<Michael McIntyre>-----
> (3) Bourdieu argued, rightly I think, that television only works for "fast thinkers" who do nothing more that cast a banal intellectual gloss over the affair as they instantiate the accepted verities? I didn't see the Chomsky/Bennett exchange, but I did tune in around 8:20 when I thought it would be occurring. Look at the mawkish sentimentality that preceded the exchange. How can you successfully follow that with a message that requires people to rethink fundamental assumptions about their world, in a way that is bound to be disturbing.
critics of bourdieu say he never really managed to understand television. of course he is dead now so it must be easier to say. the book he wrote after a lengthy tv interview where he imposed strict criteria on the media and all that followed (articles in le monde diplomatique etc) show that he had an extremely defensive stance on the issue. obviously his world (academia where you are valued only after you have produced so many thousand pages) and the visual media promote totally different visions of the world.
so what do you think ? that chomsky ought not to be on tv because his message is longer than the longer half of a three minute interview ? what do you consider a success ? an overflow of cnn's mail server asking for references about chomsky's works ? how many million people never heard the name of the man in the us ? how many never heard of the fact that this man has published such a book that sells better than the book the other one sells ?
thinking definitely takes more time than a three mn interview, but finding directions actually takes much less.
jc helary