Dissertation for Master's degree (M.A)
Tension: translation
Introduction
Communication and information society, the enchanting mirage of the last decades of the 20th century, has since been implemented as a practice. Timothy Leary predicted in his book titled Chaos Techniques that the 21st century will be dominated by a modern culture on a global scale in which beings are able to communicate at the speed of light. Today, this prophecy has become such a pervasive reality that it is no longer visible.
The news is imposed on us everywhere, but at the same time, it seems that free thinking is more confused than ever. The intelligent manipulation of thoughts by the media, such as the lack of culture of the new generation, or the Americanization of the mind, has become one of the permanent and complex forms in the regressive discourse.
This book by studying a collection of news that covers a period of more than three years, newspapers or television and radio news programs, excerpts from the traditional or internet press, local newspapers and the national press by analyzing qualitative or quantitative data (such as opinions, feedback [2], opinions, choices, beliefs, etc.) that provide polls and other measurement indicators to mass communication tools, and by questioning those who form or shake opinions, i.e. journalists and communication experts, it suggests a critical examination of news production as well as its reception by social representatives. In this case, the book examines the complex mechanism of opinion production.
The purpose of this book is also to clarify some basic problems that the media is facing today.
Why do the media appear incomprehensible and strange to us, even though not much time has passed since their creation and influence on our thoughts and judgments?
Why does the information they publish reach us incompletely or in such a vague way that it does not cause much reaction in us? If we want to mention just one example, despite the repetition and emphasis of the media, most of us are ultimately indifferent to the threats and dangers that human activities impose on our planet; All concerns that the consequences of these activities may follow have not been offset by a firm commitment or clear solutions to change the issues. Is it possible that despite the variety and volume of the news about a topic, it lacks depth, educational aspects and impact? Doesn't it seem too controversial to create anything but fear and silence?
Why do some news and some information seem so extreme and ultimately unbelievable, and even despite their exaggeration, they are dumb and incomprehensible at the level of the most superficial news? Why is this public mistrust and mistrust in front of the media world, which in the past was like the last bastion of freedom against the pressure of various powers, appears like them or similar to them today?
Wasn't censorship and government control over the news better than this assumption of collusion, false scandals, or these annoying silences? Isn't it better to prefer this ban, which can be ignored, to this terrible self-censorship that constantly hides its true nature by dressing up its actions with an appearance of being free of provocation and arrogance?
Has the nature of journalism really changed and its working methods, i.e. collecting facts in dealing with citizens (transmitting these facts by turning them into coherent and comprehensible facts) has changed? Are research and investigation always part of the set of principles of journalism, as the only tools that are really able to eliminate the manipulation and distortion of all the rulers?
Hasn't the media language become a special and incomprehensible language for many, which is only reserved for the information Taliban society? The style and words of journalism are more important, aren't they completely the tools of a kind of coordination and follow-up that leads to addressing a small group, ie communicators or specialists in this profession?
On the other hand, the growing dissatisfaction of the public with the press that also has high sales leads to a kind of intellectual poverty, that is, a completely unprecedented regressive course that contradicts the new communication tendencies and tastes that come with the high volume of internet data and changing rules.Is it possible that despite the variety and volume of the news about a topic, it lacks depth, educational aspects, and impact? Doesn't it seem too controversial to create anything but fear and silence?
Why do some news and some information seem so extreme and ultimately unbelievable, and even despite their exaggeration, they are dumb and incomprehensible at the level of the most superficial news? Why is this public mistrust and mistrust in front of the media world, which in the past was like the last bastion of freedom against the pressure of various powers, appears today like them or similar to them?
Wasn't government censorship and control over the news better than this assumption of collusion, false scandals or these annoying silences? Isn't it better to prefer this ban, which can be ignored, to this terrible self-censorship that constantly hides its true nature by dressing up its actions with an appearance of being free of provocation and arrogance?
Has the nature of journalism really changed and its working methods, i.e. collecting facts in dealing with citizens (transmitting these facts by turning them into coherent and comprehensible facts) has changed? Are research and investigation always part of the set of principles of journalism, as the only tools that are really able to eliminate the manipulation and distortion of all the rulers?
Hasn't the media language become a special and incomprehensible language for many, which is only reserved for the information Taliban society? The style and vocabulary of journalism is more important, aren't they completely the tools of a kind of coordination and follow-up that leads to addressing a small group, that is, communicators or specialists in this profession?
On the other hand, the growing dissatisfaction of the public with the press that also has high sales, does not lead to a kind of intellectual poverty, that is, a completely unprecedented regressive course that contradicts the new communication tendencies and tastes that have arisen with the high volume of Internet data and the changing rules of information and exchanges.
The National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE [3]) estimates that the French spend a third less on the press (newspapers and magazines) than in 1970. According to this institute, this retreat is especially pronounced since the beginning of the 1990s, and this apathy strongly affects the general public and young people. INSEE writes: The newer the generation, the The share of the press in the household budget is less, which allows us to vote in favor of "the arrival of the new generation who use the press less than the previous generations". Commercial ads, rumors, unknown or multiple sources such as personal blogs or network forms. All these new media methods known as sources of information are as weak as traditional media. Undoubtedly, we must accept this opinion, the place occupied by the media today - in the broad sense of the word media - has changed some beliefs by disconnecting from the media principles and rules formed in the middle of the 20th century, and has imposed often contradictory reports:
1- The media are more numerous than ever (increase of specialized magazines, free press, emergence of new media, etc.)
2- The media have become more diverse than ever (the press, general and special audio-visual, Internet) and within this latter pole a magnificent rainbow of information system:
online increase of classic media (web pages, newspapers, magazines, audio-visual, French and international news)
specialized sources of information that are only available online and are completely focused on the criticism of traditional media. (MédiaPart, rue 89, ArrêtsurImage or the secret online publication of the paper version: plan B)
Alternate or independent sources of information: blogs, affiliated or regional newspapers (in the mafia sense of the word) and web reporting
Manipulated and disguised communications (political, religious, economic, network advertising: Twitter, Facebook, MySpace)
Rumours and false information provided by different networks (forums, e-mail lists, etc.)
3-Traditional media have been criticized and questioned more than before.
4-Traditional media have been less read, referred to, listened to and used.
The only clear logic, in fact, is the obvious contradiction of these last two points, which require careful research: they are more criticized and less read. This book will address this issue many times.
In the previous pages, we mentioned the emergence of beliefs that are in clear contradiction with the frameworks of today's media world. The proliferation of communication tools and ways has actually forced us to believe without mentioning that we are now in constant contact with news and events. Currently, the world is in constant communication with us and informs us, and the more dangerous belief is that the world speaks to us with all its variations, with all the nuances and interpretations of events.
This system is going on openly and secretly. The spread of new information and communication technologies, which are mostly classical, has changed our relationship with events and the world we live in, and as a result, our relationship with others. This abundance of ways of obtaining information and using them sometimes makes us believe in a kind of increasing independence of our opinions and thinking that is free from the constraints of pressure and oppression of different powers. Powers that intend to impose their views and beliefs on us.