Media watchdogs: an appetizer

The documentary Ceci n’est pas un complot, by Bernard Crutzen, as soon as it was posted on the Web, aroused the wrath of the journalistic profession⁽¹⁾, except that no one, to my knowledge, dared to call him a c…, that fashionable Godwin point. And for good reason, everything is referenced, proven, and the director refrains from any extrapolation or speculation. But the criticisms still came in, and my esteemed colleagues at Kairos will also be sure to report on them soon, in their own way and in more detail. In the meantime, here are my own answers, in fast-answering mode , to the critical questions of Arnaud Ruyssen, host of the CQFD program on RTBF, who had promptly reacted on fesse de bouc.

A. A.: Can we dismiss 20,000 dead with a wave of the hand… by reducing them to the fact that they represent « only » 0.17% of the Belgian population?

B. L. : At the risk of shocking many of my contemporaries, I would answer in the affirmative, if however one starts from a utilitarian rather than a deontological point of view ( cf. my article in  Kairos n° 47, pp. 10 & 11). But the deontological option is imposed by the government, the experts and the media as the obvious ethical option, with the result that the overwhelming majority of the Belgian population adheres to it, mostly by default.
A. A.: Why isn’t it explained that Sweden (cited as an example in the documentary) abandoned its idea of collective immunity very quickly, seeing that it was untenable?

B. L. : Apart from the problem of collective immunity, Sweden is one of the countries in Europe that has the best ratio between the number of deaths and the maintenance of civil liberties, which is not negligible. In other words, without having confined, covered, masked, in a word  fuck its population, it has not experienced proportionally more deaths than Belgium or France.  Grattis till Sverige *as they say in Swedish.

* Congratulations to Sweden
A. A.: Why don’t we hear from the front-line infectious diseases specialists, those who were on the front lines of this COVID crisis and who were sometimes in tears, on the other end of the phone, completely cracking up at the untenable situation they and their teams had to manage?

B. L. : Because they already have full access to the mass media; so for once, let’s give a voice to the « forgotten » of the RTBF. Isn’t that fair? Moreover, Arnaud Ruyssen should refrain from agreeing with the  pathos («  … in tears, at the end of the phone, completely cracking up …  »). But it’s hard to go against the reflexes of your profession!
A. A.: Why don’t we remember the fight of pediatricians who, against all odds, pleaded for the opening of schools, precisely balancing health issues with the fundamental issue of education and well-being of the youngest?

B. L. : Yes, why not talk about them, indeed. Except that they advocated for the opening of schools with the compulsory wearing of masks and all the restThis is a health (yes!), social, psychological, cognitive and educational disaster. And Arnaud Ruyssen dares to speak of  » well-being of the youngest  » ?! We think we are dreaming… we are not!
A. A.: Why are there no excerpts from all the contradictory debate programs that have been organized on this crisis? With human rights defenders, with representatives of all sectors of society in pain, with experts « non-aligned » with government choices?

B. L.: « All debating programs  » ? Personally, I haven’t seen many of them! Does he consider his  CQFD as a place for truly contradictory debates, or falsely contradictory?
A. R.: Why don’t we see any excerpts from investigative programs on the political management of this crisis, on the vaccine business, on the secret deals with big pharma?

B. L.: Again, could he cite these programs, their hours of broadcast and the percentage of airtime they represent in the generalized outpouring in favor of covidism?

A. R.: Why not recall that Belgium was the country in Europe where the second wave did the most damage (even if the most pessimistic scenarios fortunately did not come true)? 

B. L. : First, this is factually wrong. The first wave was important in Belgium and for the second wave, our country is overtaken by the United Kingdom and France. Secondly, this was not Bernard Crutzen’s point. He has chosen to deal with the media’s reaction first and foremost, and does not wish to add another layer to the ambient catastrophism. Thanks to him.
A. R.: Why don’t we see all those (sometimes young) who, several months later, are still suffering painfully from the after-effects of Covid?

B. L. : But fortunately we didn’t see them! Bernard Crutzen had the good idea to leave this sad task to the RTBF (which should thank him for not stepping on his toes). Compassion, compassion… Let’s say it again, emotion is incompatible with a rational debate, which is what we urgently need! In conclusion, I award a  satisfaction to Bernard Crutzen (normal, between Bernard(s) !).

Bernard Legros