The cross : What is the responsibility of the media in the choice of the subjects and the mode of treatment of the news which they propose?
Benoît Raphaël: It is a question which is not new, but which has become very complex. Which subjects to focus on, which subjects to avoid? Today, the media are both echo chamber and news producer, in a back-and-forth game that has taken off between social networks and traditional media, in particular 24-hour news channels. .
→ EXCLUSIVE BAROMETER. The Covid-19 crisis reconciles (a little) the French and the media
It is difficult to curb this mechanism: on the one hand, because we cannot ignore the extent of the phenomenon of networks and, on the other hand, because the media are looking for an audience and are moving towards what we talk and they assume more attractive. The yellow vests movement has, moreover, increased the indictment of the media as a subject in itself: the treatment of the event is as discussed as the event itself.
To fight against this runaway, I think we can draw inspiration from the fundamental movement, slow and long, that we have observed in the food industry. Who would have said, in the midst of the mad cow crisis, that, years later, large-scale distribution would make organic one of its privileged commercial arguments? The media and their public must ask themselves the question of our “informative health”, as we asked the question of our nutritional health. Because without good information, it is democracy and social peace that are threatened, as we saw at the United States Capitol, in Washington (January 6, Editor’s note).
The French seem to be convinced of this, accusing the media of speaking insufficiently on subjects such as climate change or international issues. However, they do not go naturally to them …
B. R. : Here again, it is an old reflex like information. Let us remember that Pulitzer, whose name is attached to a prestigious prize, founded at the end of the XIXe century the Yellow Papers, this eye-catching press with little concern for truth! It is a human reflex to go towards what worries, scares – we see it with the Covid-19 – and to overconsume this information close (it happens here and now) and anxiety. An addiction is born that leaves everything else aside.
→ READ. Coronavirus: TV audiences at the zenith, revenues at half mast
The health crisis was a blatant example this year. I think, as you do regularly at The cross, that if we focused on dealing with problems through their solutions, we would advance in the debate and foster collective curiosity. Approaching a subject, even a difficult one, by means of the solutions envisaged or already operative, makes it possible to understand its complexity in a constructive and “de-stressing” way.
Should the media therefore take the risk of talking about subjects which, a priori, are of less interest to public opinion?
B. R. : I believe so, even if it is very courageous in the tense economic context that we are going through. Editors are often called upon to save money, hence standardization of sources (60% of subjects come from AFP) and means of investigation. Organizing hours and hours of debate costs news channels less than going out to investigate.
But if it is hard to be independent and original, it is nevertheless a good intellectual and economic investment. See the success of Society which, in the middle of summer, made a splash with this formidable and unexpected investigation of Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès. Limiting its capacity to invest in quality and uniqueness is a miscalculation, frustrating for journalists and drying out for the public. We have to give ourselves ambitions and resources.
– .
