The 24th France-Africa summit in Cannes provided an opportunity for major journalist organizations to remind us of the threats to press freedom worldwide. In foreign dictatorships, as we must reiterate, daring journalists face repression and imprisonment—not to mention death, which awaits them from Russia to Lebanon at the end of their unsettling investigations. Thankfully, France is out of reach of these dangers; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult not to worry about more insidious forms of restrictions on the journalism profession. The recent lawsuit against Charlie Hebdo regarding the “Danish cartoons” has significantly shown a weakening of this freedom. Moreover, when this risk occurs without foreign influence, strictly within the French domain, we must strongly react.
Beyond surprise, the removal of journalist Alain Duhamel from France 2 and RTL’s election broadcasts raises legitimate questions. What could be criticized about this recognized political debate expert? For having spoken at a university? In these venues, protected from thought crimes—at least in theory—could it no longer be conceivable to express a political opinion, to clarify a commitment or a conviction? The long experience of this professional—at his age, these are not his first elections, and he must have voted more than once!—shouldn’t this provide the guarantees of impartiality rightfully demanded by the press organizations that employ him?
His temporary dismissal—which paradoxically includes less-publicized presenters of TV news programs—unfortunately reflects the trend imposed in recent years towards the sanitization of political exchanges. A product of “political correctness” or the lethargic state of a blocked society, the fact remains that expressing a conviction—although the term is in vogue among some presidential candidates—becomes a form of faux pas, a relic of an outdated education whose expression should be banned. Yet, a presidential election is a significant moment in a nation. Direct and universal suffrage demands it. It should provide, like those held about Europe at the time of the referendum, an opportunity for multiple and unconstrained debates to define major societal choices. Instead, we are confined to coached, cast, meticulously and expertly crafted broadcasts. The organization of electoral broadcasts on television often gives a dull sense of heaviness, a restrained tone easily explained by audiovisual experts as due to the complexity of handling the image, capable in its effects of producing both the best and the worst. In short, if there were ever a time to give the floor to the “Duhamels” of all kinds, it would be now. Democracy, as Condorcet explained, is a contradictory debate… before the vote.
Meanwhile, self-censorship for fear of possible reprisals will soon be enough to deter colleagues from asking the uncomfortable question. Exaggerated remarks? Are they really when 60% of the French doubt the independence of journalists as revealed by a recent survey on mistrust towards the media conducted by La Croix-TNS-Sofres. But are journalists really to blame? Far from incriminating press officials, does this survey not rather highlight the discrepancies in the treatment of information by structures rather than by the people who participate in them?
In front of the television—and for good reason!—, it is the radios and the print press that retain the most trust among our countrymen. And the Internet significantly increases its credibility by 6% since last year. A logical phenomenon: in the audiovisual media, the paranoid organization responsible for the program’s broadcast establishes a third-party mediator, a more or less involuntary filter of information. Atrophied by the technical rules of the small screen, the information flow frees itself on the web through the direct and informal link with the internet user. The omnipotence of the image thus reveals the extent of its weaknesses.
