No abstract

International audienceNews-making and reporting are caught in a process of rationalisation which can be summarized in the injuction to produce fast, to write short and simple and to value useful news for audiences only interested by practical matters. This paper would firstly suggest that if this new style of journalism has produced interesting innovations, its costs are worthier debating than its contributions. It would then argue that mobilising the competitive advantages of a tradition of investigative and narrative journalism may be a reasonable bet to struggle against the news supplied by blogs, aggregators and short-format news sources. A third part suggests how this apparent "back to basics" involves however significant changes in both the training of journalists and the nature of the medium used for the diffusion of this renewed style of reporting

No abstract

International audienceThe phrase "slow journalism" is (slowly) entering the dictionary of journalism scholars. Le Masurier's contribution in this journal in 2015 was a stimulating invitation to understand how "slowness" could summarise many current changes in journalistic practices, and to remind also that "Journalism is a plural noun." This article firstly questions the polysemy of "slow journalism." Slowness may wrap many layers of meaning. Slow means far from pack reporting, investigative, and more selective in its targets. But slow could as well suggest: narrative, fair (with its sources and readers), participative, community oriented, and finally, giving priority to untold stories. How can researchers deal with such a richness of meanings? The suggestion here would be double. Slow journalism should be considered as a Weberian ideal-type, questioning, not mirroring, the reality of journalism. A "soft" mapping could invite rethinking the space of slow journalisms in three (overlapping) subgroups: explanatory, narrative, and mobilised. But claiming the need for "soft" mapping also means paying attention to fuzziness in journalistic practices

Cet article s'emploie à proposer un survey de la recherche internationale sur les relations médias/mouvements sociaux. Il présente, dans un premier temps, trois des problématiques fondatrices (Gitlin, Champagne, Gamson). Une seconde partie tente de formuler un cadre analytique global qui conduit vers une réflexion en termes de « problèmes publics ». Elle s'arrête pour cela sur la complexité des jeux d'associés-rivaux entre journalistes et groupes mobilisés, sur la nécessité de problématiser le réseau complet des acteurs (police, contre-mouvements, autorités politiques) et des scènes (variété des espaces de référence et types de presse) qui contribuent à structurer la couverture finale des actions protestataires. Une troisième série de développements suggère la nécessité d'investir des terrains de recherche encore insuffisamment explorés : effets de la dépendance accrue des mouvements sociaux envers des médias extérieurs ; évaluation fine et différenciée des contenus et réceptions de modes de couverture qui peuvent aller de la stigmatisation à une vision « comprehensive » et bienveillante.