Two minutes of delayed, and a controversy that has swelled since. Monday, January 20, Donald Trump’s inauguration day in Washington, the Belgian television channel RTBF broadcast on its antenna the inaugural speech of the new 47th president of the United States in its entirety. But not quite in live. During this “special edition”, Aurélie Didier, assistant editorial director of information of the public media, explained that the speech was disseminated in “Delayed light” pour “Take the time of analysis”. “This is a practice that we have already applied for many years to RTBF, in French -speaking Belgium, and that we call the media health cord”, She justified, while adding that Donald Trump has repeatedly “Maked racist, extreme right, xenophobic remarks, also hate incentive”. And to explain that this deferred light device “Allows you to trivialize such comments, normalize them. It is not censorship, RTBF does not censorship.»
An argument that has not convinced everyone, triggering a lively controversy. Georges-Louis Bouchez, president of the Reforming Movement (MR)-a Belgian political party located on the right-was offended by these two minutes late. “”There is a real RTBF problem. Who are these experts who determine good and evil? We may not share the project of the new President of the United States, but nothing can justify that a democratically elected president receives Ce treatment on the part of small leaders of thought. RTBF information department is not the ministry for censorship and propaganda. We will act accordingly ”, he wrote on X the next day.
Wednesday, the Minister of the Media in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, Jacqueline Galant (also a member of the reform movement), said he was “Amazed” RTBF’s decision, and announced to challenge the public media to know “Methodology” as well as “Legal arguments” of this method. “Without questioning the principle of health cordon in any way, I wonder about the effectiveness of this decision insofar as this retransmission was accessible on a whole set of other French -speaking media”, continued the minister, questioned in plenary session of Parliament by deputies Sabine Roberty (PS) and Diana Nikolic (MR), as the media mentions The evening. Other French -speaking Belgian media, such as Ln24, have indeed broadcast live speech. “I do not question the principle of media health cord. I wonder about its operation. What is its perimeter? Does it apply to the whole world? Why does it not apply to all extremes? Who decides at RTBF which is extreme right and which is not? ”
What is this “health cord”?
EB El Giqu E Francophone, Wallonia, the principle of media health cordon has applied since the late 1990s. “This is a mechanism by which the audiovisual media do not grant live speaking time to parties, organizations, or political figures who do not respect democratic principles and rights, details with CheckNews Benjamin Biard, Doctor of Political Science and Professor at the University of Louvain. By extension, we consider that it is also a question of not giving the word at all to the extreme right. ” The media continue to speak of the extreme right, but on the condition of contextualizing and reframing their assertion. Delayed diffusion is also an option of the device, since it allows you to have control over their words without disseminating them live.
Benjamin Biard explains that this principle was erected on the initiative of the RTBF after the “Black Sunday”, On November 24, 1991, when the Flemish party the Vlaams Blok – classified to the far right, ancestor of the Vlaams Belang – succeeded in snatching 12 seats from Parliament and then made an unprecedented electoral breakthrough. “This media principle applies only in French -speaking Belgium, and not in Flemish Belgium, where the extreme right is already very present”, he notes.
As the Ina media review notes, in a long investigation into the health cordon published on January 17, the system, “Originally designed against the extreme right, was then applied to the Islam fundamentalist party, whose program contravened the principle of equality between women and men.” But if right -wing elected officials regularly claim that it also concerns the Belgian work party, explains the article, it is for the moment in vain: “The far left program does not contain proposals contrary to human rights and is not undemocratic”, Argues Simon-Pierre de Coster, legal advisor to the RTBF which was responsible for solidifying the system. As the RTBF site underlines, this mechanism – whose legality has been disputed several times – is framed by law, through two decrees – one in 2021 and the other in 1997. And it is applied by D ‘Other Belgian media.
-In the case of Trump, what did the device consist precisely? The mechanism allowed “To another team to listen to the direct speech, which could have made it possible to apply the obligation of prudence” In the event of a slippage, notes Martine Simonis, secretary general of the Association of Professional Journalists (AJP). And add: “This deferred broadcast was in no way exceptional, and frequently arrives on RTBF, as during the Meetings of Vlaams Belang. In French -speaking Belgium, this principle is not an option, but an obligation. ” Even if the decision to apply it to Donald Trump was indeed RTBF. And that this choice was not shared by other media, also required to respect the system.
What is the response of RTBF journalists?
D Ansce te x broadcast you this Thursday, The RTBF journalists (SDJ) supports the chain decision, evoking a “Editorial decision based on media cordon based on several decrees, a CSA regulation and journalistic ethics. ” About criticism from Georges-Louis Bouchez, president of the reforming movement (MR), denouncing RTBF as a “Ministry of Censorship and Propaganda”the SDJ denounces a “Inaccurate, ignorant and insulting position».
The association of journalists, which recalls the texts of laws supervising the application of the health cordon, says that “Legal analysis carried out by RTBF has[vait] concluded that there was a risk that Donald Trump holds speeches containing incentives discrimination, to hatred, to violence based on many speeches already held by the President». And the SDJ press release to continue: “The entire speech of Donald Trump was broadcast at a prime time, without cutting or editing.»
In an interview with Belgian magazine Mosquitothe Secretary General of the Council for Ethics of Journalists in Belgium, Muriel Hanot, assures that “It is the freedom of writing, on the basis of their analyzes, to act, provided that the public informs that the event is not broadcast live”.
