This representation is purely ideological

"Media world, politico-médiatique jar, media figure, media application": amount of common expressions, to the markets of the cliché, suggest that "the media" exist as a specific entity. Indeed, they are often mentioned in speeches critical for vitupérer a dominant thought that they would be vectors. Thus, many social and economic actors fulminent against "media": "media are responsible," complains often. This representation is purely ideological. The media are responsible for nothing, because only a conscious subject itself can be said "responsible". This way of speaking which quickly becomes a way of thinking is not uncommon. Abuse also about the "responsible" company all harm, or the market that now means "thinking", "anticipates" or "sanction".

At the same time, the term "media" is explained by an underground resentment: women and men have the feeling that the presence in the media is a kind of advent which is the existence of an idea, a movement or a person. The struggle for recognition left Hegelian field for media battlefield. Of course, that defends a cause, postulated by universal suffrage, or published a book, needs the media echo. Censorship is no longer the work of a censor, but the monster created by the coalition of countless actors that would produce this aberration: the media have decided to not talk about. The argument is not recent. He was always one of the cursed poets and unsung geniuses.

The use of the term "media" is doubly objectionable. In the first place because the plural himself expresses their multiplicity both quantitative and qualitative: the press is not radio, which is not television, which is not Internet, etc. Secondly, this kind of animism to give life and consciousness to a specific activity type ignores personal responsibility to each actor in the media field. Somehow, the term "media" allows each exemption from liability.

Some examples of recent news can be significant. They are a contemporary paradox: often the media, in their dispersal, agreed, implicitly, that the expression "media", in its entirety unifying, is valid! Thus, several written and audiovisual media are Ségolène Royal to the one or the "20 hours", while reserving a few even scathing critical comments on his "media application. A read or hear them, it is very well known if "we" or "cause of us". It cannot be faulted for a politician to succeed and increase his notoriety. Journalists are free citizens and officials. The media are there for nothing if the ideas are either apparent or explicit. Each has beautiful game to mock such improvement of the face, the practice of blog and shrewdly chosen or cancelled meetings. Surveys are commissioned and funded by the media themselves. The psittacisme concerned with people and not an abstract entity.

The matter of the book of Battisti, prefaced by BHL and Fred Vargas, is also significant. If, as a journalist or pattern of writing, I consider that this is a media operation, just shut up for not maintaining the sought controversy. Or "Le Figaro" dated April 20 published an editorial highly critical media operation, over a page in the literary book but primarily a very large photo first, of Battisti himself. His photo is eight times more than those of Sarkozy and Royal on the same. Battisti, BHL and Vargas had good laugh... Their goal was achieved: the criticism of the media operation is the promotion! In this case, could not be faulted or the Publisher to the author or who their tactical intelligence. Or the media, suddenly globalized, this advertising. In each case, it is the responsibility of an editor, of a pattern that engage in this pseudo "world media."

Conversely, on other occasions, the same are capable of courage and consistency. Recall of the "Parisian" to an obscene show of Patrick Sébastien: the newspaper chose to publish a blank insert at the time of the program. "The media" not wander or not fautent permanently. They are populated of men and women who sometimes commit errors and other times, are notable articles. When, in 1990, "The chained duck" published on the first page, a letter of thanks sent by Jean-Marie Le Pen to Henry Racamier to thank him for his donations to the Front national and discredit him to the Court of appeal which will give power to Bernard Arnault in LVMH , "The duck chained" unwise but abused by this false, recognizesand even too late, his fault. But it is not "the media" conspiring. And "media" are sometimes the subject of a high-level and negative speech, that, in singular cases, responsibility was neither recognized nor assumed (case Baudis, for example).

It is significant, but also fun to note that some media are equipped with a mediator, that responds to critical readers about such and such treatment information. This amazing name, Ombudsman reminds us that mediation is perhaps a to that we too easily call the hype. Media is first named as such because it in a mediation process. Its role is of a smuggler who transmits the information or offers light or serious content.

A final example is perhaps more to the popularity of the expression "the media". Each found that, during the crisis of the CPE, the threat of avian flu seemed to have disappeared. Breeders can thank Villepin. Information hunting the other. The first plan becomes umpteenth plan, according to the news. I remember that Claude Allègre had earned a year in the Jospin Government, because the war in Kosovo had suddenly overshadowed the manifestations of the teachers. In these cases, it may have the feeling that a panurgique movement is common "to the media", as about Ségolène Royal. Indeed, competition and research of hearing or sales constrain those who are in a same market actors. Mediation is also mediation of noise and its volume.

Abandon therefore any speech on "the media". The mediators are journalists, editors and patterns of press is in will be that more responsible.