FIGAROVOX/CHRONICLE – A July 8 article published in Le Monde denounces the “infiltration” of the far right in the media. For the lawyer, the daily seems to forget its own indulgence towards the extreme left and the ideological upheavals visible at the ballot box.
Gilles-William Goldnadel is a lawyer and essayist. Every week, he deciphers the news for FigaroVox.
In an article dated July 8, two journalists fromMonde, more specifically responsible for the media, evoke what they consider to be the normalization of “reactionary” intellectuals in the audiovisual media apparatus. The article being soberly titled:How the Far Right Infiltrated the Media».
Let’s leave aside the semantic question and ask ourselves what this rather anachronistic article does not question.
It is indeed permissible to ask whether the world is aware of the upheavals of the ideological tectonic layer or more precisely of the discredit that affects an extreme left that he still looks at so tenderly.
It is this new moral framework that Le Monde seems to have trouble grasping.
As far as discredit is concerned, the patent contradictions of behavior shown by France Insoumise during recent sex scandals are the most baroque and damning latest representation of it.
I have already written here, with regard to the disappointing score achieved by the Nupes, and, conversely, the astonishing score obtained by the RN, that an invisible as well as inexpressible dam seemed to have been erected against a worrying extreme left that the newspaper aforementioned still does not want to name.
It is this new moral framework that The world seems to have a hard time understanding.
Likewise, it does not occur to him that these “reactionaries” had perceived before him the ravages of Islamism, Islamic anti-Semitism or – dare we write it – the problems of insecurity resulting from massive immigration or illegal. From where, who can know, a certain credit in the opinion.
As for his eternal weakness for the extreme left, the way in which The world will have dealt with the question of the Italian terrorists, whom he strives to call “militants” and in favor of whom he has published several opinion pieces, constitutes only one of the innumerable examples. It is thus in particular that The world, will publish many tickets presenting Battisti as innocent, before he admits his guilt. Cruelly adding that he hadn’t had too much trouble making his friends believe it. . . We want to believe it too.
But back to the July 8 article. Bitterly, The world notes that the anti-woke “nationalist” Mathieu Bock-Coté, Eugénie Bastié of FigaroCharlotte d’Ornellas de Current ValuesElisabeth Lévy of the “reactionary” talker in particular (may others forgive me) are welcomed in the media today.
We will not give ourselves the ridiculousness of unnecessarily pleading the cause of the pinned.
The difference that exists between the very left-wing media vision as the article in Le Monde embodies it in an emblematic way and a more open culture, is that the first advocates censorship and exclusion without saying so, while the second , only aspires to pluralism of opinions, saying so.
I would only like to show the asymmetrical unthought of the newspaper which says a lot about its barely concealed tropism.
For example, it never occurred to the fastidious minds of the two journalists to wonder about the presence of an assumed Maoist on France Culture, who also philosophically assumes the millions of deaths of communist totalitarianism. Still on this public service audiovisual – more constrained by essence to ideological neutrality – no critical curiosity about the porosity existing between France Inter and the extreme left Release.
Basically, if you really think about it, the difference that exists between the very left-wing media vision such as the article of the world embodies it in an emblematic way and a more open culture, is that the first advocates censorship and exclusion without saying so, while the second, far from wanting to prohibit the expression of the aforementioned very left-wing personalities, does not aspire than to pluralism of opinions, by saying so.
To show, with a smile, that this is a fight of rearguard exclusion, the author of this column will confess.
Whereas a decade or two ago he does not exclude that he might have felt a cowardly relief at having been forgotten in the cart of designated “extremists”, he does not exclude today either to have felt like a very slight narcissistic sting.
A way of showing how much the disqualifying power of a newspaper that is too lenient with the extreme left has lost its bite.
SEE ALSO – “It is partly the fault of the right if today Jean-Luc Mélenchon is so strong”, denounces Gilles William Goldnadel