... the sad news keep on. This time the crisis arrived to the newspaper which once had an editorial stating that "Notre pauvreté est la mesure de notre indépendance.": Libération. The founding manifesto of this newspaper was: "Depend on the people, not on advertisers or banks".
After some years of economic problems (which is not surprising in the press), this statement changed to: "L’indépendance c’est très simple : Il faut gagner de l’argent" and the solution seemed to accept the investment of the financer Edouard de Rothschild, who had no experience about working in journalism before and that even had financed rightist electoral campaigns, being also a Sarkozy's close friend (why lately everyone seems to be a close friend of Sarkozy?): "A New York educated, horse-racing enthusiast, Mr Rothschild is a friend of the conservative interior minister and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy, with whom he had holidayed. He is adamant that his friendship with Mr Sarkozy has not influenced his attitude to Libé."
But, even if the news at the time seemed to try to show the opposite, who can say that this offer didn't have any second intentions? As it is said by Yves Rebours and Arnaud Rindel, it's difficult to believe that the independence of a newspaper is independent of the demandings of profit, which are set by the main stockholder, when these ones are able to affect the jounalists' work condicions, their name and their position.
First of all, it was Rothschild himself who said that one of the reasons for this investment was the "influence sur la société" and that it is "un peu une vue utopique de vouloir différencier rédaction et actionnaire » (France 2, 30.9.2005)".
This was even confirmed by Le Point: "Vingt millions d’euros, c’est beaucoup d’argent, même pour un Rothschild. 'Et en même temps, poursuit ce banquier [a banker who knows him well], ce n’est pas beaucoup pour mettre la main sur une affaire connue.' De celles qui vous projettent en pleine lumière. Libé, c’est une institution du 'microcosme', un journal qui a plus d’influence que son tirage".
However, the mainstream idea was always that Rothschild's proposal was only related with an economic, almost philantropic, interest and that he would respect the identity of the newspaper, as himself stated several times: "Je m’engage fermement et personnellement [à] préserver l’indépendance de la rédaction, [...] Et, à ce titre, sachez que je considère les droits de la SCPL comme inaliénables et qu’ils seront garantis.". About the question "Libération sera-t-il à l’abri des pressions économiques et politiques?", Edouard de Rothschild has confirmed once more this promisse: "Oui, sans équivoque. Je crois avoir été assez clair sur la question de l’indépendance du journal.".
Furthermore, and one of the main contraditions, Rothschild has also stated that Serge July would keep all his fonctions: "Une chance d’autant plus grande que l’offre du financier inclut - 'à la demande d’Edouard de Rothschild', précise Serge July - l’assurance pour lui 'de poursuivre à la tête de Libération, en cumulant les fonctions de président et de directeur général, jusqu’en 2012'...". Even July, after this promise, was convinced that accepting Rothschild proposal wouldn't change anything in the heart of the newspaper: "Notre journal, affirme-t-il dans les colonnes de Libération (22.01.2005), n’entre pas dans un groupe puissant, où nous aurions été contraints, irrésistiblement, de nous fondre, il s’associe avec un actionnaire qui, s’il sera le premier de l’entreprise, sera minoritaire, et destiné à le rester, comme il en a pris l’engagement. Ce nouvel associé souscrit à la charte d’indépendance et au pacte d’actionnaires qui sont les socles de notre indépendance entrepreneuriale et journalistique.".
Surprinsingly, or not, according to the last news, July and Louis Dreyfus will leave the newspaper, under the pressure of Rothschild: "Selon 'L'Express', l'actionnaire principal est prêt à signer un nouveau chèque, d'un montant compris entre 10 à 15 millions d'euros, 'à une seule condition: le départ de Serge July'."
After some years of economic problems (which is not surprising in the press), this statement changed to: "L’indépendance c’est très simple : Il faut gagner de l’argent" and the solution seemed to accept the investment of the financer Edouard de Rothschild, who had no experience about working in journalism before and that even had financed rightist electoral campaigns, being also a Sarkozy's close friend (why lately everyone seems to be a close friend of Sarkozy?): "A New York educated, horse-racing enthusiast, Mr Rothschild is a friend of the conservative interior minister and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy, with whom he had holidayed. He is adamant that his friendship with Mr Sarkozy has not influenced his attitude to Libé."
But, even if the news at the time seemed to try to show the opposite, who can say that this offer didn't have any second intentions? As it is said by Yves Rebours and Arnaud Rindel, it's difficult to believe that the independence of a newspaper is independent of the demandings of profit, which are set by the main stockholder, when these ones are able to affect the jounalists' work condicions, their name and their position.
First of all, it was Rothschild himself who said that one of the reasons for this investment was the "influence sur la société" and that it is "un peu une vue utopique de vouloir différencier rédaction et actionnaire » (France 2, 30.9.2005)".
This was even confirmed by Le Point: "Vingt millions d’euros, c’est beaucoup d’argent, même pour un Rothschild. 'Et en même temps, poursuit ce banquier [a banker who knows him well], ce n’est pas beaucoup pour mettre la main sur une affaire connue.' De celles qui vous projettent en pleine lumière. Libé, c’est une institution du 'microcosme', un journal qui a plus d’influence que son tirage".
However, the mainstream idea was always that Rothschild's proposal was only related with an economic, almost philantropic, interest and that he would respect the identity of the newspaper, as himself stated several times: "Je m’engage fermement et personnellement [à] préserver l’indépendance de la rédaction, [...] Et, à ce titre, sachez que je considère les droits de la SCPL comme inaliénables et qu’ils seront garantis.". About the question "Libération sera-t-il à l’abri des pressions économiques et politiques?", Edouard de Rothschild has confirmed once more this promisse: "Oui, sans équivoque. Je crois avoir été assez clair sur la question de l’indépendance du journal.".
Furthermore, and one of the main contraditions, Rothschild has also stated that Serge July would keep all his fonctions: "Une chance d’autant plus grande que l’offre du financier inclut - 'à la demande d’Edouard de Rothschild', précise Serge July - l’assurance pour lui 'de poursuivre à la tête de Libération, en cumulant les fonctions de président et de directeur général, jusqu’en 2012'...". Even July, after this promise, was convinced that accepting Rothschild proposal wouldn't change anything in the heart of the newspaper: "Notre journal, affirme-t-il dans les colonnes de Libération (22.01.2005), n’entre pas dans un groupe puissant, où nous aurions été contraints, irrésistiblement, de nous fondre, il s’associe avec un actionnaire qui, s’il sera le premier de l’entreprise, sera minoritaire, et destiné à le rester, comme il en a pris l’engagement. Ce nouvel associé souscrit à la charte d’indépendance et au pacte d’actionnaires qui sont les socles de notre indépendance entrepreneuriale et journalistique.".
Surprinsingly, or not, according to the last news, July and Louis Dreyfus will leave the newspaper, under the pressure of Rothschild: "Selon 'L'Express', l'actionnaire principal est prêt à signer un nouveau chèque, d'un montant compris entre 10 à 15 millions d'euros, 'à une seule condition: le départ de Serge July'."
* "Liberty or death", considered the declaration of the Brazilian independence from Portugal, pronounced by Dom Pedro near the Ipiranga river on the 7th September 1822.
2 comments:
É uma era de grandes desenvolvimentos no jornalismo, a era de informação é também uma ea de grande confusão. Os status quo são constantemente postos em causa, seja com o aparecimento da internet, de telemóveis, blogues, etc. Na América, os jornalistas juntam-se em blogs colectivos: a massificação (em termos quantitativos) da informação vai levar também à elitização da profissão: as oportunidades de trabalhar 'tradicionalmente' vão restringir-se cada vez mais à elite que já ocupava estes postos anteriormente. O resto da malta agora até tem mais coisas para se desenrascar, não é? Quem não arranja emprego num jornal faz um blogue, monta-o numa perspectiva empresarial: ganhar audiencias=ganhar nome/fama=oportunidades de trabalho noutro lado. os 15 mins de fama vão ser cada vez mais importantes para se destacarem entre os demais, e o mundo empresarial está aí para pôr os dentes nestes blogues. E se me permites, o jornalismo não precisa do grito de ipiranga II - o regresso, mas sim do socialismo :P
E qto ao sr Sarkozy, já à 4 anos se fala que iria ser o próximo presidente, e a maneira como ele tem lidado internamente com o problema dos conflitos, descridibilizando por completo o 1º ministro e pondo as pessoas contra Chirac... Quem faz isto não é burro nenhum. E o Liberation, por muito historial que tenha, cede perante a ameaça da sua sobrevivência... económica E política.
Concordo contigo... Esta é uma estranha realidade, para mim difícil de definir como positiva ou negativa. Sim, eu sei que os aspectos negativos são bem evidentes e impossíveis de contornar a menos que se verifique uma verdadeira revolução a nível de mentalidades e das leis que gerem o jornalismo, mas esta facilidade que existe ao acesso, à produção e à análise de informação por qualquer pessoa que disponha de um computador com ligação à internet é-me bastante atractiva. É, de certa forma, uma possiblidade de reacção/combate ao monopolismo e à informação mainstream dos restantes meios de comunicação. É uma arma de que todos os interessados podem dispor e que começa a ter um impacto profundo na maneira como os media tradicionais são geridos. Não quero dizer com isto que não existam sites/blogs mainstream, todos sabemos que estes são dos mais populares, mas sim que, apesar disso, a internet possibilita a divulgação de outras ideias/perspectivas. Existe uma possibilidade de escolha que tem vindo a desaparecer nos outros meios de comunicação.
Quanto ao grito de Ipiranga II/Socialismo, a tua ideia não contradiz a minha. Na verdade, para mim, a tal Independência ideal seria um sinónimo de Socialismo, portanto, excluindo a hipótese morte por razões óbvias, vai dar ao mesmo...
Por fim, quanto ao Sarkozy, concordo plenamente contigo. E o mais assustador é que a sua táctica tem resultado (basta dar uma olhadela à evolução dos níveis da sua popularidade para se perceber isso).
Post a Comment