Those who constantly harp on the principle of journalistic ethics seem to reserve it only for others. Installed journalists, benefiting from the aura of the « big media », do what they want, respecting ethics à la carte, in a biased way, throwing out anathemas but refusing any debate for those who would like to explain themselves(1). They dominate the communication networks and can therefore decide who speaks, condemn the one who does not say the right thing and prevent him from using their network to defend himself.
The limits that journalists have now exceeded testify both to their defensive retreat, as more and more realize their major responsibility in disinformation and propaganda; but their attacks ad hominem are also the mark of a context of polarization that the media and politicians generate and maintain, establishing a fault line between those who obey the governments’ liberticidal measures and those who question them.
Instead of providing information that would allow us to think about the situation, they sell content that creates support and hide or ban anything that does not go in their direction: for example, thinking about the need for vaccines, upstream, their danger and side effects, downstream, makes you « anti-vaxx ». They thus dichotomize society between « pro » and « anti », rather than allowing doubt and questioning around data that would open a space to think about the situation, far from anguish, guilt and recourse to personal categorization.
Against the media inquisition, the resistance
The media create their heroes and their culprits. Thus Bernard Crutzen, lynched by the media for having dared to question the scientific-political-media truth of covid, in Ceci n’est pas un complot. The heretic is classified in the category of « dunces », in a two-page article in the Télé Moustique that awards the end-of-school-year prizes, one of those chestnuts(2) that fills their page.
Under the unbelievably violent title » Excluded for life « , next to a photo of the director, one can read: » The documentaries This is not a conspiracy and Hold-up, for lack of intellectual honesty and propagation of biased and toxic information « . It is clear that the lifetime exclusion concerns Bernard Crutzen rather than the two documentaries (one does not exclude a documentary), while the two other characters in the « dunces » category are Georges-Louis Bouchez, for his poor Dutch, and Denis Brogniart for the « worst season of Koh-Lanta »… Those who edit the newspaper and the one who writes the article do not realize the lack of foundation and the ineptitude of their remarks, caught in a media endogamy that has no equivalent but the unique thought of the political microcosm. We are well there in the gutter press. We would like to see them so offensive towards the stupid things they serve to their viewers all day long…
Faced with the lynchings of the media, we will have to stick together, remain united and inform whoever can still be informed. We will have to produce and distribute ourselves the works that we consider important. We will have to do without them.
Respect and support to Bernard Crutzen. Shame on the watchdogs of journalism!
- En journalisme, un marronnier est un article saisonnier sur un événement qui se renouvelle chaque année (neige, chute des feuilles, vacances d’été, fin de l’année scolaire…).