WARNING
WARNING
WARNING
THIS FILM BEGINS
WITH AN OLD
BLACK-AND-WHITE
TV PICTURE
I don't often confess,
but I must admit
that until recently,
I'd never read Paul Nizan.
Nizan was an angry young man,
raging against all the injuries
that the world inflicted then, and now.
He's angry with the philosophers
he heard lecturing at the Sorbonne,
talking about Man with a capital "M"
but never about men with a small "m",
men starving to death
or murdered in wars
or beaten up in police stations
all over the world.
He's angry with the liberal
bourgeois writers of his time
whose names we all know,
great writers who spend so much time
contemplating
every nook and cranny of their souls
that the y're always 20 years too old
to tell the young who ask the m
when to act, and how.
Paul Nizan is a wake-up call.
That's why you should read him.
You may say,
"Why introduce us
to such a rude young man?"
His rudeness is why you should read him.
We don't lack polite writers.
What we lack, and need, are rude ones.
This plea for a writer
raging against the establishment
was broadcast in prime time
on one of France's two TV channels.
In the 1960s,
government control over the TV news
was not always very subtle.
The information Minister
felt free to invite himself on air
to unveil his revamped news program.
We've invited Minister Alain Peyrefitte
to present the new format
that he has commissioned.
Minister, would you like
to explain to our viewers
why you ordered
the se changes
to the news program?
First, because all recipes grow stale.
Unless we change, we become boring.
For example,
the idea of illustrating
the Council of Ministers' meeting
with scenes of their cars
arriving at the Elyse Palace
was new at first,
but after ten years of repetition,
the festival of car doors
opening and closing
has grown a little tedious.
For the journalists of today,
the se scenes from April 1963
epitomize a dark age,
the prehistory of their profession.
Happily, most of them agree
things are very different now.
I've been in TV since 1972.
I've seen a censorship
that went unsaid,
I've seen self-censorship
that went unsaid,
and I've seen the gradual rise,
under President Mitterrand,
mostly during the power-sharing period,
of a total freedom
that's never been revoked.
The Government
had to open up or lose its credibility.
In the old days,
Alain Peyrefitte had a direct line
to every office
in the public broadcasting HQ.
That's all history.
We've come a long way, no question!
"We've come a long way."
Since then, TV has burst into color.
There are many more channels.
For most journalists,
news reporting today
rests on three pillars:
Independence,
Objectivity and Pluralism,
which safeguard
the media's democratic role.
So?
Should we, like Paul Nizan,
rage against the "watchdogs",
the se journalists,
press pundits and media stars
who, like the writers of the 1930s,
bow down to the powers that be?
Of course not.
All that has changed.
THE NEW WATCHDOGS
So we have taken steps to ensure
that the French TV news
accurately mirrors
every highway and byway
of France and the world.
What a classic!
It's extraordinary to see
the Information Minister
telling the public,
"These are the steps that we,
the Government, have taken
to improve the TV news."
It seems long ago?
It seems antiquated...
or Soviet.
Antiquated or Soviet?
Anne Sinclair and Christine Ockrent,
two celebrity news anchors,
agree that their profession
has moved on.
The guests are unanimous.
These days, journalists
have no ties with politicians.
They do their job,
free of any outside influence.
We tested this the ory
at the National Assembly,
at the 2009 Political Book Prize
ceremony,
a rare occasion
when top journalists agree
to mix with politicians.
Don't be surprised
to see the former Head of News
of France's key public TV channel
kissing an ex-interior Minister
convicted of breach of trust.
It's all an act.
Behind the se social smiles and kisses,
the newshounds are ready to pounce.
The Fourth Estate
knows that independence
is a daily struggle.
Today's journalists take no prisoners.
Raphalle Bacqu,
the prizewinner for her book
on recent prime ministers,
doesn't mince words.
I know no other country
where you could find
twelve such eminent politicians
so skilled at analyzing and explaining
what power is about.
France can rest easy.
It's still the great country of politics.
Used to parrying such deadly blows,
the Speaker of the National Assembly
has the perfect riposte.
...how much
we appreciate
the intelligence
and judgment
of the se great writers and voices
of French political journalism.
The Speaker knows
he's not among friends.
Take Laurent Joffrin,
ex-chief editor
of an opposition newspaper
that prides itself
on keeping politicians
at arm's length.
IF YOU SAY "TU"
TO THE PRESIDENT,
ARE YOU CLOSER
TO INFORMATION
OR CLOSER TO POWER?
Saying "tu" means you're too friendly.
People call their workmates "tu".
As working journalists, we say "tu"
to many people who aren't our friends.
Talking to the French President
is a different matter.
There has to be
a respectable distance.
Sincere belief or sales pitch?
A few years ago,
Laurent Joffrin said...
I say "tu" to Sarko,
like he does to everybody.
So what?
It doesn't stop me bawling him out...
NEWS IS A BATTLE
When it comes to bawling out Sarkozy,
Laurent Joffrin knows his stuff.
About economic policy...
France's economy
is performing somewhat better
than its neighbors.
It would be unfair
to deny the Government credit for it.
Given the se good results,
my question is...
My week is starting well!
I'm here to help.
What comes next?
Wait for it.
After what you just said...
Get it off your chest!
Honestly...
We respect the facts,
even if they favor you.
Does it hurt, Doctor?
The director of Libration
has needled French presidents for years
with his no-nonsense,
almost impudent style.
Monsieur Chirac,
my question may offend you,
but presidential candidates
have to face tough questions.
Absolutely.
A storm of debate
has been raised
by a newspaper article
concerning an apartment
that you or your family
rents in central Paris...
- I do.
- You do?
You've been criticized
for benefiting, in a way,
from a disproportionately
low rent
considering the amenities
and nature of the apartment.
You have said
it's all legal and above board
and nobody has doubted your word,
but isn't it awkward, image-wise?
You risk being regarded as someone
who benefits, in all honesty,
as everyone agrees...
who benefits, as others do too,
from privileges
that ordinary citizens don't have,
since you seem to pay
a very low rent for that apartment.
Your question
doesn't shock me at all.
One minute and two seconds
to ask a question.
Chirac is on the ropes.
NEWS IS A BATTLE
I always admire and feel grateful...
We thank you,
ladies and gentlemen
of the political press
who substantially shape
our compatriots' opinions.
To all of you,
I extend my deepest thanks.
You play a clear role
in keeping our democracy alive.
These people aren't freelance
or part-time journalists.
They're the stars of the trade.
They shape the news
and the political and economic debate
in France.
If you look at the se celebrities,
you see the y're very similar
to politicians and business leaders.
They have many social traits in common.
They share the same social background.
Looking at famous French journalists,
you see very few
from working-class or rural families.
You find plenty of doctors' children,
diplomats' and industrialists' children.
Coming from similar backgrounds,
the y're familiar with each other.
They've also had the same education.
We think most journalists
went to journalism school,
but Ockrent, Pujadas and Elkabbach,
for example,
all graduated from Sciences Po.
Claire Chazal and Emmanuel Chain
are HEC alumni.
So the se star journalists
aren't ordinary reporters.
They're tight with
the people they interview.
When it comes down to it,
the y're all from the same world.
They're like one big family.
Some went into politics,
some into business,
some into journalism.
That's the feeling you get.
They share the same lifestyle,
the same values, the same friendships.
They stay at the same hotels,
they vacation in the same places.
It really is a family.
"I'll roar and claw
to defend my husband"
This closeness
is so real
that it sometimes turns to passion.
Overt love affairs,
displayed and sold in glossy magazines.
Where else but in France,
the homeland of love?
AUDREY AND ARNAUD
IN LOVE FOR ALL TO SEE
OCKRENT "I'M COMING BACK"
Christine Ockrent
went one step further.
In 2008, when her husband
was Foreign Minister,
she was appointed deputy chief
of foreign broadcasting
by the French President himself.
France Monde,
France's new world broadcasting service,
will oversee
newborn TV channel France 24,
French-speaking TV 5 Monde,
and Radio France Internationale.
Alain de Pouzilhac will head the group,
seconded by Christine Ockrent.
M. Pouzilhac
is a presidential appointee,
as is his deputy, Christine Ockrent.
40 years after Peyrefitte,
the freedom of the press
has made great strides.
The Minister no longer needs
to hype his government's policy on TV.
His wife does it for him every day.
It seems antiquated...
or Soviet.
In my opinion, Claire Chazal,
money and politics
should be kept separate.
Neither should control the other,
especially if the money
also owns big media companies.
This news program made history.
For the first time
since it was privatized,
a party leader challenged
TF1's independence, live on air.
Not because its journalists
were in league with politicians
but because France's top TV channel
was funded by big business.
Believe me,
the country is in trouble
when very big financial
and industrial interests
are combined with
very big media interests
and also have very close links
with the Government.
Attacked by a parliamentarian
who voted to privatize TF1 in 1987,
Claire Chazal fights back.
The channel's star anchor
won't let anyone
slander her employer,
the Bouygues Group.
And she's not the only journalist
to be employed by a conglomerate.
Here's an example,
this time from public TV.
Tonight there's a meeting
of two big media stars.
One is a famous variety show host,
the other a former news anchor.
Michel Drucker,
past and future employee
of the Lagardere Group,
plays host to Jean-Pierre Elkabbach,
past and present employee
of the same Group.
And who is their guest?
Arnaud Lagardere, their boss.
Arnaud, thanks a million.
We rarely see you.
You keep a low profile.
You usually avoid the limelight.
You're here for Jean-Pierre,
whom you've known
since he advised your father.
But first, a word about the Group.
Lagardere is one of the world's biggest
media and hi-tech conglomerates.
Our viewers have no idea how deeply
it penetrates their daily lives.
Books, magazines, radio stations,
airplanes...
- Careful, the y'll quote you.
- Am I far off?
Not far off, but keep it quiet.
Above all, the Group
is a fantastic human adventure
involving 250,000 people
all around the world.
Arnaud Lagardere is right
to correct Michel Drucker.
The Group he heads
is a fantastic human adventure,
not an all-invading monopoly.
To prove it, we will show
that it's perfectly possible
to spend a day
without the Lagardere Group.
Let's take an average Frenchman,
Monsieur Lambert.
He wakes up to Europe 1,
Lagardere's flagship radio station.
But equally well, he can listen
to Radio Classique, owned by LVMH.
Going to work, he can buy a paper
from one of Lagardere's 1,000 outlets...
or pick up a free sheet
published by the Bollor Group.
At the office,
his workmates
can browse a Lagardere website
or a Lagardere magazine...
but Lambert can read
the Dassault Group's newspaper.
On his way home,
Lambert can buy one of
Lagardere's 20 magazines...
or one owned by the PPR Group.
Back home, Lambert can surf
Lagardere's eight TV channels...
or watch the evening news
on Bouygues-owned TF1.
In my opinion,
money and politics
should be kept separate.
A day without Arnaud Lagardere
comes at the price
of consorting with
a similar bunch
of big business
bosses,
all with big media holdings...
and all jockeying
for government contracts.
Selling information
gives them two things:
Political clout
and money.
France is unusual in having
large media corporations
that live off
government contracts.
"Bricks and Bullets",
Bouygues and Lagardere.
This is clearly an unhealthy situation
for the media
but very profitable for the companies.
The political leverage it gives the m
is deeply corrupting.
Martin Bouygues,
France's 17th richest man
The concentration
and financialization of the media
has a big impact.
Obviously,
economics can't explain everything
but no explanation
is complete without it.
We can't understand
the impoverishment of information
if we ignore
the relentless drive to cut costs
much more savagely
than the printed press,
especially the national dailies,
which are happy
to clear just enough profit
to invest moderately
and pay their workers' wages.
The profit-hunters
aim to make
the media as profitable
as any cutting-edge
economic sector.
Claire Chazal,
I am not criticizing Nicolas Sarkozy
for his closeness
to some very powerful
business leaders.
He makes no secret of it.
He even flaunts it in the papers,
as you know.
Bayrou had good reason to begrudge
the se tycoons' friendship
with his rival
presidential candidate, Sarkozy.
On May 6th 2007, no less than four
of the se media magnates
gathered at Fouquet's restaurant
to toast the new president's victory.
The well-publicized familiarity
between our dear President Sarkozy
and the media barons is troublesome.
It is plainly, deeply corrupting.
But when we probe
beyond the friendships,
the yacht parties and backslapping,
we see that the backslapping
is based primarily
on a shared set of values
and political beliefs.
Because they agree
on the society they want to construct
and the economic interests they support,
the se friendships
can be quite effective.
The interests of the people
who really run this country
reach far beyond the person
of Sarkozy himself.
Sarkozy is there because today,
he seems to be the best guardian
of their financial
and ideological interests.
But if, for any reason,
he becomes a liability tomorrow,
the y'll back another horse
without blinking.
They have plenty of runners
to choose from.
On the right wing, naturally,
but also on the left.
A word about your neighbor,
Jean-Pierre,
your father's former adviser.
Do you listen to him every morning?
- Sometimes I even see him.
- You drop in?
It's a show in itself.
He drops in around 7:45
and we have a chat...
...we have a chat...
...we have a chat...
The viewers of Drucker's show
believe every word.
When the boss of a conglomerate
employing 250,000 people
drops in at the radio station he owns,
it's to have a chat.
Certainly not to give orders.
Elkabbach and Drucker assert
that for their employers,
the freedom of the press
is sacred.
And not only freedom.
He has other qualities.
I'm not saying it to flatter you.
I saw you metamorphose
into a great European manager.
It's amazing. Once or twice,
I've watched him negotiate.
Can I say this?
He's so focused and so still,
you wonder if he's there.
He bides his time.
All of a sudden, he strikes.
He grabs the strategic initiative.
He can even surprise you
by switching strategies.
Negotiators beware!
Don't tell!
It's a good thing I came.
It's good that he drops in...
it's a good thing he came.
It takes great journalistic skill
to praise a boss so fulsomely.
He grabs the strategic initiative.
He can even surprise you
by switching strategies.
WORKING DOGS
Lie!
Sit!
Stand!
Journalists
have two ways of not contesting
the power
that media owners exert on them.
They can simply deny it,
as Elkabbach and many others do,
or they can say it's natural
for this power to exert itself.
Back to our two famous editorial writers.
What's their take on the subject?
Do you feel
the Lagardere media
are under orders,
in thrall to business interests
and arms dealers?
No.
It varies for each magazine,
each part
of the Lagardere empire.
There's always
a nebulous power.
Some people are so powerful
that they don't need to speak
but they do set guidelines,
obviously.
If you start up a newspaper,
you don't hand over control
to a hand-picked
team of journalists.
It makes sense
that the owner sets guidelines.
Have you ever been
censored?
Has Robert Hersant
ever phoned you
before you went to press
and say "Scrap that article"
or "Change that headline"?
It happens on every newspaper.
It seems very natural to me.
I think every owner
has rights over his paper.
In a way,
he's the one with the power.
My power, pardon the expression,
is one big joke.
Let's call it responsibility, then.
Real power exists.
It's the enduring power of capital.
That's real power.
Power naturally exerts itself.
So power naturally exerts itself.
But how, in practice?
Back to the TF1 news,
France's most watched
news program.
The country's in trouble.
Harsh words!
Can you give
any practical examples?
She's right.
Let's take a practical example.
Not just any example.
An important issue
involving public safety
and France's future.
How to Handle Boozefests?
Should Boozefests be Banned?
Nothing quite so serious!
Let's take the safety
of nuclear power plants.
On May 27th 2008,
an AFP wire story
reported that "serious faults"
had prompted
the Nuclear Safety Authority
to halt the pouring of concrete
at the Flamanville reactor site.
Various media
picked up the story during the day.
Work on the nuclear plant is on hold.
Faults have been found
in the concrete reinforcing rods.
The wire story reported that
the grading work and pouring of concrete
were contracted to the Bouygues Group.
Let's see how TF1,
owned by Martin Bouygues,
reported the event that evening.
Good evening.
Our top stories today:
President Sarkozy visits Rungis market
to greet "France's early risers
who want to make a decent living."
This evening,
TF1's seven million viewers
are told nothing
about the nuclear site.
Let's try tomorrow.
Today's top stories...
Still nothing.
Let's watch Claire Chazal.
Good evening.
The headlines today:
The floods continue...
Not a word from Claire Chazal
about her employer's trouble.
In recent years, the nuclear sector
has been a key business area
for the Bouygues Group.
Real power exists.
It's the enduring power of capital.
That's real power.
Power naturally exerts itself.
Power naturally exerts itself.
Naturally, therefore,
there's a place in Paris
where the media stars dine once a month
with the political and financial elite.
Le Siecle is a private club
which picks its members
from among the French elite.
Business leaders,
top civil servants,
journalists,
intellectuals, politicians
all follow the golden rule:
Never breathe a word outside
about what's said in here.
Free from prying eyes and oversight,
the media stars
learn the manners of power
and hear what's on its mind.
Former government minister
Crdit Agricole board member
Editorial writer for Le Figaro, etc.
MP and former minister
Head of Calyon bank
Speaker of the National Assembly
Le Monde board member
Vice-Chairman of Arte TV
Former government minister
Lurking documentary filmmaker
All the se clubs
are a motley crew of journalists,
pseudo-intellectuals,
semi-economists,
real economists,
top civil servants, politicians,
and business leaders, naturally.
The whole bunch
are as thick as thieves.
Vice-President
of the French Banks Association, etc.
Government minister
Adviser to the Mayor of Paris
Chair of PPR Supervisory Board
Board member of Gucci, TF1, YSL...
Le Point, Bouygues, Air France, etc.
Joining this kind of club
and belonging to it
involves... how can I put it?
Forfeiting freedom of speech
and critical judgment
in order to fit the norm,
adapt, adjust,
and censor yourself.
Very soon, you don't need to be told.
You know what you can and can't say,
the questions you can and can't ask.
Joining the Siecle
means that you fit in
with the French ruling class.
As a member, you have to
respect its interests, at least,
and not interfere with
its political and economic agenda.
Thanks, boss!
It's such fun to work for you
We're as happy as larks
Thanks, boss!
For what you do here on earth,
One day God will reward you.
The media dislike the business world.
Your audience, the general public,
aren't curious about business.
They have no taste for it.
It's also because
businesspeople keep quiet.
It's a struggle to get the m
to participate in debates
on this program, for example.
We're happy to have you!
Maybe you'll persuade others
to follow suit.
You're right, there's a fear...
For some prominent journalists,
frequenting business leaders
fosters a love of business
that is more than quietly platonic.
It jingles like gold.
As we all know, we live
in a globalized world, of which
we'll see a spectacular example tonight.
As you probably know, Microsoft...
When journalists use their reputation
to plug a product or a company
for financial reward,
it's called "double-dipping".
Conflict of interest is an obvious risk
and journalism's Code of Ethics
sternly reproves double-dipping.
But pick up the phone
and you'll find plenty who do it.
There's one for every purse.
Let's assume that Monsieur Lambert
manages a company called KTP Finance.
He phones up a specialized agency
to hire a well-known journalist.
...to celebrate their sales figures.
I'd like to hire
a journalist guest speaker.
Let's see what would happen.
Somebody high-end.
We've got a decent budget
but I want good value.
What sort of budget?
We're thinking about 15,000 euros.
That's a good budget.
We work with lots of journalists
at lots of different prices.
Whom did you have in mind?
Ideally, Patrick Poivre d'Arvor
or Christine Ockrent.
She doesn't do it any more.
She got told off.
She did but she stopped?
She got caught, you might say.
Guillaume Durand does it.
How much?
17,000 or 18,000.
- And Poivre d'Arvor?
- He's more like 25,000.
But Pujadas, Durand etc.
They're possible?
Not Pujadas.
Basically, forget about news anchors.
They're too exposed.
Exposed to what?
Getting paid serious money
to appear at a corporate function
is something they keep quiet about.
Is it?
It's hypocritical.
All journalists do it,
or let's say half of them.
But their management disapproves
if they use the celebrity
the y've gained on the job
to make money elsewhere...
I don't suppose you have a list
of journalists to choose from?
A what?
A list to choose from.
No! It would be too long,
and besides...
Monsieur Lambert keeps trying.
Soon he has the list he wants.
He is deluged with the CVs
of journalists willing to double-dip.
Full CVs, including their fees
and the names of satisfied companies.
From among the flood of candidates,
Lambert makes his choice.
Fortunately, he can afford her.
But does a champion of consumer rights
on France Inter radio
know how to boost
the corporate culture
of his workforce?
The reply comes quickly.
Isabelle Giordano isn't hidebound.
She's a true pro.
So pro, in fact,
that she happily double-dips
for a consumer credit company
and invites
its Chief Communications Officer
to speak on her consumer
protection show on public radio.
The Difference Is Independence.
The Difference Is Vigilance.
Paul Nizan The Watchdogs
"Bourgeois thought
always says to the people,
"Take my word for it.
Whatever I tell you is true.
"All the thinkers I nourish
have labored for you.
"You cannot re-study
all the problems they resolved
"or retrace the same paths,
"but you can accept the findings
of the se pure and selfless people,
"the se men who bear
the stamp of greatness
"and hold aloft from the common folk
for whom they labor
the keys to truth and justice."
Most television viewers
would like the news to be presented
not always by the same reader,
but by experts in the relevant field:
nternational, economic,
social, legal, or parliamentary.
In future, the news presenter
will act as a kind of ringmaster,
standing back to make way,
either for pictures
or for specialists on the topic.
I hope and believe
that all honest TV viewers,
that is almost all,
will agree that this new format,
involving less commentary
and letting the pictures,
the facts, and arguments
speak for the mselves,
will be a step towards objectivity
and depoliticization.
OBJECTMTY
The information Minister's dream
came true.
The specialist, vouching for unbiased
and depoliticized news,
is now a permanent guest
in the TV studio,
radio newsroom,
and newspaper columns.
They call him the "expert".
Economist, sociologist,
political scientist or intellectual,
his academic credentials
give his words the gloss of science.
But the clique of experts is small,
scarcely 30 in all the media combined.
They zigzag from show to show,
relaying each other,
answering the questions
that the host thinks we should ask.
With us tonight
is an expert French economist.
Alain Minc, you wrote a book...
What about 2008, Christian?
First, it's interesting...
We've lost touch
with the young and the over-50s.
Monsieur Lorenzi.
It's as clear as daylight.
Jean-Herv Lorenzi.
I'm amazed we can't agree.
Nicolas Baverez,
I'd like to ask you first.
Nicolas Baverez,
historian and economist,
Jacques Attali,
President of Planete Finance.
Jacques Attali, it's 5:47.
We should see it as part
of a worldwide trend...
Elie Cohen, good morning.
Thank you for coming.
You're a research director.
Research director
and professor at Sciences Po.
Michel Godet, economics lecturer.
Let's focus on one of them.
Averagely intelligent,
averagely well known,
like the others,
he is often asked his opinion
on TV shows, talk radio,
and in the columns
of a major daily paper.
This ordinary expert's name
is Michel Godet.
Without noticing it,
France has practically
grown up with him.
In a changing world,
the rules must change too.
We can't afford
our old industrial relations,
our collective agreements,
our "little habits".
In future, we may have to agree
to take Wednesdays off
but work on Saturdays.
We can't face the future
with agreements signed in 1945
or even 1909, for railway workers.
In a changing world,
the rules must change.
How many hours do how many
people work in a lifetime?
How much work gets done?
If France goes on having
so few people in work,
doing so little and retiring
so young, it doesn't add up.
In countries where
there's less unemployment,
more people work, and for longer.
Rowing less hard
won't get you there faster.
We must work earlier,
work later,
work part-time
and be more flexible.
Our one-size-fits-all system
must change.
We have too few workers,
especially young and old,
and they don't work enough.
Work creates jobs!
Over the years,
his exhortations
to the French to work more
have enabled our expert,
at least, to earn more.
Thanks to his fame in the media,
he can charge high fees
for lecturing
to companies and institutions.
As introductions go, that was fairly...
complimentary but unnerving.
If he gives a lecture a month,
that's 78,000 euros per year.
Plus his salary as teacher
at the National Engineering School,
let's say 48,000,
plus his fees as director
of a multinational company, Bongrain,
around 25,000.
Michel Godet earns
about 150,000 euros per year.
Bravo, Michel.
150,000 euros...
About ten times
the minimum legal wage.
You can get a PDF of my lecture.
A wage which Michel Godet
thinks is too high.
Michel Godet,
you think we should dare
to lower the minimum legal wage?
Logically, yes.
If we can't touch
the labor unions' privileges,
then we can't adjust
the minimum wage,
although in an increasingly
global market, it kills jobs
because the worldwide cost
of unskilled labor keeps falling.
Michel Godet is typical
of the 30-odd experts
who dominate the media.
Like him,
nearly all of the m
are board members of big companies,
they work with banks
and advise investment companies.
But the se activities
are never mentioned.
When the media invite them,
it is always due
to their academic credentials.
Why do the mass media
keep so quiet about the collusions,
which I call "dangerous liaisons",
between their regular guest economists
and the business world?
The general public,
radio listeners and TV watchers
would regard a brilliant
academic economist very differently
if they knew that this economist
is paid handsomely by banks,
insurance firms, and private companies
to sit on their boards
at the heart of decision-making.
Elie Cohen,
thank you for coming.
You're a research director
and economics professor...
I don't see how anyone can claim
to be intellectually independent
while being deeply embedded
in the world of business.
Nowadays, we consider
that if an expert is a member
of the Food Safety Agency
and also on the board
of a big agribusiness company,
there's conflict of interest.
I think everyone agrees on that.
Why doesn't the same criticism apply
to economists who are paid by banks,
insurance companies and big businesses
to increase their profits and interests?
Isn't that a conflict of interest?
Professor Jean-Herv Lorenzi.
These people say,
"We're intellectually independent"
but we can't believe them.
It may be hard to believe
that the se experts are unbiased,
but it's easy to guess
where they dine
once a month.
Freelance economist
Freelance economists
Freelance economist
Very tangibly, their job
is to promote,
including in the mainstream media
which they virtually monopolize,
the prevailing economic dogma
that is capitalism.
For the past thirty years,
a debate has raged between
worshippers of market forces...
and worshippers of market forces.
I'm delighted to see the revival
of the idea of enterprise,
profit and the market.
I'm thrilled to hear Alain Minc say it.
That's good, is it?
And new?
The market has always existed
but we couldn't boast about it.
We couldn't boast and now we can?
If you want a longer,
more comfortable life,
which most people on this planet want,
history shows that capitalism works.
What is a financial market?
As I say in my book,
it's rather like a farmers' market.
Some people bring melons,
others bring chickens,
and they trade melons for chickens.
Christian de Boissieu,
thank you for coming.
Speaking of Christmas shopping,
what about financial products?
If there's a glut of chickens
and too few melons,
the melon grower wins out.
Are the Socialists reformists?
Yes, at long last!
The wording isn't fixed
but it's there in writing.
The Socialist Party
is in the market, in globalization.
To regulate and improve it, of course!
Not endure it.
But it's in there, between
social democracy and social liberalism.
For the past 3,000 years,
the market and democracy
have advanced hand in hand.
They are not only compatible,
but mutually beneficial.
Your newspaper, Le Monde,
hasn't changed much in 50 years.
Are we witnessing a revolution?
In the mid-1990s,
the champions of an unfettered market
were happy to welcome
a strong new ally,
the daily newspaper Le Monde.
Headed by a triumvirate
of Jean-Marie Colombani,
Edwy Plenel
and Alain Minc,
the famously independent
French newspaper of record
opened its columns
to experts and journalists
preaching the gospel
of neoliberal economics.
When Le Monde
joins the free market chorus,
it affects the whole media scene.
If Le Monde,
which is often called
"the newspaper of record",
defends the same ideas that Libration
has defended since the 1980s
under Joffrin,
and which the leftist fringe
of Le Figaro also defends,
we obviously get a standardization
of economic opinion.
It's liberalize or die.
Le Monde is still
the paper of record.
It's regarded as such,
even though its editorial line
has changed considerably.
So when those ideas
are spread, proclaimed,
and upheld with almost militant fervor
by the newspaper of record,
the y're legitimized.
In a second section of the paper,
we aim to repair
another of our weaknesses,
this time in the field of business news.
As you know, the strategies of large
industrial and banking groups nowadays
are at least as influential
as public spending.
We want to keep up in that area,
so business, financial and market news
will have a central place in the paper.
They want to convert society
to a new way of living together,
a new form of economic and social life.
But basically, society refuses it.
For very good reasons.
It has everything to lose.
It's plain and simple.
As the foreseeable resistance
took shape,
persuasion and conviction
had to be deployed
in equal measure.
It was time to start teaching.
"We haven't been good enough teachers.
We need to explain."
As the media started teaching,
some journalists discovered
a priestly vocation
for educating the masses.
Perhaps this country needs to be taught.
Workers, employers,
politicians and the media too,
at our own humble level,
must all do a better job
of explaining the complex choices...
In news-speak,
"Explaining the complex choices"
is a fancy way of explaining
the need for reform.
The word "reform"
is now on everyone's lips.
Good evening!
Why can't we reform in France
when everyone else is doing it?
That is our topic tonight.
Can France reform itself?
Can it afford not to
in this globalized era?
How can the French be convinced
of the need for reform?
Do you accept the need for reform?
Why is it so hard
for France to make reforms?
Why doesn't it work here, in France?
People are starting to realize
that growth can't resume
until we give up
some historic privileges.
In the recent past,
we've fallen behind with reforms.
That's what worries me today.
We can't introduce a mass
of painful but necessary reforms.
We're at the end of a cycle.
The end of a system.
People are scared and don't want change.
Have the French become
ultra-conservative overnight?
They say no. They fear change.
It's not just the fear
of losing entitlements,
losing what one has,
it's the fear of any change at all.
Why does public debate
always revolve around concepts
such as "reform", "outdated methods",
"the fall of France", "decline",
"the French model", etc?
I've noticed there's a small vocabulary
of about 15 or 20 words,
without which
all the se journalists and experts
couldn't make a single sentence.
It's true!
Without the word "reform",
the y're speechless.
They can't put three words together.
In order to persuade,
you need methods of persuasion.
The media have their champions,
tirelessly working
the cameras and mikes.
In the past six years,
Frdric Lordon and Jean Gadrey
have been guests on radio
and TV shows 32 times.
During the same period,
Jacques Attali,
J-H Lorenzi and Michel Godet
have made
Hello and welcome to the
TV and politics show
with Eric Zemmour
and Claude Imbert.
Even though the journalists
and experts agree on the basics,
we still have to go through
the motions of debate.
The phone lines are open,
the contest can begin...
The media regularly stage fierce duels
between bitterly opposed debaters.
In this talk show on LCI,
left-wing intellectual
Jacques Julliard
locks horns each week
with right-wing philosopher Luc Ferry.
Be warned, their words
are shockingly violent.
I'm sorry, Luc...
I can't disagree with you there.
I wish I could.
I'd go the other way.
You'll agree with me here,
as I agreed with you there.
Like you, I'm glad
that public opinion is so strong.
I agree with Jacques.
Luc is absolutely right.
We need to explain about globalization.
You're stealing my words.
I have to agree about austerity.
You're right.
On that point,
Luc and I won't argue very fiercely.
I agree with Jacques.
The constitutional treaty
should have come first,
before enlargement.
Give me credit for thinking like you do.
I'm not a government minister,
but it's still my opinion.
I rather agree with Jacques,
except on one point,
which you kindly left open.
I wouldn't equate
liberalism with communism.
On that point, I quite agree with you.
What we also need,
as I'm sure Jacques agrees,
is something even tougher.
People say
we disagree too much.
They worry
about our relationship.
In fact, it's excellent.
This week, we entirely agree
and we're not ashamed of it.
Some articles of faith
are never questioned:
Europe in its present shape,
the general trend
towards market deregulation,
also known as globalization,
and the general scaling back,
and in France especially,
the quiet dismantling
of the welfare state.
That's the boundary line.
Some people debate within the box.
Others try to change it.
The opponents who want to change it
are simply locked out.
Those who are happy
to paddle around in the sandbox
are allowed in.
But the resulting political debate
is terribly stunted.
For convincing the public,
a favorite rhetorical device
is the foreign example.
Out there, abroad,
in nearby or distant countries,
we see brave choices,
the example to follow.
Among the foreign countries
that wisely and bravely
bit the bullet of reform,
the country most cited
by French journalists and experts
was Great Britain.
Its free-market swing,
begun by Margaret Thatcher,
was fervently admired.
A political talk show
on June 12th 2004
on French public television
summed up the arguments
in favor of the British model.
Journalist Thierry Thuillier,
future Head of News at France 2,
preaches the free market
with evangelical zeal.
But can we be sure
that the free market model
would be bad for France?
Objectively,
we can't help noticing
that it has won Tony Blair
a third term in office
and the British economy
is thriving.
In France,
the Polish plumber is a bogeyman.
In England, he's a welcome guest.
We report on the British
model of integration.
To see for ourselves
how the UK economy is thriving,
we went to London
to meet an expert who is never invited
by French journalists.
Sir Michael Marmot
chaired the World Health Organization's
on social determinants
and life expectancy.
Professor of Epidemiology
and WHO expert
Seeing it works,
should we copy the English?
Stay with us.
Four years later,
the recession showed how well
the UK economy was working.
State to the rescue!
The Big Slide
Free Fall
On the morning of Sept. 15th 2008,
the media woke up aghast
to a huge financial crisis
which threw over 64 million people
into deep poverty
all over the world.
Too busy hailing
the rosy dawn of liberalism,
the experts were caught napping.
One of their best-known
and influential faces,
and equally caught napping,
was Alain Minc.
While Michel Godet has been playing
Joe Expert for 30 years,
Alain Minc has been batting
in a different league.
Alain Minc, on page 230
you call yourself a left-wing liberal.
What does that mean?
Good question!
Alain Minc is one of the brightest...
This ber-expert
advises business leaders,
ministers and heads of state.
In the media, he is onstage
and also backstage.
Onstage, he appears on book programs
and political talk shows.
Backstage, he chairs
the supervisory board of Le Monde
and is the brains behind
many media group managers.
In 2005, his friend Vincent Bollor,
friend of his friend Nicolas Sarkozy,
gave him a show
on his newly created TV channel.
Good evening
and Happy New Year.
January 5th, 2008.
Minc invited
the inevitable
Christian de Boissieu.
They discussed
the American sub primes crisis
that led 9 months later,
as we know,
to the financial market meltdown
in September 2008.
I'd like to qualify
your comments.
I'm with you 95%,
but I'll use my 5%
of intellectual freedom
to point out the amazing
flexibility of the system.
It goes to show
that the financial system
is so finely regulated
that it averted a crisis
which could have been
as bad as the big financial crises
we've seen in the past.
Deep down,
it's a very resilient system.
It's not regulated
by any visible body,
but it's very well regulated
all the same.
The interplay between central banks
and governments...
In reality, empiricism
prevails over ideological stances
and the world economy
is pretty well run.
That's vintage Minc.
He's in top form.
Everything points
to the recession of the century,
all the signs are there,
but the system is resilient,
it will take it in its stride,
we'll glide on through
and growth will resume.
There's a body
of intellectual speculation
that always makes
the same enormous mistakes.
It ought to be punished.
Not financially,
but there should come a point
when the democratic system
bans those people
from the positions they hold
as top experts,
high priests and speakers of truth.
They're anything but.
This crisis is a prime example.
It took by surprise,
as that clip shows very well,
all those people
who'd been saying for 20 years
that deregulation was the best system.
It's a vivid demonstration
of a colossal mistake.
Six months later,
on June 7th 2008,
Alain Minc displayed the same optimism.
He invited
another famous expert, Daniel Cohen,
editorial writer for Le Monde
and adviser to Lazard bank.
June 7th
was three months
before the September 2008 crash.
I probably shouldn't call him
"the best economist in France"
after Giscard d'Estaing
gave that title to Raymond Barre.
I'd be going too far,
but I'd be glad to hear
his diagnosis
of this peculiar economic moment.
I agree with you
that the financial crisis
is not entirely finished
but the worst is over.
That is, the risk...
The risk that the financial crisis
would spark a systemic crisis
with banks going down
like dominoes, seems to be averted.
Here again the situation makes us ask,
if France's best economist
in the eyes of Alain Minc
can be so far wrong
in June 2008,
is the whole profession doomed?
Did nobody see it coming?
No.
In all fairness, it has to be said
that some people,
including some economists
had seen it coming for years.
Thereal question is,
why are the people who get interviewed
always the ones least critical
of the basis of the system?
Daniel Cohen didn't see it coming.
There's a persistence in error
that is met with persistent leniency.
They can say whatever they like.
Those guys are rustproof.
You wonder what
the y'd have to come out with
to make the media finally say,
"You're a good old boy
but let's face it,
we can't ask you here again."
Of course, the opposite happened.
The same experts glossed the collapse
of a system the y'd previously praised.
They spoke even more than before.
From September 2008 to December 2010,
Alain Minc,
Christian de Boissieu
and Daniel Cohen
between the m
spoke 332 times
on the radio and TV.
Frdric Lordon
and Jean Gadrey
were invited only 21 times.
Clearly, because
the unions
are behind the times
we're the only big country
which refuses
to tackle the issue
of workers' privileges.
Until we grasp the basic problem
that the French cannot accept the fact
that society needs deep reform,
the question will always remain.
French rigidity stops us
developing towards
the gradual expansion
of the market and democracy.
So France
is in a strange position where
some people bring melons
and others bring chickens
and they trade melons for chickens.
"When bourgeois ideas came to be seen
as products of timeless reason
"and no longer
as shaky historical constructs,
"they had the best chance
of surviving and resisting attack.
"Everyone forgot the circumstances
that engendered the m
and also made them mortal."
When the Government wishes
to defend its point of view,
it will do it openly,
through a qualified spokesman.
How will this spokesman
express himself?
In a televised speech,
a statement, or what?
He might make a statement
but whenever possible,
we will hold an open debate
between the various points of view
in order to respect
the freedom of information
and opinion of all French people.
We may smile to see Alain Peyrefitte
defending pluralism of opinion
while imposing his Government's changes
on the TV news.
Fifty years on,
journalists still hark back
to that era
when they praise the so-called
pluralism of today's media.
We had the De Gaulle era,
the Ministry of Information era...
We still have a Minister of Culture
and Communication
but he's not so important now?
No, thank goodness.
Nowadays, they have
to contend with competition.
Back then, we had only two
TV channels. Now there are dozens.
We had three important radio stations.
Now there are hundreds.
Now there's the Internet.
Nothing can be hushed up for long.
There's always competition
and therefore logically, necessarily,
there's more real independence
than back then.
Not because politicians are more
virtuous or journalists are smarter,
but competition has forced it on them,
thank God.
Now the news can't do without it.
For Alain Duhamel
and most other journalists,
competition is the ideal model
that safeguards
their independence.
But it's no wonder that Alain Duhamel
sees only good in the news market.
He is one of those who have reaped
the richest rewards
from the growth of the news media.
Every news show I appear on...
He started out in public broadcasting
in the days of Alain Peyrefitte.
While pursuing a rustproof career
as a presidential interviewer,
he embodied his own variety
of media pluralism.
In the early 2000s,
he sold his editorials
to ten media outlets at a time:
France 2, Canal+,
RTL, Libration,
Le Point, Nice Matin,
Les DNA, Le Maine Libre,
Le Courrier de I'Ouest, Presse Ocan.
He's unlikely to bite the hand
of a market that's fed him so well.
SIGNING SESSION
For Renaud Lambert, please.
L- A-M-B-E-R-T?
What do you do?
I studied journalism.
You've always been an example.
We watched and listened to you a lot
and discussed you in class.
I'm very pleased to meet you.
Why did you ask him to sign your book?
I'm studying journalism...
Alain Duhamel is one of my heroes.
His trademark style is asking questions
that let people get on with the job.
Like when Nicolas Sarkozy met the press.
It's a school in itself.
Your first questioner is Alain Duhamel.
Unfortunately,
the market has no feelings
and Alain Duhamel has reached
his sell-by date.
If I may!
Will you cap public borrowing?
With competition, the media
have to keep trading
new faces for old.
Ageing stars are usually replaced
by equivalent models
who talk the same talk.
But to win other audiences
and gain market share,
the media sometimes bank
on more impetuous,
outspoken characters.
Even rebels, if need be.
Michel Field
is one such journalist
chosen for his rebellious image.
His career is the banal story
of the rebel who fell into line.
As militant revolutionaries,
we believe we'll change society.
The people we're fighting
will make us use force.
We don't rule out armed struggle.
Michel Field sells his militant image
on public television.
We see him late at night
discussing philosopher Flix Guattari
with former Red Brigades member
Toni Negri.
Ten years later,
his talk show guests have changed.
He picks up the phone, live on air,
and calls in the police.
There's a growing demand
from our fellow citizens
for a basic right to law and order.
Over time,
Michel Field has skillfully adopted
the habits of his fellow stars.
Casino is a great group.
It's yours.
We can't wait to see
the se new products on the shelves.
Michel,
here's a standard checkout sign...
I recognize it.
And here's our new one.
"Next Smile"
Five years on,
Michel Field hosts a UMP party rally
urging "Yes"
to the European Constitution.
Please welcome Arnaud Lagardere.
He brings on Arnaud Lagardere,
the owner of the radio station
for which he works.
Michel Field welcomes you
to the Discovery Caf
on Europe 1.
We find him in the early afternoon,
swapping childhood dreams
with Claire Chazal.
What started your love of dance?
Since I was young...
You've guessed where Michel Field
has dinner once a month.
Pseudo-rebel
Naturally, Michel Field is not
the only pseudo-rebel on the airwaves.
The market churns them out.
Revolutionaries of the world,
disunite!
With no leader or star,
you can't be caught.
Get your kicks demolishing power.
One of the most successful
is Philippe Val.
His image as a protest singer
earned him the top job
at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
The press is sad.
It's sad because it's full
of lukewarm, cautious, boring stuff.
There's not much humor in the press.
We see him late at night
with Michel Field,
boasting about making fun of TF1.
- You stitched them up.
- They got it in the ass!
Twenty years later...
Media news:
Val is named head of France Inter radio
by the director of Radio France,
himself directly appointed
by President Sarkozy.
He quickly fired two humorists
who were deemed
too cocky by the powers that be.
You can mix genres
but you have to be careful.
Give me one example
of a journalist
who started out
as you might say a rebel,
a non-conformist,
who wasn't either
quietly dropped or bought.
There's no alternative.
The system spits out
everything it can't digest.
You can't sit in the presenter's chair
without paying for it somehow.
All the top channels for all the family.
Seven sports channels by satellite.
The news market,
instead of providing pluralism,
manufactures a handful
of celebrity journalists
that the media compete to grab
to boost their market share.
For the se roving journalists,
hopping between
public and private outlets
to suit their careers,
there are two rules:
Push the brand
but never disparage
a potential future employer.
The Difference Is Independence.
Why did you move
from France Inter to Europe 1
after saying, "I don't accept offers
from privately-owned stations.
"I get up at 3 a.m. because I like it
and I believe in public broadcasting."
Don't you know Europe 1
is owned by Lagardere?
A friend at Radio France
once said to me,
"Your family is the radio,
first and foremost."
- Didn't you know it two years ago?
- Of course I did.
But you've followed the same path,
Marc-Olivier Fogiel.
A career is made of accelerations,
some splits, and continuity.
We've heard you speak out
for public broadcasting too.
But I didn't say, like you did,
that it fascinated me.
I didn't say
it's the only place I want to work.
There are certainly big differences
between public and private broadcasters
but the gap is shrinking.
One symptom of the situation
is the way the celebrities
of private TV and radio networks
casually transfer the mselves
to the public networks and vice-versa.
When the leading players care so little
about the role
of public broadcasting,
it signifies a big step backwards.
Speaking of players and transfers,
winter 2010-2011 was a transfer window
that FIFA would have envied.
Jacques Julliard kicked off.
Disappointed by Denis Olivennes,
he left Le Nouvel Observateur
to join Marianne.
Laurent Joffrin quit Libration
to replace Olivennes,
who took over the captaincy of Europe 1
from Alexandre Bompard,
who became CEO of La Fnac,
the job vacated by Denis Olivennes
a few months earlier.
Early in the New Year,
Nicolas Poincar left France Info
for Europe 1,
replacing Nicolas Demorand,
who took the helm of Libration,
while Arlette Chabot left France 2
to become editor-in-chief at Europe 1.
At the same time Erik Izraelewicz,
after stints at Les Echos
and La Tribune,
returned to Le Monde
to replace Eric Fottorino as director.
That is what
"pluralism of information" is made of.
A game of musical chairs
by a few interchangeable journalists
who feel at home everywhere.
At first, we had only two TV channels.
Now there are dozens!
We had three important radio stations.
Now there are hundreds!
Now there's the Internet.
Nothing can be hushed up for long.
As Duhamel keeps saying,
the multiplication of media outlets
ensures pluralism of information.
But when competition is king,
news is a product that has to be sold.
One kind of information
is easy to make,
very cost-effective,
and sold everywhere.
THE LAW AND ORDER SHOW
Delinquency and violence
are rarely out of the news nowadays.
A worrying rise
in violence in nursery
and elementary schools...
"Baby thugs",
the rarely reported issue
of violent 3 to 13-year-olds.
The police call the rise "alarming".
As we all know,
delinquency has risen this year...
A rise in casual crimes with violence...
But this trend has not dispelled
the sense of insecurity.
In Cherbourg, for example,
the shopkeepers are sick
of robberies and vandalism.
Don't panic,
but the holiday period
is fraught with danger.
First, this horrific murder...
A ghastly tragedy in Marseilles...
The women
were savagely murdered...
For planning to kidnap, rape
and torture a young girl...
Missing? Kidnapped?
Alive or dead?
Casual crime is a key issue
five months before the elections.
Over the years, crime stories
have come to hog the headlines
of newspapers, radio and TV.
This was confirmed by a report
published in June 2009
by the National Audiovisual institute's
statistics office.
In the past ten years,
on the six terrestrial TV networks,
coverage of murders
and other forms of violence
has increased fourfold.
The sickening case
of pedophilia in Boulogne,
where several siblings
were rented out for sex...
They look like ordinary people.
Taxi driver, baker's wife, clergyman...
Seventeen adults have been charged
with raping
up to twenty children for years
and perhaps even prostituting them.
The Outreau pedophilia trial
was easily the most reported case
in the past ten years.
During the eight-week trial,
the four main national dailies
- Le Monde, Le Figaro,
Libration and Le Parisien -
led with the crime story 24 times
and devoted 343 articles to it.
Over the same period,
they printed just three articles
on a report by the WHO
establishing that bad air and water
kill over three million
children under five each year.
Court hearing in camera
Dominique Weil was one of 13
defendants who were acquitted.
He's a worker priest who lived
for 15 years in the housing complex
that featured so largely in the news.
This was in Le Parisien:
"The Outreau drama is set against
a backdrop of social deprivation
"in an area where alcoholism,
"incestuous behavior and pedophilia
are almost part of the culture."
In Le Monde:
"There are five or six
similar cases in Boulogne.
"It's like a gangrenous infection
in the housing complexes.
You toss back a kid
like you toss back a beer."
"Is Outreau's drab housing complex
under a curse?
"More probably,
"like many similar complexes
in northwest France and elsewhere,
"it's the victim of an explosive blend
"of unemployment, alcohol,
idleness and squalor.
Incest is never far away."
That was in Le Figaro.
No comment.
It reveals a general state of mind.
They distort the reality
of that housing complex
and the people living there
and portray it as a ghetto
full of the scum of the earth.
It's classic. A classic case.
When they write about La Courneuve
or Vaux-en-Velin,
that's the way
journalists describe
whole neighborhoods.
When they say "the suburbs",
that's what people think.
The "criminal class".
I think we're seeing a revival
of this kind of language.
Even if it's never said, it's implied.
In speeches, articles,
conversations...
It's never said clearly
but it's implied.
The sensitive
Madeleine district
is still controlled by rioters...
Ariane, a sensitive district in Nice,
is deserted...
At 4pm yesterday,
in the sensitive district
of Orgemont...
The Police Intelligence Service
sets the number of sensitive districts
much higher.
DRAGNE
The areas where
the poorest classes live
have become a well of crime stories.
Day after day,
year after year,
the media have ignored
the social and economic facts
and focused entirely
on stories about drugs,
delinquency, immigration
and violence.
Soon this block will be torn down.
Meanwhile, it's the biggest
cannabis market in France.
This housing complex
in the south of Paris
has been the scene
of daily violence for months.
Burned cars, muggings,
supermarket robberies...
In a housing complex rife
with poverty, unemployment,
lawlessness,
and inward-looking communities,
the social and moral rules
are set by the majority religion
in this town, which is Islam.
Clichy-sous-Bois is ablaze again...
When revolts break out
in the se poor areas,
as in October 2005 and November 2007,
the media send in a barrage
of cameras, mikes and reporters
to film the burning cars
and flash-ball volleys.
The media have pondered
the causes of such violence.
Organized criminal gangs
or idle, uneducated youths
accustomed to poverty
and gratuitous violence.
The causes suggested
by the journalists
rarely contradict the image
that they carefully construct
of disoriented youth
and sectarian communities
breaking the law.
The call for law and order
is never far behind.
Samir Mihi,
can you say right now
to the young people of Clichy,
"Stop the burning"?
We say it every day.
Can we hear you say it?
Can you tell them, "Go home tonight
and we'll get things done later"?
The ones in the street
aren't watching TV, so what's the point?
Joking aside...
I'm not joking.
What you're asking me is...
People in Clichy will see cars burning
and have horrible experiences...
You're implying we didn't.
We already said it!
Are you afraid to call
for a state of calm?
I'm calm.
You are.
You know what I'm saying.
You seem unable to say clearly
to the kids who are probably
on the streets as we speak,
"Go home. Don't burn
the town down."
You agree it makes sense,
when young people are on the streets
and it's dangerous,
to say "Go home!"
Editorial chieftains
think and behave like elites.
They think and behave
like elites who are above the people
and have the job of educating them.
Educating the people
means teaching them to keep quiet,
teaching the status quo,
ignoring the violence
of social injustice
but condemning
such "violent" acts of revolt
as breaking a shop window.
These editorial chieftains
are the more or less efficient,
more or less convincing,
but always visible
guardians of the existing social order.
Tonight, will you repeat
your call for calm
in all the troubled neighborhoods?
Can we allow
that the illegitimate exploitation
and scorn heaped on the se people
may be matched
by a legitimate violence,
the necessary violence of revolt?
That's the crux of it.
The symbolic violence
is considered legal
and the physical group violence
is considered illegal.
The dividing line between them is drawn
by class interests,
to coin an old phrase.
Xavier Mathieu, you're a shop steward
at the Continental factory.
You're understandably upset
but aren't you going too far?
Do you regret this violence?
You must be joking!
Does the end justify the means?
The end is only 28 days away!
We hear your anger
but are you calling for calm tonight?
No way!
I'm not calling for calm.
The people are angry
and anger has to come out.
There's a marching slogan that says,
"Sow the seeds of misery
and reap the grapes of wrath."
On April 21st 2009,
the France 2 news anchor hit a snag.
The union rep
at the Continental plant in Clairoix
refused to echo his call for calm.
That year, the recession
forced hundreds of laid-off workers
to set aside
the usual means of protest.
The media quickly raised the alarm
of a workers' revolt
and decreed its limits.
It's an upward spiral.
Waving placards
in front of the National Assembly
will get you a minute of news.
Locking up the manager
gets you two minutes.
Threaten to blow up a building
and you'll be a media celebrity.
- We're fed up.
- You're angry?
Yes, and getting angrier.
What can be done
to prevent it?
Is it legitimate or is it outrageous
for workers about to be laid off
to lock their bosses or managers
in their offices,
even non-violently
and for only a short time?
It's obviously unacceptable.
"Bossnapping", as the English call it,
holding a manager hostage,
is intolerable.
Locking people into their offices
can't be allowed.
Think how scared they must feel,
and their families.
It's criminal!
Next time we'll have to hit hard.
Harder and harder!
To most, if not all journalists,
the working class
is like an Indian reservation.
They don't know them,
the y're not from there,
they don't know
their customs and concerns,
their living conditions,
their culture, or their traditions.
As soon as the workers
step out of their role
as part of the scenery,
as picturesque folk
easily labeled
with ideological clichs,
as soon as they stop being
Indians on their reservation,
they become dangerous
because they break with
the soft consensus of soft democracy.
They break the rules.
They burn tires, occupy factories
and lock up their bosses.
They're beyond the pale.
Then the ideological apparatus
bares its fangs and bites viciously
and class mockery can escalate
to ostracism or class hatred.
Has legitimate protest given way
to "mob rule", as you call it,
echoing Sartre?
Yes. Today it's the bosses,
tomorrow it will be a lawyer
who pleads an unpopular case,
and the day after that,
a teacher who's too fond
of La Princesse de Cleves
or Le Rouge et le Noir.
One day it will be you,
for airing an unpopular opinion.
I think that today,
some minority fringe groups
pose a real threat of violence
and mob rule. We can't allow it.
However poor and painful
a worker's life may be,
however bad it is to be unemployed,
there are so many ways to be heard,
so many ways to fight and protest
without resorting to mob rule
and attacking people,
even if the y're bosses.
Bernard-Henri Levy, thank you!
"The bourgeois plays at treating
the people like his own children.
"He reproves, advises and assists them,
"for they are obviously incapable
of controlling their own fate.
"He punishes the people
as he would his own children,
"for their own good.
"He says,
'Spare the rod and spoil the child.'
When they revolt,
he calls them ingrates."
We believe it is right
for a democracy like ours
to lay down certain rules
and reaffirm certain principles
to which all democrats
should unhesitatingly adhere.
Reaffirm the need
for pluralism in the media...
Back in November 1983,
Pierre Mauroy
put before the National Assembly
a Freedom of the Press bill.
President Mitterrand had pledged
that a left-wing government would enact
the autonomy and pluralism of the media.
...transparently administered.
Restrict concentration
and secure the means
to enforce the se provisions.
The stated enemies at the time
were concentration
and the power of money.
The power of the press
does not frighten us
but we will not tolerate
the power of money!
On May 13th 2009,
Jean-Pierre Elkabbach,
the Lagardere Group's key journalist,
was decorated
by ex-President Chirac.
The admiring guests included
the cream of the media,
financial leaders
and top politicians from right
and left.
In the meantime,
the left in power
had spent thirty years giving up.
Thirty years of failing
to legislate
for an independent press.
Thirty years
of increased concentration.
Thirty years of allowing
industrial and financial conglomerates
to take over the printed press, radio
and TV networks.
Thirty years of not trying
to provide a good,
free public news service.
Thirty years of not treating the media
as a crucial political issue.
So? Must we wait thirty more years
for the democratization of the media
that is a prerequisite
for economic and social change?
Must we let the watchdogs
think and act for us for 30 more years?
"The gap between their ideas
and the grim world
"widens each week, each day,
"yet nothing alerts the m
"and they alert no one.
"The gap between their promises
and real life
"is more outrageous than ever.
"Yet they do not move.
"They stay behind the barricade.
"They hold the same meetings
and publish the same books.
"All those who foolishly
waited on their words
are starting to revolt, or laugh."
Paul Nizan, The Watchdogs, 1932