2023-11-03 20:56:19
EDITED – Through my profession as a journalist and my role as editorial director of France-Soir, I had a plethora of opportunities to meet politicians, journalists, senior civil servants and other alumni of Sciences Po and ENA. In general, everyone is very careerist.
Some are in the noble sense of the term. Because like that of a journalist, a politician is a profession that requires intellectual and human qualities… when practiced with probity. And no doubt this is also the case for some senior civil servants, like Jean Moulin for example, the one and only prefect who did not collaborate between 1940 and 1945.
But the places are good, the remuneration attractive, the arduousness very low, and the advantages of all kinds are numerous, if not pharaonic or… Elysian.
So, somewhere, it is, if not normal, at least logical, that within these three corporations, we are strongly inclined to free ourselves of some of the basic imperatives of ethics and probity, which the honest citizen expects of those who exercise these three professions, of these three corporations which in fact constitute only one, intertwined that are the politics, journalism and senior civil service, and taking into account the fact that many people move from one to the other or are part of all three at the same time…
I know what I mean. Many journalists have violated ethics and the primary imperative of the Munich Charter which requires us to tell the truth “whatever the cost”. Those who prefer the truth that suits them, namely the truth that allows them to keep their position. The fact-checkers have shown their voice with the “infofiction” operations that they now carry out permanently and on all subjects. The lies that they assert peremptorily (without real argument) as being truths so incontestable that anyone who does not agree with them is given the label of conspiracy theorist associated with that of an agent of the extreme right and radicalized anti-Semite (see on this subject my editorial entitled “Chutzpah”).
In short, enough to dissuade the most resistant, encouraging them to fall into line or, rather, not to leave it.
And that is the problem. Because during the health crisis, many scientists kept silent so as not to lose their place. The same goes for certain politicians and journalists. However, everyone of course had the means to obtain information. But knowing that they risked being labeled as conspiracy theorists by the mainstream media and fact-checkers, most of them refrained from doing their duty. The cases of renunciation are too numerous, so numerous that to be able to restore even a little dignity to information (or better – let’s dream a little – give it back its letters of nobility), we will have to have a series of trials in public.
And if further on, I told you that I know what I’m talking about, it’s also because I have several people in my close circle who are ready to do anything to keep their place. I’m thinking of two or three in particular. Politician, journalist or senior civil servant? I will let you guess.
The first of these people is determined not to step out of line to avoid making waves. Vaccinated even before the injection was generalized for his age group, because he benefited from preferential treatment, one of his children suffered partial paralysis after his Astra Zeneca vaccination. While no causal link has been put forward, the person nevertheless benefited from an exemption from the second dose. And the side effect was attributed to his contraceptive!
A second acquaintance of mine needed to travel abroad for professional reasons, but was not convinced by vaccination. Never mind, a fake did the trick, but of course, we don’t mention it at dinners, that allows you to keep your place in the group!
However, the most interesting is the third. Another example of being “willing to lie” to keep one’s place: lying about what one really thinks, to as many people as necessary and on many subjects.
However, the concrete and already effective examples of politicians, journalists and senior civil servants who have shown extreme malleability to keep their place or climb the hierarchy, these examples are too numerous.
And I’m not just talking to you about the infamous “couch promotion” (2).
No. I am talking to you mainly about what relates to their functions and which is “notoriously known” as Gérald Darmanin (or Karim Benzema) would say about politicians. Their reversals of position, radical changes in their official opinions on this or that subject, precisely. Their changes of parties and political friends as well, of outfits, hairstyles, weight, etc., in short everything that the Unknowns have perfectly taken up and summarized in The real truth gametheir sketch about politicians, a parody of the almost eponymous TV show The Game of Truth.
But I am also talking to you here about errors and deliberate breaches of ethics and probity, which, unfortunately, here too, are not such isolated cases, quite the contrary.
And this led me to ask myself the following question: how far are some of our “elites” willing to go to keep their places in society, their status, and to achieve their goals by using lies?
Lying or settling with the truth about their feelings, their opinions because people “would not understand” ? Lying about their vaccination status? “You have to live well, and I have the right to medical confidentiality so yes, I ended up telling my friends that I was vaccinated.”
Betray their values or at least those that they say are theirs, and not decoys? “II can’t say what I think, they would think I was crazy.’
Lying about the nature of an injection? Or on its effectiveness? “I had Covid, but as I was vaccinated, protected from a serious form.”
Lying about side effects? “During a weekend with eight people, I was the only one who did not have cancer or a significant health problem.”
Lying about the exact content of a contract concluded with a pharmaceutical laboratory? Lying about the real motivations for financing, in this or that war, one side rather than another? “In my articles, I cannot say what I think, otherwise my papers would not be accepted, so I am obliged to censor myself.”
And how does this translate? By blocking on social networks. Above all, no longer appear “in connection” with a person who could jeopardize their social position:
“You know. I write in mainstream media like L’Express or Lthe EchoesI’m on TV: my contact wouldn’t understand.” Easier to cry with the wolves and socially condemn a person!
And yes ! This has happened to these people who ask me to no longer be associated with France-Soir, because it would cause them a problem with their employer, or their order, or the media in which they write. And this even if these media do not pay them. So, it’s not always just a money problem!
So when they are confronted with their failure to fulfill the journalist’s duty to tell the truth “whatever the cost”, we ask them why lie on this or that subject.
The response is often mind-blowing, such as not having to confront their neighbors who kept saying they wanted to put the unvaccinated in prison. Why not confront with courage and argue factually that we have the right to disagree? That our democracy guarantees us freedom of expression, as well as free and informed consent?
Unfortunately, all these questions make some people deal with their conscience. Cowardice on all levels. And as one lie begets another lie, escalating engagements with lies lead to increasingly distorted human relationships. And a loss of confidence. We no longer know what people really think since they don’t dare to say it or they say what they think we should hear.
From have to anti (truth destroyed), there is only one N. Exactly as, conversely, from N (hate) to M (love) there is only one bridge. A bridge that those who have everything do not hesitate to cross…
So, I don’t know exactly to what extent our elites would respond “oui” to one or more of all of these questions (if not all). On the other hand, I know full well what those who answer in the affirmative, free from any scruple that they are, would add to this:
“Wooden cross, iron cross, if I lie, it’s my business!”
(1) This thought could have come from the mind of Angry Anderson, singer of the Australian hard rock group Rose Tatoo (who can also be seen in the third part of Mad Max) if he spoke French. And above all, if he considered one day pursuing a career as a politician or senior civil servant. In France, in particular!
(2)“Imagine the face of the producer who slept with Sim”, said Coluche to illustrate a certain idea of sofa promotion…
#Tatoo #ready #Tatoo #lose #everything..