Initiated in 1997 by young financial economists at the start of the experience of consensual alternance government in Morocco and at the end of the reign of Hassan II (1961-1999), Le Journal (LJ) is considered the symbol of the so-called independent press of that time. By finding an influential voice abroad, its weight and visibility goes beyond Morocco's elites. The transformations that still occurred on the editorial line of the weekly French newspaper were considered critical vis-à-vis the ruling power by the audaciousness of its topics and a la-Une coverage (monarchy, governance, human rights), gave rise to different crises in nature (trials, advertising boycott, internal management, etc.) that led to its closure by the authorities in January 2010, under the reign of Mohammed VI after a dense "life" impregnated with positive and negative relations with regime. Instead of proposing only one perspective in the study of LJ, this research hopes to meet the challenge of offering three outlooks that complement each other: by analyzing the external environment of LJ (Part I) by studying its influence (Part II), and finally by investigating its internal environment (Part III). The first part starts with a simple puzzle: how one can we move in social relations from (here between journalists and political) a situation of understanding to a situation of misunderstanding. Based on the concept of misunderstanding (V. Jankélévitch), we will see how well the Journal, first "well-understood," becomes, over time, a "misunderstood” newspaper, by both its supporters as well as its opponents. If the concept of 'understanding' reflects what made the originality and success of LJ as an innovative project, in a historical context marked by political liberalization on the one hand; on the other hand, the misunderstanding was a political misunderstanding which focuses on the different representations journalists and politicians made of "the democratic transition", their divergent assessments of the political situation in Morocco and the role that the press is supposed to play in such contexts. The second part, which is perhaps the originality of this work questions the power of influence of the media (le Journal) through the concepts of Media "competence" (as adaptive to new situations), of the " independent Label "(what it allows in terms of visibility / credibility) and finally "media leadership" of the columnist and the editor of the LJ. And intends to emphasize their interdependence. Finally, the last part concerns the internal life of LJ, builds on the achievements of the sociology of the press, of engagement-disengagement, of loyalty and defection to question what brought journalists to "enter", to "stay" or to "leave" Le Journal. The exit brings us once again to the misunderstanding and leads us to defend the thesis that Le Journal was, against its will, the publicist of the throne. If this research has the ambition to be a "psycho-historical anthropology of political Press," it also calls for a logical-epistemological-methodological liberation.