable dans une trajectoire vers un statut social. Au sein de ces reportages de guerre publiés entre 1866 et 1877 apparaissent des modalités de régulation des rapports d’entraide, qui, en tant que forces de cohésion sont à mettre en lien avec l’apparition d’une mobilisation associative, de même qu’avec un lent processus de reconnaissances sociale et professionnelle. Though the first war correspondences did appear in the French press during the Second Empire, they were largely marginal endeavours. There still did not exist an expertise or specific set of skills to practice war reporting, in contrast with England, where the profession emerged during the Crimean War, and in the United States during the Civil War. The profession was slow to assert itself in France. It was not until the 1880s that the notion of the «special correspondent» sent to gather war news became a distinct category in newspaper writing. And yet, these first trials, supervised and monitored by the Second Empire regime, were indeed the seeds of a new journalistic practice. And if it is true that war reporting in France resisted becoming an autonomous profession until the turn of the twentieth century, a close look reveals that the earlier challenges related to the exercise of first-hand observation in the field were instrumental in the emergence of cooperation resulting from a shared condition—in other words, a shared function. The battle context generates complicity and solidarity that leave their mark on reporting. This paper proposes to examine these discursive sociabilities, understood as the progressive expression of a group experience, and more specifically as a method of building a “collective ethos” as a prerequisite for creating a social status. Within these war reports published between 1866 and 1877, arrangements appear regulating cooperative relationships, which, as cohesive forces, are related to the emergence of an associative mobilization and the slow process towards social and professional recognition. Embora os primeiros correspondentes de guerra tenham aparecido na imprensa francesa durante o Segundo Império, eles foram em grande parte resultado de iniciativas marginais. Ainda não existia uma especialização ou um conjunto específico de habilidades aplicadas à prática de jornalismo de guerra, em contraste com a situação na Inglaterra, onde a profissão emergiu durante a Guerra da Criméia, e nos Estados Unidos durante a Guerra Civil. A profissão demorou para afirmar-se na França. Foi necessário esperar até a década de 1880 para que a noção de «correspondente especial», enviado para coletar notícias da guerra, tenha emergido como uma categoria distinta na redação do jornal. E, no entanto, foram estas primeiras tentativas, supervisionadas e monitoradas pelo regime do Segundo Império, que deram origem a uma nova prática jornalística. E se é verdade que a reportagem de guerra na França tenha resistido, se tornando uma profissão autônoma na virada do século XX, um olhar mais atento revela que os desafios anteriores, relacionados ao exercício de observação em primeira mão no campo, foram determinantes ara o surgimento de cooperação resultante de uma condição compartilhada – em outras palavras, uma função compartilhada. O contexto de batalha gera cumplicidade e solidariedade que deixar a sua marca nas histórias. Este artigo se propõe a analisar estas sociabilidades discursivas, entendidas como a expressão progressiva de uma experiência de grupo, e mais especificamente como um método de construção de um «ethos coletivo» como um pré-requisito para a criação de um estatuto social. Dentro dessas reportagens de guerra, publicadas entre 1866 e 1877, aparecem disposições regulamentares de cooperação, que, como forças de coesão, estão relacionados com o surgimento de uma mobilização associativa e o lento processo para o reconhecimento social e profissional.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".