See online: Acrimed - Media Critique ---- On March 17, Pauline Perrenot
was in Limoges at the invitation of Limousin Palestine and the Cercle
Gramsci[1]. A journalist with the Acrimed association, which publishes
the journal Médiacritiques, she has long been interested in the
treatment of the Palestinian question in the French media, particularly
over the past year and a half. Here are some points taken from the first
part of her presentation ---- The representatives of the inviting
associations began by recalling some fundamentals: the domination of the
print and audiovisual press by capitalist groups[2]. What does a free
press mean if it remains in the hands of the dominant? The history of
Palestine is a history of resistance to colonization.
Even if Acrimed also aims to criticize international information, this
evening will be devoted to the French media in two aspects: the coverage
of events in Israel and in the various Palestinian territories on the
one hand and on the other hand the coverage of mobilizations and
positions taken in France. Here are some elements taken from the first
part of his speech
Rejection of History and Reflection
Among the major trends that are emerging, there is, both in France and
abroad, a strong tendency to disseminate information while excluding any
reflection and critical thinking. In particular, to reject any thought
that would deviate from a Western right-wing vision (and that of a large
part of the left) denying the colonial fact.
The first bias of this refusal of thought is "It all started on October
7." This refusal to present historical reality is fundamental. There has
been a denial of history since the 20th century, but also of the history
of the year 2023 with the concealment of the hundreds of Palestinians
killed before October 7. The media have deeply integrated the Israeli
point of view, and the speakers who wanted to provide elements of
contextualization of the massacres perpetrated in Israel have been
totally marginalized, disqualified, immediately accused, at best, of
relativizing the massacres, and at worst, of legitimizing terrorism. A
symptomatic element of this point of view is the phrase of Raphaël
Enthoven, who explained: "nothing is more monstrous than wanting to
explain barbarism and to give oneself the appearance of understanding it
better by doing so" [3]. A self-proclaimed philosopher who refuses to
think, and like almost all media leaders, speaks of a clash of
civilizations, a clash between civilization and barbarism, or between
democracy and terrorism.
The fact that TV sets were multiplying the number of diverse speakers
meant that a researcher and an artist, reflection and emotion, were
placed on the same level, disqualifying reflection. Heterodox voices
that sought to express themselves on a different level were
systematically hindered by the mechanisms and ordered as a prerequisite
to condemn Hamas.
Legitimizing Israel's Action
Since, for the mainstream media, everything began on October 7, the
State of Israel is logically the party that reacts and retaliates. The
legitimacy of violence is granted to the State of Israel alone. Israel
has the right to defend itself, a right denied to the Palestinians
despite UN resolutions and international law. Rima Hassan was even
attacked on the basis of a sentence recalling international law:
"Hamas's action is legitimate from the point of view of international
law." The fact that she said she did not consider what happened on
October 7 legitimate was obscured by a normal but distorted sentence.
In the media, for months after October 7, the idea of a legitimate
response was incontestable, even if it could sometimes be described as
disproportionate.
The third bias in the general media framing is the "Israel-Hamas war"
formula. This is problematic for two reasons: the abysmal imbalance of
power, and the invisibility of all Palestinians and their various
organizations. Not a word has been said about the arrest campaigns in
the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Israel, targeting all real or supposed
activists of Palestinian political and social organizations. It took a
long time for the Israeli army's repression and the explosion of
violence committed by settlers to be published in the mainstream media.
And often by putting them on the same level as Israel's actions in
Lebanon or Syria.
By adopting this choice of words and angles, the mainstream media are
obviously, consciously or not, supporting Israeli rhetoric and policy
that seek to separate the fate of Gaza from that of the West Bank and
the Palestinians of Israel. This reinforces the idea of a dilution, or
even a complete disappearance, of the Palestinian national question. An
example of the West Bank's obscurity: in the entire year 2024, France 2
's evening news programs only mentioned it in five reports. The same is
true on the other channels.
Disqualification of Contradiction
The conditions that allowed such a framing to prevail within media
leadership owe much, as in any period of intense crisis, to the
alignment of the French media with the agenda and positioning of the
political power, which, from the outset, affirmed its unconditional
support for the State of Israel. It is also the weight of the discourse
linking the October 7 massacre with the attacks that took place
previously in Western countries.
Anyone who does not adhere to this dominant discourse can therefore be
labeled by the media as an Islamo-leftist, a term derived from the far
right. The media's legitimization of racist, anti-Arab discourse, like
that of security-oriented, authoritarian, nationalist, and
identity-based slogans, contributes to the normalization of the far
right, which Acrimed has analyzed in several of its works. There is a
convergence of the Macronist "extreme center" with the far right.
In France, this interpretation of a war of civilization has completely
supplanted the colonial approach, hence the rejection of any criticism
of the colonization of Algeria, the suspension of Apathie (not a
leftist, however) for having mentioned the crimes of the conquest, the
deprogramming of a documentary on the use of chemical weapons by the
French army...
Choice of media management
One of the tools of disinformation is obviously the State of Israel's
ban on access to international journalists, which has been too weakly
denounced by the French media. But the weakness of French information
has older structural causes. TF1 closed its Jerusalem bureau in 2019.
France 2 still has one, whose staff was reduced from 10 to 3 in 2011.
Libération and Les Échos have not had permanent correspondents in
Israel-Palestine since 2023.
Most editorial offices no longer have permanent correspondents on the
ground and opt instead to send special correspondents, often freelancers
who are unfamiliar with the terrain. Some, like BFM-TV , deploy teams
during "hot" moments and then repatriate them. Moreover, these
journalists are rarely on the ground. We've all seen a journalist
reporting on events in the West Bank from offices in Tel Aviv.
All this explains journalistic shortcomings very well. Moreover, the
French media produce practically no information; they make comments
based on Israeli information and images. And the Israelis are very good
at influencing and directing Western newspapers and politicians.
For some media, the link with Israel is even stronger: BFMTV , until a
few months ago, was part of Patrick Drahi's group, like the
Franco-Israeli propaganda channel i24news . They share the same premises
and BFM uses reports prepared by i24 .
Erasure of Palestinians by Warmongers
Let's return to the absence of Palestinians in the French media with a
study we conducted. In 9 months, between January 1 and October 1, 2023,
the France 2 evening news covered 10 stories about Israel and Palestine.
Only one mentioned the atrocities of the settlers. The speaking time
given to Palestinians was limited to 33 seconds. This completely
obscures the daily lives of Palestinians and the violence they suffer.
It is a form of dehumanization, by omission, by invisibility, which
prevents any form of identification, understanding, and empathy towards
them, which leads to double standards, selective compassion...
The entire field of professional commentators was truly divided into two
categories. There were the warmongers on one side and the advocates of
willful blindness on the other. The latter's discourse assumed that
Israel would have no other choice, and in fact accepted the "collateral
damage," that is, the deaths of hundreds, then thousands, then tens of
thousands of civilians. And initially, the few speakers who specifically
called for de-escalation were disqualified, dismissed as naive,
ingenuous, and so on.
Not all media outlets adopted a belligerent stance as head-on as i24News
, but they massively relayed the Israeli army's communication, including
its most propagandistic and outrageous stories. One of the most striking
examples was the broadcast on February 5th by France Info , without
analysis or commentary, of an Israeli government propaganda clip on Gaza
2030.
On the belligerent level, BFMTV ardently accompanied the Israeli army's
preparations for the ground intervention for several months, considering
that the bombings were only a step before the offensive, while hiding
the thousands of deaths. The banner "Ground offensive in Gaza, when will
it happen?" clearly showed the editorial staff's impatience for the
worsening of the carnage.
Fake news and information sources
Editors and commentators spread false testimonies about the atrocities
committed on October 7, some of which flooded the world press. In
France, for example, the fake news about the 40 beheaded babies was
really massively publicized in all media. Subsequently, no substantial
self-criticism emerged and the rare corrections disseminated were not in
proportions similar to the false information.
The editors remained completely suspended on October 7, on October 7 as
they received and commented on it at that moment. One would have thought
that they would have continued to document themselves from the Israeli
and international press on the fake news, the proven facts, the
erroneous choices of the Israeli army... This was not discussed so as
not to call into question the initial story and the legitimacy of the
Israeli army's action.
A major deviation in the French media is the differential treatment of
sources. This double standard could be roughly summarized by speaking of
a mistrust or even discrediting of information coming from the
Palestinian side versus a presumption of veracity, or even a blind
belief in information coming from Israeli civil and military authorities.
For example, in the same report on France 2 , we saw images described as
"images provided by the Israeli police" and others as "Hamas propaganda
images." We must be attentive to this detail. Questioning sources is not
a problem in itself; it is even a normal part of journalistic ethics.
What becomes a problem is the double standard, when certain sources are
doubted and others are swallowed without question.
Similarly, the term "Hamas's Ministry of Health" is used to discredit
information from the Gaza Ministry of Health. (And here, I think that
one could, in the same spirit, describe the Israeli army as "the army of
Likud and its far-right allies").
Finally, it should be remembered that the Israeli army killed at least
145 Palestinian journalists between October 2023 and December 2025. Even
though many Palestinians strive to transmit information, it is not
sufficiently taken into account.
Another source of information that is not sufficiently taken into
account is the videos of Israeli soldiers filming their own atrocities.
These have received little attention in the written press, and even less
on television, even though they prove the crimes committed and the
colonialist spirit of the Israeli army.
Many other elements were discussed during this very enriching evening.
It can only encourage us to continue exploring the critique of the
dominant media with Acrimed .
Alain, Limoges
Notes
[1] The Gramsci Circle is a small group of activists from diverse
backgrounds who have been organizing conferences and debates on social
and political (non-political) issues in Limoges for over 40 years.
[2] See on the Acrimed website the map "Who owns what?" co-produced with
Le Monde Diplomatique.
[3] On Europe 1 on October 10, 2023
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4412
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
was in Limoges at the invitation of Limousin Palestine and the Cercle
Gramsci[1]. A journalist with the Acrimed association, which publishes
the journal Médiacritiques, she has long been interested in the
treatment of the Palestinian question in the French media, particularly
over the past year and a half. Here are some points taken from the first
part of her presentation ---- The representatives of the inviting
associations began by recalling some fundamentals: the domination of the
print and audiovisual press by capitalist groups[2]. What does a free
press mean if it remains in the hands of the dominant? The history of
Palestine is a history of resistance to colonization.
Even if Acrimed also aims to criticize international information, this
evening will be devoted to the French media in two aspects: the coverage
of events in Israel and in the various Palestinian territories on the
one hand and on the other hand the coverage of mobilizations and
positions taken in France. Here are some elements taken from the first
part of his speech
Rejection of History and Reflection
Among the major trends that are emerging, there is, both in France and
abroad, a strong tendency to disseminate information while excluding any
reflection and critical thinking. In particular, to reject any thought
that would deviate from a Western right-wing vision (and that of a large
part of the left) denying the colonial fact.
The first bias of this refusal of thought is "It all started on October
7." This refusal to present historical reality is fundamental. There has
been a denial of history since the 20th century, but also of the history
of the year 2023 with the concealment of the hundreds of Palestinians
killed before October 7. The media have deeply integrated the Israeli
point of view, and the speakers who wanted to provide elements of
contextualization of the massacres perpetrated in Israel have been
totally marginalized, disqualified, immediately accused, at best, of
relativizing the massacres, and at worst, of legitimizing terrorism. A
symptomatic element of this point of view is the phrase of Raphaël
Enthoven, who explained: "nothing is more monstrous than wanting to
explain barbarism and to give oneself the appearance of understanding it
better by doing so" [3]. A self-proclaimed philosopher who refuses to
think, and like almost all media leaders, speaks of a clash of
civilizations, a clash between civilization and barbarism, or between
democracy and terrorism.
The fact that TV sets were multiplying the number of diverse speakers
meant that a researcher and an artist, reflection and emotion, were
placed on the same level, disqualifying reflection. Heterodox voices
that sought to express themselves on a different level were
systematically hindered by the mechanisms and ordered as a prerequisite
to condemn Hamas.
Legitimizing Israel's Action
Since, for the mainstream media, everything began on October 7, the
State of Israel is logically the party that reacts and retaliates. The
legitimacy of violence is granted to the State of Israel alone. Israel
has the right to defend itself, a right denied to the Palestinians
despite UN resolutions and international law. Rima Hassan was even
attacked on the basis of a sentence recalling international law:
"Hamas's action is legitimate from the point of view of international
law." The fact that she said she did not consider what happened on
October 7 legitimate was obscured by a normal but distorted sentence.
In the media, for months after October 7, the idea of a legitimate
response was incontestable, even if it could sometimes be described as
disproportionate.
The third bias in the general media framing is the "Israel-Hamas war"
formula. This is problematic for two reasons: the abysmal imbalance of
power, and the invisibility of all Palestinians and their various
organizations. Not a word has been said about the arrest campaigns in
the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Israel, targeting all real or supposed
activists of Palestinian political and social organizations. It took a
long time for the Israeli army's repression and the explosion of
violence committed by settlers to be published in the mainstream media.
And often by putting them on the same level as Israel's actions in
Lebanon or Syria.
By adopting this choice of words and angles, the mainstream media are
obviously, consciously or not, supporting Israeli rhetoric and policy
that seek to separate the fate of Gaza from that of the West Bank and
the Palestinians of Israel. This reinforces the idea of a dilution, or
even a complete disappearance, of the Palestinian national question. An
example of the West Bank's obscurity: in the entire year 2024, France 2
's evening news programs only mentioned it in five reports. The same is
true on the other channels.
Disqualification of Contradiction
The conditions that allowed such a framing to prevail within media
leadership owe much, as in any period of intense crisis, to the
alignment of the French media with the agenda and positioning of the
political power, which, from the outset, affirmed its unconditional
support for the State of Israel. It is also the weight of the discourse
linking the October 7 massacre with the attacks that took place
previously in Western countries.
Anyone who does not adhere to this dominant discourse can therefore be
labeled by the media as an Islamo-leftist, a term derived from the far
right. The media's legitimization of racist, anti-Arab discourse, like
that of security-oriented, authoritarian, nationalist, and
identity-based slogans, contributes to the normalization of the far
right, which Acrimed has analyzed in several of its works. There is a
convergence of the Macronist "extreme center" with the far right.
In France, this interpretation of a war of civilization has completely
supplanted the colonial approach, hence the rejection of any criticism
of the colonization of Algeria, the suspension of Apathie (not a
leftist, however) for having mentioned the crimes of the conquest, the
deprogramming of a documentary on the use of chemical weapons by the
French army...
Choice of media management
One of the tools of disinformation is obviously the State of Israel's
ban on access to international journalists, which has been too weakly
denounced by the French media. But the weakness of French information
has older structural causes. TF1 closed its Jerusalem bureau in 2019.
France 2 still has one, whose staff was reduced from 10 to 3 in 2011.
Libération and Les Échos have not had permanent correspondents in
Israel-Palestine since 2023.
Most editorial offices no longer have permanent correspondents on the
ground and opt instead to send special correspondents, often freelancers
who are unfamiliar with the terrain. Some, like BFM-TV , deploy teams
during "hot" moments and then repatriate them. Moreover, these
journalists are rarely on the ground. We've all seen a journalist
reporting on events in the West Bank from offices in Tel Aviv.
All this explains journalistic shortcomings very well. Moreover, the
French media produce practically no information; they make comments
based on Israeli information and images. And the Israelis are very good
at influencing and directing Western newspapers and politicians.
For some media, the link with Israel is even stronger: BFMTV , until a
few months ago, was part of Patrick Drahi's group, like the
Franco-Israeli propaganda channel i24news . They share the same premises
and BFM uses reports prepared by i24 .
Erasure of Palestinians by Warmongers
Let's return to the absence of Palestinians in the French media with a
study we conducted. In 9 months, between January 1 and October 1, 2023,
the France 2 evening news covered 10 stories about Israel and Palestine.
Only one mentioned the atrocities of the settlers. The speaking time
given to Palestinians was limited to 33 seconds. This completely
obscures the daily lives of Palestinians and the violence they suffer.
It is a form of dehumanization, by omission, by invisibility, which
prevents any form of identification, understanding, and empathy towards
them, which leads to double standards, selective compassion...
The entire field of professional commentators was truly divided into two
categories. There were the warmongers on one side and the advocates of
willful blindness on the other. The latter's discourse assumed that
Israel would have no other choice, and in fact accepted the "collateral
damage," that is, the deaths of hundreds, then thousands, then tens of
thousands of civilians. And initially, the few speakers who specifically
called for de-escalation were disqualified, dismissed as naive,
ingenuous, and so on.
Not all media outlets adopted a belligerent stance as head-on as i24News
, but they massively relayed the Israeli army's communication, including
its most propagandistic and outrageous stories. One of the most striking
examples was the broadcast on February 5th by France Info , without
analysis or commentary, of an Israeli government propaganda clip on Gaza
2030.
On the belligerent level, BFMTV ardently accompanied the Israeli army's
preparations for the ground intervention for several months, considering
that the bombings were only a step before the offensive, while hiding
the thousands of deaths. The banner "Ground offensive in Gaza, when will
it happen?" clearly showed the editorial staff's impatience for the
worsening of the carnage.
Fake news and information sources
Editors and commentators spread false testimonies about the atrocities
committed on October 7, some of which flooded the world press. In
France, for example, the fake news about the 40 beheaded babies was
really massively publicized in all media. Subsequently, no substantial
self-criticism emerged and the rare corrections disseminated were not in
proportions similar to the false information.
The editors remained completely suspended on October 7, on October 7 as
they received and commented on it at that moment. One would have thought
that they would have continued to document themselves from the Israeli
and international press on the fake news, the proven facts, the
erroneous choices of the Israeli army... This was not discussed so as
not to call into question the initial story and the legitimacy of the
Israeli army's action.
A major deviation in the French media is the differential treatment of
sources. This double standard could be roughly summarized by speaking of
a mistrust or even discrediting of information coming from the
Palestinian side versus a presumption of veracity, or even a blind
belief in information coming from Israeli civil and military authorities.
For example, in the same report on France 2 , we saw images described as
"images provided by the Israeli police" and others as "Hamas propaganda
images." We must be attentive to this detail. Questioning sources is not
a problem in itself; it is even a normal part of journalistic ethics.
What becomes a problem is the double standard, when certain sources are
doubted and others are swallowed without question.
Similarly, the term "Hamas's Ministry of Health" is used to discredit
information from the Gaza Ministry of Health. (And here, I think that
one could, in the same spirit, describe the Israeli army as "the army of
Likud and its far-right allies").
Finally, it should be remembered that the Israeli army killed at least
145 Palestinian journalists between October 2023 and December 2025. Even
though many Palestinians strive to transmit information, it is not
sufficiently taken into account.
Another source of information that is not sufficiently taken into
account is the videos of Israeli soldiers filming their own atrocities.
These have received little attention in the written press, and even less
on television, even though they prove the crimes committed and the
colonialist spirit of the Israeli army.
Many other elements were discussed during this very enriching evening.
It can only encourage us to continue exploring the critique of the
dominant media with Acrimed .
Alain, Limoges
Notes
[1] The Gramsci Circle is a small group of activists from diverse
backgrounds who have been organizing conferences and debates on social
and political (non-political) issues in Limoges for over 40 years.
[2] See on the Acrimed website the map "Who owns what?" co-produced with
Le Monde Diplomatique.
[3] On Europe 1 on October 10, 2023
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4412
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten