Original subtitles

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 Elysée 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of a total freedom that's never been revoked.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:

lndependence, 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. Raphaëlle Bacqué,

the prizewinner for her book on recent prime ministers,

doesn't mince words.

I know no othe r 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 Libération 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 othe rs 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 othe r.

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 furthe r.

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.

Neithe r should control the othe r,

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 othe r 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 fathe r.

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 freesheet published by the Bolloré 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 therelentless 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 anothe r 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 fathe r'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 othe r 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 othe rs 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

Crédit 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 othe rs 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 ofjournalists 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 lnter radio

know how to boost

the corporate culture of his workforce?

thereply comes quickly.

lsabelle 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 therelevant field:

international, economic,

social, legal, or parliamentary.

In future, the news presenter will act as a kind of ringmaster,

standing back to make way,

eithe r 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 othe r,

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-Hervé 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 othe rs, 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-Hervé 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 therevival

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 rathe r like a farmers' market.

Some people bring melons, othe rs 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 Libération

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

anothe r 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 togethe r,

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 therecent 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 togethe r.

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, Frédéric 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 912 appearances altogethe r.

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 LCl,

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 othe r 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 rathe r 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. Othe rs 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 theresulting 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.

lts 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 2008 report

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,

therecession showed how well the UK economy was working.

State to therescue!

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 über-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 Bolloré,

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 subprimes 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 therecession 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 anothe r 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 .

Frédéric 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 othe rs 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 othe rjournalists,

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, Libération,

Le Point, Nice Matin,

Les DNA, Le Maine Libre,

Le Courrier de I'Ouest, Presse Océan.

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 othe r 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 therebel 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 Félix 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 UMPparty 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 Café

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 lnter 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 eithe r

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 Libération

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 Poincaré left France lnfo

for Europe 1,

replacing Nicolas Demorand,

who took the helm of Libération,

while Arlette Chabot left France 2

to become editor-in-chief at Europe 1.

At the same time Erik lzraelewicz,

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 othe r 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, Libération 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 thereality 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.

DRAGNET

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, therecession 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 clichés,

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

Subtitles by Nigel Palmer

Subtitling by L.V.T. - Paris