{"id":44911,"date":"2022-01-14T18:22:04","date_gmt":"2022-01-14T17:22:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=44911"},"modified":"2024-10-30T15:35:14","modified_gmt":"2024-10-30T14:35:14","slug":"propaganda-at-rts-when-public-service-goes-to-the-dogs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/company\/media\/propaganda-at-rts-when-public-service-goes-to-the-dogs\/","title":{"rendered":"Propaganda at RTS: when public service goes off the rails"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the name of the fight against the extreme right, everything seems permissible for certain journalists. Including not contradicting a guest who has no hesitation in equating Macron's actions and the votes of the Swiss population with fascism. Such an attitude on the public service is a fault. Citizens don't pay a tax to hear political propaganda and be vomited on. Back to Thursday's RTS scandal.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

What's the point of public service media? Answer in the Federal Constitution, Article 93<\/a>They \u00abcontribute to cultural education and development, free opinion-forming and entertainment. [They] present events faithfully and fairly reflect the diversity of opinions.\u00bb Translation: the public service is not a propaganda organ at the service of a party or a political line, but it must aim for a form of neutrality, it must balance, weigh, measure, etc. There's no such thing as perfect neutrality, but there is such a thing as good journalism. This is precisely what has been lacking yesterday, January 13, on the set of RTS<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The perfect example of a non-interview<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Sociologist Ugo Palheta was the guest of the 12h45<\/em> to talk about his book Facing the fascist threat<\/em>, co-authored with historian Ludivine Bantigny. The thesis of the book, according to the interview, is none other than this: the rise of right-wing movements around the world - in Poland, Hungary, Brazil, the USA and India - is a new form of manifestation of fascism. Add to this all the \u00abanti-Islam\u00bb, \u00abanti-migrant\u00bb and \u00abultra-security\u00bb rhetoric with which the French sociologist still associates violent, even openly neo-Nazi groupuscules. Faced with such a discourse, legitimate in a regime of freedom of expression, the journalist's job would have been to offer contradiction. However, the interviewer was content to support the guest's comments, and even to give him a hard time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Take a look. After Palheta's long tirade on what he sees as fascism today, Claire Burgy agreed with him: \u00ab... with, in France in particular, the presence of Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour...\u00bb, without asking him for a moment to comment or react. Then, she complacently offered him a transition allowing him to directly vilify Switzerland: \u00ab[You say that one] of the levers on which this political project that is fascism is based, is Islamophobia, and that makes it possible to make a link with Switzerland?\u00bb The guest goes on to talk about the \u00abminaret affair\u00bb, which he believes serves the desire of some to \u00abconstruct the figure of Islam [as the enemy]\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Right-wing fascism<\/strong>...<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Following this line of reasoning from the beginning, we've learned that the conservative right in the broadest sense, indeed the right at all, is fascism, that fascism is based on Islamophobia, and that votes on Islam in Switzerland are signs of Islamophobia. The conclusion follows logically from these premises: the Swiss, at least in part, are accomplices of fascism, if not fascists altogether. It's a radical statement that deserves to be discussed, but the journalist, who is decidedly sympathetic to the cause of the bearded man on duty, caresses it even more strongly... in the direction of the hair: \u00abNow that you've made your point, what do we do? We haven't got much time left...\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n