What is debating on France Culture?

Emmanuelle Daviet : What is debating on France Culture? This is the question that sums up all the questions that listeners would like to ask you. So I will still go into the detail of their messages and start with this remark from a listener: What distinguishes a debate on France Culture from debates that we can listen to on other media? Do you think that the exercise of the media on this public service channel has a particular role to play in preserving a space for democratic dialogue? »

Quentin Lafay: Absolutely. I think that there are several distinctive elements of the debate that we are trying to lead or at least organize at France Culture. The first of them is classic because it perhaps crosses all of the broadcasts on this channel. It's the time we devote to it, the preparation time, of course, but the time on the air, since it's 40 minutes of daily debates for two or three guests per show, which leaves each and each of them has time to unfold a thought, an argument, a reasoning. But beyond that, what we are trying to look for is not necessarily confrontation, I always say, I find in any case that a successful debate is a debate where we change practically of opinion every time we listen to an interlocutor because we fully enter, we fully immerse ourselves in a given reasoning, and above all, we grow thanks to the debate, we grow intellectually, we progress intellectually because it is what brings the nuance, the complexity of the opposition, without necessarily being confrontational, particularly in the tone. And then the third distinctive element, I would say that it's still all the time, but that works well beyond France Culture and on all Radio France channels. It is the respect that we have in each of the interlocutors and in the reasoning that each of them defends each time.

Emmanuelle Daviet: Question that frequently comes up in listeners' messages: According to what criteria do you choose your debate topics?

Quentin Lafay: Only the legitimacy of knowledge. That is to say that we are not going to look for people who will try to argue, who will try to make noise. But our guests are always here, in this studio because they master, they know their subject. So there are different ways to master, to know a subject. You can know a subject because you are an academic expert on it, because you have worked on the substance for years as part of a thesis, as part of research work. But we can also be knowledgeable about a subject because we experience it in the forefront on a daily basis. When we debate the agricultural subject, we will be keen to bring in farmers. When we debate economic issues, we will be keen to bring in employees or industry leaders. There you go, these are all the people who are legitimate in one way or another to know a subject and therefore to contribute something, to always teach us something.

Emmanuelle Daviet: And you indicated earlier that what defines a quality debate is in particular the fact of perhaps changing one's point of view on a question while listening to an interlocutor. This is not the only criterion for the quality of a debate.

Quentin Lafay: No, that's not the only criterion. The only criterion is always obviously. Moreover, this is also transversal to all France Culture broadcasts. First and foremost, it’s about learning things. The day before yesterday, we had a debate on Mercosur. Should we be for or against? For example, and what I really, really liked about the exchange that the two guests had, was precisely that each time they brought arguments that I myself had not heard elsewhere so that I spent time preparing for this show. But there you have it, they each brought their point of view, dimensions of the debate that I for my part did not know.

Emmanuelle Daviet: But following on from what you say, do you think that debates can really change mentalities or is it above all an intellectual exercise?

Quentin Lafay: I think it's both. Changing mentalities is certainly a bit ambitious, but if we can already show that the subjects that cross the news are complex, made up of nuances, that black or white, that is not enough to understand things which are often multi colors. There you go, I think that this is our primary function, it is to show that everything is complex, complicated, that nuance is always the best weapon to understand what affects us or what crosses the world. And then it's a hyper-stimulating intellectual exercise because you yourself, as a journalist, have to try to bury your point of view, question yourself as much as possible, grant credibility to points of view to which we are not always confronted. So intellectually, for me, it's a show that I love to host.

Emmanuelle Daviet: Do you also think about the expectations of the public, the expectations of your listeners? Is that a consideration when you think about your shows?

Quentin Lafay: Yes, it is fundamental in many respects. Firstly because you have to find a subject per day and we often think about subjects which will please the listeners too. There are obviously the favorites of the host, the favorites of the team, but we sometimes say to ourselves that we have to deal with this subject because the listeners of France Culture also listen to us for that. Also because we cannot not treat it. And then also, we think a lot about what the listeners think or about their presence, at least in the way we compose the sets. We always try to compose sets where all the points of view of the social body, all the points of view of the listeners in the broad sense will be represented. So yes, listeners are always in line of sight and line of listening.

Emmanuelle Daviet: And Quentin Lafay, on a personal level, what are your favorite things?

Quentin Lafay: I have several. I really, really like economic subjects in the broad sense, because I come from there, because I worked in economic research before joining France Culture. And then cultural subjects, I find that often these are subjects which also deserve to be debated because we must also treat culture from the angle of debate, from the angle of criticism. And it is also the responsibility of a channel like France Culture to offer this type of program.

Emmanuelle Daviet: With the increasing polarization of opinions, how do you avoid the trap of spectacle debate which favors divisive exchanges over in-depth reflection?

Quentin Lafay: Well, we're not actually trying to bring people together, to put people who have radically opposed positions in a studio, because in fact meetings don't happen very often in this kind of case. So what we try is first to find guests who have things to say to each other, things in common. And this is often a common subject of research. These are often common fads. And ultimately, that might be a good debate. First of all, it's a good discussion. I find that a program that is successful, in any case an exercise that I enjoy enormously, is to see little by little how the guests change their own point of view over the course of the program, how the discussion in which they immersed themselves also allows them to learn things. And that’s probably what’s most stimulating.

Emmanuelle Daviet: And specifically, what was for you the most memorable debate that you have hosted?

Quentin Lafay: Since the start of the season there have been several. I would say that the most striking is perhaps the Mazan affair. We have had several, we have even had a series of debates on this subject. First of all, it is the affair itself which is traumatic, absolutely terrifying and which teaches us an enormous amount about violence against women and all of these subjects, also about the condition of women. But even more, these are often subjects on which emotion is always extremely present in the studio. And so we have speakers who are always very, very concerned by this subject. And I remember being moved on several occasions while listening to arguments, testimony from guests on the subject of the Mazan trial.

Emmanuelle Daviet : Last question: would there be a taboo debate?

Quentin Lafay: No, I hope there isn't. In any case, we try to debate all subjects. We set a priori no rules, no limits in respect of the rules laid down and which we have just mentioned together but I hope that on the contrary, there is above all, above all, no taboo.