Bye Bye 2024 marked a new peak – or a new low – in -’s controversial management of Guillaume Lemay-Thivierge.
While the artist is in the midst of personal and professional reconstruction, he was the target of a scathing sketch which ridiculed him in front of more than four million viewers.
This attack, orchestrated under the direction of Simon-Olivier Fecteau, was perceived by many as gratuitous and shameful harassment.
The controversy surrounding Guillaume Lemay-Thivierge is not new. After his famous intolerant joke about working in the forest, - refused to broadcast the Meubles RD advertisement featuring the actor, claiming that he represented a risk to their image.
However, this same state corporation had no qualms about humiliating him in a sketch at Bye Bye. How can such a double standard be justified?
If - feared public reactions by showing Lemay-Thivierge in an advertisement, why give him so much attention in a merciless parody?
If we can dedicate three minutes to making fun of an individual, why not give them even 30 seconds to show a different side, a possible redemption?
This blatant contradiction raises questions about the true intentions of the state corporation and director Simon-Olivier Fecteau.
In a society that claims to value inclusion and compassion, the treatment of Guillaume Lemay-Thivierge is more reminiscent of a witch hunt than thoughtful satire.
Yes, humor can be biting, but when it attacks an already vulnerable person, it stops being funny and becomes cruel.
Words have weight. When a platform as influential as Bye Bye decides to focus its energy on a person who has lost their contracts, their reputation and who is trying to get back on their feet, it seems more like media intimidation than constructive criticism.
-, as a state corporation financed by taxpayers, must represent the values of Quebec society.
Yet his handling of this matter sends a worrying message.
Why focus on Guillaume Lemay-Thivierge while avoiding more complex and potentially controversial subjects, such as the statements of certain politicians or real social issues?
This media relentlessness is all the more difficult to justify since Lemay-Thivierge did not commit a crime, but only an error of judgment.
Why such rage towards him, especially from an institution that should advocate balance and nuance?
If we return to the vocabulary of Christian charity, - carried out a public “crucifixion” of Guillaume Lemay-Thivierge without ever offering him a chance of redemption.
Instead of reaching out to him, she chose to crush him further, fueling a toxic climate where cancel culture seems to trump understanding.
This treatment contrasts sharply with the attitude of many companies and public figures who have chosen to support Lemay-Thivierge.
The video he shared on his social media, showing behind the scenes of his ad for Meubles RD, was accompanied by messages of love and support from his fans.
This contrast between the warm reception of the public and the institutional coldness of - highlights an important divide in our society.
Bye Bye 2024 could have been a platform to open dialogue, to address delicate subjects with finesse and humanity. Instead, he took the easy way out: ridiculing a man who was already down.
This approach not only tarnished the reputation of Guillaume Lemay-Thivierge, but also that of -, which missed an opportunity to set an example.
Looking ahead, it is crucial that our institutions, particularly those funded by our taxes, reflect on the impact of their editorial choices.
Humor can be a powerful tool to unite and educate, but it must be used with responsibility and respect.
By attacking Guillaume Lemay-Thivierge in this way, - missed an opportunity to demonstrate these values.
This episode will be remembered as an example of what not to do. Simon-Olivier Fecteau and - must answer for their choices.
The Quebec public deserves better than destructive sketches and institutional hypocrisy. He deserves television that reflects his values of justice, fairness and respect.
By revisiting Bye Bye 2024, an observation emerges: - has not only turned its spotlight on Guillaume Lemay-Thivierge, but also on recurring targets, notably Quebecor and its branches such as TVA and TVA Sports.
Still, for Lemay-Thivierge, it was the last straw.
What is striking, however, is the way in which Simon-Olivier Fecteau, by orchestrating the sketch on Lemay-Thivierge, seems to have betrayed a man already in reconstruction, while - refused advertising for Meubles RD.
In this large-scale spectacle, it is clear that the parody was oriented to hit hard where it was but – but always on one side…a one-sided side…
Guillaume Lemay-Thivierge, long associated with TVA, was presented as a caricature of his worst moments, without nuance or attempt to understand his rehabilitation process.
Beyond Lemay-Thivierge, Bye Bye 2024 did not hesitate to attack TVA Sports, already in bad shape, in a sketch that left its mark.
Élizabeth Rancourt, played by Sarah-Jeanne Labrosse, was presented as a desperate host, forced to do embarrassing product placement to save a channel that is adrift.
This criticism, as funny as it may have been for some, reflects a frontal attack against Quebecor and its management of TVA Sports.
On the other hand, - broadcasts did not receive the same cruel treatment. All the sketches on - broadcasts were very “soft”.
Hypocrisy when you hold us: - is ready to attack its competitors while protecting its own interests.
The role of Simon-Olivier Fecteau in this affair is central. As director of Bye Bye, he chose to walk on Lemay-Thivierge who was already on the ground.
The Quebec public, faithful to the Bye Bye event, deserves better: a parody which points in all directions, including towards -, and which seeks to unite rather than divide.
The real challenge for 2025 will be to find this balance, so that Bye Bye continues to be a symbol of humor and reflection for all.
It will be without Fecteau…who has already taken the exit door…
Obviously, the director will act as if it was his decision to leave the production of the show after 9 years.
The reality is that - has already made the decision to fire him.
