FIGAROVOX / INTERVIEW – On France Inter, Jean-Luc Mélenchon suggested that the attacks during the presidential campaigns obeyed a strategy. Lawyer Gilles-William Goldnadel reacts to the silence of the journalists present on the set.
Gilles-William Goldnadel is a lawyer and essayist. Each week, he deciphers the news for FigaroVox.
FIGAROVOX. – On the France Inter set, Jean-Luc Mélenchon suggested that the attacks during the presidential campaigns obeyed a strategy. What do you think of his words?
Gilles-William GOLDNADEL. – The declarations of Jean-Luc Mélenchon are mind-blowing. This is not the first time that he or his movement have resorted to historical approximations. Remember when Clémentine Autain from rebellious France, deputy for Seine-Saint-Denis, compared Emmanuel Macron to Édouard Daladier. She had declared “Édouard Daladier, it was in 1938, he arrives as a bulwark against fascism (as President of the Council Editor’s note) and he leads a policy that is both austere, of reducing public spending, neoliberal, the term appears at the time , and also very great repression against those who are on strike, those who demonstrate, with a racist background, anti-Semitic at the time ”. She implied that Emmanuel Macron was making the bed of the National Rally, thus comparing Marine Le Pen to Marshal Pétain … You will notice an obscene fascination for the Second World War.
This time Mélenchon sinks in the hypothesis of a manipulation … Thus, Mohamed Merah would have been manipulated in the context of a presidential election. The will of Xavier Jugulé’s assassin would not have been free, but would have had political ends. Right in the middle of the Champs-Élysées trial, what a lack of dignity!
For Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the only victims of Islamism are killed in a conspiratorial or conspiratorial framework.
In this sequence, the only victims identified are the Muslims, not the French policeman, not the Jews killed because they were Jews. For Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the only victims of Islamism are thus killed in a conspiratorial or conspiratorial framework.
On the television set, among the four journalists present, only Nathalie Saint-Cricq whispers ” What does that mean ? “…
This shows a total lack of control of the antenna… You have to stop the person who comes out with such shocking nonsense, you must not just sigh or smile like Ali Badou does. The CSA sanctioned the Big Mouths because they had let one of their guest say that the PCF had not been resistant from the start. They were accused of not having mastered the antenna. A week ago, Booba was told that Marine Le Pen was a Nazi. The CSA did not react for lack of control of the antenna. I await the reaction of the CSA this time.
But more deeply, for what reasons we do not behave as we should towards Jean-Luc Mélenchon?
First, there is an individual reason. The rebellious President of France terrorizes his audience. For a long time, he refused to go to France inter because he felt he was being mistreated there. He called public service people all names, but they ended up inviting him back, taking every precaution not to offend him again.
The problem is not that a media is left or right, the problem is that it happens on the public service!
The other reason is ideological. The extreme left is not detestable on this radio that one could qualify as “leftist”. When the antifas attacked a procession of Catholics last Sunday, in homage to the dead of the Commune, that they were violently attacked – a sexagenarian even found himself in the hospital – France Info did not do no brief. After several complaints from listeners, the public service explained itself. The radio, overwhelmed during the weekend, could not report on the aggression of far-left fascists against Catholics, it then felt that Monday morning was too late. In fact, when you feel morally above everyone else, you don’t have to justify your attitude.
Sophia Aram, who nevertheless denounced the conspiracy of Mélenchon, could not help but make a connection between Pascal Praud, Elisabeth Levy, and the reissue of Mein Kampf, because the program “L’heure des Pros” would be responsible to trivialize far-right ideas. The left is definitely incapable of honesty when its own side is responsible for despicable words. It has lost its intellectual and moral magisterium and only has intimidation as a baggage and prefers to ignore the abuses of the far left.
Do we not run the risk of maintaining a media system that no longer plays the role of adversarial, with a news channel by political current?
Every Friday, Julien Dray brings me the contradiction on CNews. I have only one dream, that the public antenna is as pluralistic as is 16. The person in charge of 7/9 on France inter, Nicolas Demorand, is the former director of Liberation, the columnist of policy foreigner, Pierre Haski is the former president and director of the publication of the company Rue 89 and the comedians all have their mouths in the corner … to the left.
The problem is not that a media is left or right, the problem is that it happens on the public service! It is all of us, as it is subject to a mandatory tax levy. You have the right to claim true plurality. You won’t hear me complain about the possible lack of pluralism on a private channel.
The deeper reality of all this is that the media left does not assume that it has lost its monopoly position. The ideas that she hates having until then been embodied in a marginal way in the media …