EDITORIAL — When attacked, L’Express strikes back. It is through a murderous article, which is intended as a response to the publication of the interview with Idriss Aberkane, that the newspaper attacks (again) FranceSoir. Under the responsibility of the director of publication, Alix L’Hospital signs a paper which accuses FranceSoir of not having ” constantly demonstrated his conspiratorial turn “. Still. But also, of make the apology “of what he calls” intellectual terrorism », the « simply reads terrorism. The worst thing is that FranceSoir would have allowed itself this by relying on the Munich Charter. Damn!
See also: ExpressGate: Idriss Aberkane’s interview with the Express exclusively on FranceSoir
Mass has been said. But, should we say “Amen” ? Does L’Express sign gospel words? To believe the tone used by Alix L’Hospital, his assertions are authentic. No one seems admissible to challenge its content, nor to be offended by the strong whiff of ranting, of inquisitorial accusatory inversion that emanates from it. Whatever the legitimacy, whatever the arguments, whatever the degree of observable manipulation, social engineering of which state propaganda is the main lever, the media prefers to be under orders.
And this cowardice pushes to publish “fake news” on FranceSoir, to decry our work without any verification. Does the Munich Charter allow you to?
« FranceSoir has never ceased to demonstrate its conspiratorial turn », you say, and with the peremptory argument of taxing FranceSoir with « plotter “. The nature of a plotter » being to be a free-thinker who, with a head start, delivers a truth which denounces the erroneous or fallacious character of an affirmation advanced by state propaganda as being « the » truth…thanks for the compliment!
In this regard, since Alix L’Hospital only cites Rudy Reichstadt as an argument of authority, I refer you to the words of François Belliot in the interview he gave to FranceSoir. The arguments he supported there demonstrate with relevance and clarity the manifest falsity of Rudy Reichstadt’s assertions, particularly with regard to the term ” conspiracy “. Because, rather than repeating the chiseled prose of a leading authority in the field, it is better to refer to the original version. Moreover, I invited François Belliot to react to this article from L’Express. I will get back to you on this. Why ?
Because in fact, in this article, L’Express makes no effort to demonstrate that the factual elements that FranceSoir puts forward as justification for its position are unfounded, and that ” so » the position of FranceSoir is not good. No. L’Express is content to say it is fallacious, with the sole justification that Rudy Reichstadt says so. This culminates in Rudy Reichstadt’s hateful charge against the famous Munich Charter:
« The Munich Charter is a sufficiently general text to be able to lend itself to this kind of fallacious use. Not to mention that the Munich Charter was written more than fifty years ago, in a very different context from that with which journalists must now deal: the advent of digital, social networks and mass disinformation. In the era of post-truth, it therefore becomes easy to denounce a breach of the first duty of “respect for the truth”, even though everyone no longer agrees on the very notion of “truth”. »
Without fear, L’Express attacks the Munich Charter by implying that it is an outdated document. And it is we who are not journalists… Another madness.
« In the era of social networks, information professionals and non-journalists alike use the same tools for work (everyone can film a demonstration with a smartphone) and for expression (everyone can publish a tweet). “This new deal has reinforced a confusion of roles, and this impression for the non-journalist of knowing better than the journalist himself what is journalistic ethics”, explains the historian Alexis Lévrier. »
Devil ! Digital technology changes absolutely nothing in the duty to respect the truth: whatever the support of the thought, this duty is the same.
Ditto, of course, for the very notion of truth: it too is intangible whatever the medium of thought. Due to the fact that L’Express never takes the time to contact us, with a view to respecting the Munich Charter, we asked ourselves the question: “And if FranceSoir did not exist”?
Beyond condescension, L’Express suggests that only journalists dubbed by the system are authorized to inform the public. We no longer look at the competence of the messenger, or the content of the subject, but only the form: that imposed by the media-political system.
And L’Express does not stop there in its attack on the Munich Charter. At the very end of the article it says this:
« At a time of an unprecedented rise in conspiracy, Rudy Reichstadt goes even further, by considering supplementing the duties and rights of journalists set out in the Munich Charter to incorporate the new concerns facing the profession. »
Let’s go good! When you don’t like the rules of the game, why not change them?
Regarding the alternative to the single thought, which FranceSoir claims, L’Express adds this:
« An even worse alternative, according to the Society journalist, because it accentuates all the flaws of modern journalism, relying exclusively on opinion and raw testimony. »
In short, all the facts reported by FranceSoir, or other non-media experts like Professor Perronne, are no longer facts but opinions. However, whether it is L’Express, FranceSoir, such other media or such person, it does not matter: a fact is not an opinion.
Finally, with regard to the assertion which consists in maintaining that ” Blaming (the mainstream press) for violating the Munich Charter is a technique that betrays a kind of schizophrenia, a relationship of fascination and hatred towards the mainstream media is the usual technique of the censor who has no argument to oppose. As a good trend follower, L’Express psychiatrizes those who do not believe in the official word of the mainstream media.
Read also: The momentum of information and the making of “dance time”
Having already dismantled this artifice in my editorial “Antis and Haves”, I refer you to it by way of conclusion.