VIDEO – The RMC journalist, like David Pujadas, explained in Yann Barthès’ talk show why she does not use the term “extreme right” when she cites the National Rally (RN).
Their appearance on “Quotidien” yesterday evening did not leave some viewers indifferent. Questioned on the qualification of the parties while the legislative elections are being played out in France, the journalists David Pujadas and Apolline de Malherbe declared that they no longer use the qualifier “far right” to designate the National Rally (RN) during their respective broadcasts, “24 Heures Pujadas” and the RMC morning show.
A wave of indignation then swept across social networks. Many of the critics are also from the profession. Salhia Brakhlia from - cite Albert Camus : “To name things badly is to add to the misfortune of the world”. “It is symptomatic of a practice of journalism which is content with commentary and on-the-spot reactions rather than in-depth work on party stories and projects”writes Abel Mestre, journalist at Monde.
Read also“Did you close the door?” : Apolline de Malherbe’s little dig at Valérie Hayer at the start of the interview
Also invited that evening on the TMC talk show, the editor-in-chief of France Inter’s political service Yaël Goosz did not agree with his colleagues. “I rely on the Council of State, which placed the RN in the far right but not LFI in the far left”he replied to Yann Barthès.
Should we, as journalists, simply repeat what the Ministry of the Interior says, with the stamp of the Council of State?
Apolline de Malherbe on her X account
It is from this argument that Apolline de Malherbe, through her keyboard, explained her editorial choice. “Should we, as journalists, simply repeat what the Ministry of the Interior says, with the stamp of the Council of State? Are we satisfied with what the ministry says about the number of demonstrators in a demonstration? What would or would not be “police violence”? And just take what the ministry decides on the color of the parties? Or should we ourselves observe the facts, which are not fixed, and which constantly move the lines?she asks in a post on her X account, this Saturday, June 29.
She continues: “In recent weeks, the news has been dominated by the rejection of foreigners, homophobic insults and attacks, the temptation of chaos, the “borderline” of parliamentarism, the negation of anti-Semitism which is only “residual” , (which would only be a “detail”?)… Should we talk about the “extreme right”, the “extreme left”, “THE extremes”? Should we put all elected officials in the same bag?.
The journalist acknowledges that the debate “is complex” more than “the period imposes both demands and great respect for each other”. “This is why I got into the habit of calling the parties by their names”concludes Apolline de Malherbe.
SEE ALSO – “There are too many women”: Apolline de Malherbe’s surprising observation on the incarnations of the political interview
”
data-script=”https://static.lefigaro.fr/widget-video/short-ttl/video/index.js”
>
