Nice Premium: Jean Marie Tarragoni, how do you analyze in hindsight what happened to you last Monday?
Jean-Marie Tarragoni: The analysis is quickly done. Those who opened fire on our façade, and possibly their sponsor if there is one, were trying to send a message. Was it about past or upcoming articles? I don’t know. What is certain is that we have disturbed someone enough for them to risk a shootout that could send them to detention for a few years if they were to be caught.
That said, I do not rule out any scenario, not even an act of provocation organized to direct suspicion towards someone. Given the perseverance, the number of impacts, and what I believe was an attempt to also break the windows, there may have been the idea of entering our premises to ransack everything. I do not dismiss any hypothesis.
NP: In your opinion, why were you the target of this shooting?
JMT: When someone shoots at journalists with guns, it’s to prohibit them from reporting. When they target their premises, it’s generally to create a context around the media. It’s a message that addresses everyone. It means that they want to marginalize us, worry us, and discourage us from understanding and publishing.
NP: Have you suffered any other attempts of intimidation lately?
JMT: No. No attempts at intimidation or threats. The Standard has been rather well-received by the population, and the most serious complaint we’ve faced is that its free paper version does not allow regular availability for those who like to read it. But the website is there to be consulted every day and is expanding every week. We are going to upload the 8 issues that have appeared in the archives so readers can make up their own minds about who might be disturbed by our writings.
NP: Nice Matin is also at the center of a big controversy. Do you think it’s more difficult to be a media outlet in Nice compared to Paris, Lyon, or Marseille?
JMT: One thing is certain, there are indeed armed people walking around in Nice! I offered to testify on behalf of Nice-Matin: they provide the guns they bought and we the bullets we received. That’s a joke, of course. The controversy between Prosecutor Montgolfier and the CEO of Nice-Matin, Michel Comboul, is fascinating for media people and lawyers. The general public will less understand the subtleties of the arguments between issuing media info from an investigation on a dangerous subject and its control by the Public Prosecutor.
Nice-Matin admitted they made a mistake by not captioning their photo correctly. It’s a mea culpa that honors them. The prosecutor’s office is rightfully concerned when it checks with the parties involved the reality of an arms trafficking. It is in charge of public safety. Here we touch on the limits of the rights and duties of a journalist and their relationship with society and authorities.
In 1992, I faced a moral dilemma when I had to choose between publishing an extraordinary scoop and the duty to consult with Justice on a case involving trafficking of war weapons. It was during the case of the far-right terrorist network that blew up the Sonacotra home in Cagnes-sur-Mer and a CGT local in Cannes, resulting in a death. I had obtained, thanks to a source close to the terrorists, the list of weapons they held and the names of three members of the commando. Judicial police, intelligence services, the Public Prosecutor, the Prefecture. Everyone was on edge. I chose to share my information. The initially mocking reception I received vexed me somewhat, but it quickly gave way to a wave of panic when it was confirmed that I had more precise information than the Police. I was asked not to reveal anything because a sweep was being prepared. I requested that my contact not be troubled. He had not participated in the events and was showing courage in informing us. I decided not to publish. The affair ended with the arrest of all the perpetrators of the attacks. The press conference that followed provided all details of the investigation. Naturally, the information I held was no longer exclusive, and no one wanted to believe that we had had the elements before the sweep when we published the account of our investigation.
But even today, I have no regrets. There had been a death, and risking the failure of arresting criminals would have been morally intolerable. What is difficult is not being in one city rather than another. It’s the quality of the relationships between journalists and the local or state authorities. The press has its degree of responsibility in these relationships as it often misunderstands the demands of the authority officials’ missions.
NP: What steps do you plan to take in response to this incident?
JMT: We have filed a complaint. The investigation is ongoing. It will necessarily be difficult. We are waiting for the results of what is being undertaken. But now I pay more attention to the safety of my journalists and employees. I am also more vigilant. While knowing that we can’t be on guard all the time and that we do not have to impose any special discipline to work. The Chief of Staff of the Prefect has given instructions to the National Police for our tranquility. We are grateful to him.
NP: “What does not kill me makes me stronger.” Do you agree with Nietzsche’s maxim?
JMT: No. One can remain disabled. I prefer Kipling: “If you can watch the things you gave your life to, broken, and stoop and build them up with worn-out tools; You’ll be a man, my son.” Forgive me, but I need to go fix the windows of my office.
NP: Lastly, what would you say to the people who fired on the window of your newspaper?
JMT: First of all, I hope they were not hurt. Given the ricochets of the projectiles that came back towards what seems to be the shooting position, one might fear it. Next, if this is not a personal act of a bilious ill-tempered individual, and if he or they were on a commissioned mission, I propose that they hand over to the policemen the weapon(s) and the remaining projectiles, and explain why or for whom they did this.
I am ready to offer 50,000 euros from my personal funds for the restitution of the weapon(s) and ammunition and a convincing and detailed testimony about this attack. I imagine that “trafficking” weapons under these conditions will not be disapproved by the Prosecutor. Moreover, I promise that I will not demand damages from the authors if they come forward. They will just face the prospect of collaborating with Justice and receiving a substantial sum once their trial is over.
