When Serge Halimi published Les Nouveaux Chiens de garde in 1997, he described a media system dominated by a small number of influential figures, close to the centers of economic and political power. A few years earlier, Pierre Bourdieu had developed a complementary criticism: according to him, the constraints of competition, audience and speed led the media to favor the same subjects, the same experts and the same ways of seeing the world.
The risk was not only that of dependence on the powerful; it was also that of a progressive homogenization of public debate.
Nearly thirty years later, the landscape has changed profoundly. Continuous news channels, social networks, digital platforms and recommendation algorithms have disrupted information distribution circuits.
A public now active
However, certain intuitions of Halimi and Bourdieu retain astonishing force. The concentration of media ownership continued. The search for attention has become a central constraint. The controversy, emotion and personalization of debates often occupy more space than investigation or analysis.
But another development deserves attention today: audiences are no longer just passive consumers of information. They have a capacity for action which could, under certain conditions, modify the balance of the media system itself.
For a long time, the media economy was mainly based on mass advertising. The audience was sold to advertisers. In this model, the reader or viewer counted more as volume than as actor.
However, the rise of digital subscriptions, crowdfunding and media supported directly by their readers introduces a different logic. When a newspaper depends more on its subscribers than on its advertisers, it becomes more sensitive to the expectations of its audience than to the imperatives of the advertising market.
The opportunity for a rebalancing of powers
This development remains limited, but it opens up a new possibility: that of a rebalancing of power between producers and users of information. Citizen behavior also plays a decisive role in the content hierarchy.
Each click, each share, each comment constitutes a signal which guides the algorithms and influences editorial choices. The media respond to incentives.
If the most divisive, outrageous, or simplistic content is consistently rewarded with public attention, it will continue to thrive. Conversely, if readers favor in-depth investigations, long formats and rigorous analyses, they create the economic conditions for their development.
Responsibility therefore does not lie solely with journalists or media owners. It also concerns the uses we make of information.
A palpable but fragile dynamic
We are already seeing signs of this development. Faced with the saturation caused by the continuous flow of news, some readers seek media that are slower, more specialized or more transparent about their working methods. Others favor the diversity of sources rather than loyalty to a single information channel.
Collective verification procedures, media education initiatives or communities of committed subscribers demonstrate a growing desire to regain control of the information environment.
This dynamic remains fragile. The economic logics that promote the visibility of the most spectacular content remain powerful. Platforms continue to capture a significant portion of available attention.
The fragmentation of audiences can also lead to confinement in separate ideological universes. However, a central question emerges: what if the main counter-power to the “new watchdogs” was no longer just another media, but the collective behavior of citizens themselves?
Pluralism is also a matter of demand
Halimi and Bourdieu showed how media structures shape representations of the world. The contemporary challenge is perhaps to examine the opposite movement: the way in which public practices can, in turn, transform media structures.
In a democracy, information is never just what the media produce. It is also what citizens choose to read, finance, share and promote.
Pluralism is not just a matter of supply. It also depends on demand. And this is perhaps where we find today one of the most concrete possibilities for renewing public debate.
About opinions
This text is signed by a guest author. He expresses his opinion and not that of the editorial staff. Our Live section aims to allow the expression of pluralism on religious, social and current affairs subjects, and to encourage dialogue, according to the criteria set by our editorial charter.
Share your opinion in comments or by writing to us at: readers.lacroix@groupebayard.com
