{"id":65265,"date":"2002-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-27T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/09\/27\/en-guerre\/"},"modified":"2002-09-27T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-09-27T00:00:00","slug":"en-guerre","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/09\/27\/en-guerre\/","title":{"rendered":"En guerre<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

En guerre <\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t27 septembre 2002 Parall\u00e8lement aux p\u00e9rip\u00e9ties de la pr\u00e9paration de la guerre contre l’Irak, se poursuit et s’accentue la guerre de l’information. Elle prend des tournures finalement plut\u00f4t inattendues, notamment pour sa diversit\u00e9. On peut mettre deux faits g\u00e9n\u00e9raux en \u00e9vidence :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t La pr\u00e9dominance de l’information d’un seul parti, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral celui du gouvernement (du pouvoir), et celui de la guerre depuis le d\u00e9but des ann\u00e9es 1990, est une r\u00e8gle qui s’effrite rapidement. La situation \u00e9volue plut\u00f4t vers le d\u00e9sordre, avec des pouss\u00e9es en sens contraire, que ce soit de manipulation, de prises de position, d’injonctions, etc.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0Les manipulations, prises de position ne prennent plus de gants. Elles se font \u00e0 ciel ouvert, sans vraiment se pr\u00e9occuper de dissimulation. Cela contribue d’une part \u00e0 alourdir le climat et \u00e0 affaiblir l’\u00e9quilibre de la pratique des libert\u00e9s, cela permet d’autre part et a contrario<\/em> de mieux identifier les tromperies et les manipulations et de se d\u00e9terminer \u00e0 meilleur escient.<\/p>\n

Comment un directeur de journal d\u00e9clare la guerre \u00e0 un Premier ministre<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn fait remarquable r\u00e9cent dans ce climat est la prise de position du Daily Mirror<\/em> contre Tony Blair, c’est-\u00e0-dire l’instauration d’une ligne g\u00e9n\u00e9rale hostile au PM sur la question irakienne. La chose a \u00e9t\u00e9 annonc\u00e9e d’une fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s mondaine lors d’une rencontre entre le directeur du quotidien et Blair, le directeur ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 convi\u00e9 \u00e0 Downing Street. L’entretien a \u00e9t\u00e9 rapport\u00e9 dans un article du Financial Times<\/em> du 26 septembre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Tony Blair has been warned he can no longer count on the 70-year-old support<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof The Mirror if he backs US-led unilateral action against Iraq. Piers Morgan, editor of the leftwing newspaper, met the prime minister for an hour on Tuesday amid Downing Street concerns about the tone of The Mirror’s coverage of the international situation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Mr Morgan, who has dubbed Mr Blair America’s poodle, said: The big<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tquestion is if they go to war with Iraq unilaterally, against the UN mandate, we are going to have serious problems with that. Our support can no longer be taken completely for granted. The Mirror has been a staunch supporter of Labour since the second world war, and a change in its political allegiance would be a severe blow for Mr<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBlair.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n

Un classique de manipulation de l’information par la presse US<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes exemples sont nombreux, de manipulations de faits, particuli\u00e8rement dans la grande presse am\u00e9ricaine dont l’alignement g\u00e9n\u00e9ral sur la position officielle est une caract\u00e9ristique surprenante de continuit\u00e9 depuis la fin de la Guerre froide. Souvent, cette attitude se fait d’elle-m\u00eame, sans la moindre consigne ni pression remarquables, par cons\u00e9quent par pur esprit de conformisme et d’alignement. Ce processus est apparu durant la guerre du Golfe, il est devenu \u00e9vident durant la guerre du Kosovo. Il tendrait \u00e0 se confirmer aujourd’hui, comme le montre l’enqu\u00eate de FAIR ci-dessous, dans certains domaines sp\u00e9cifiques qui restent \u00e0 d\u00e9terminer ; mais il y a d\u00e9sormais des nuances s\u00e9rieuses renvoyant aux constats \u00e9nonc\u00e9s au d\u00e9but (par exemple, c’est la premi\u00e8re fois depuis la fin de la Guerre froide qu’un des grands journaux US, le New York Times<\/em>, prend une position plut\u00f4t d\u00e9favorable \u00e0 la th\u00e8se gouvernementale, sur l’Irak).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn bon exemple du ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne classique d’alignement par manipulation est donn\u00e9 le 24 septembre par le groupe am\u00e9ricain FAIR-L (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, Media analysis, critiques and activism<\/em>), qui d\u00e9veloppe le cas de l’espionnage r\u00e9alis\u00e9 par les \u00e9quipes de l’ONU (UNSCOM).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tVoici le texte de FAIR-L, en date du 24 septembre 2002<\/p>\n

Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tNothing makes a newspaper prouder than a juicy foreign-policy scoop. Except, it seems, when the scoop ends up raising awkward questions about a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tU.S. administration’s drive for war.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBack in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe U.S.’s own intelligence purposes. United States officials said today<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tinspectors, the New York Times reported (1\/7\/99). According to the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWashington Post (3\/2\/99), the U.S. infiltrated agents and espionage<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tequipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tto eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tagency. Undercover U.S. agents carried out an ambitious spying<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\toperation designed to penetrate Iraq’s intelligence apparatus and track<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsources, wrote the Boston Globe (1\/6\/99).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEach of the three news stories ran on the papers’ front pages. At first,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tU.S. officials tried to deny them, but as more details emerged, spokesmen<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfor the CIA, Pentagon, White House and State Department declined to repeat<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tany categorical denials (Washington Post, 3\/2\/99). By the spring of 1999,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact by other<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\toutlets, and even defended; Experts say it is naive to believe that the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUnited States and other governments would not have used the opportunity<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpresented by the U.N. commission to spy on a country that provoked the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPersian Gulf War in 1991 and that has continued to tangle with U.S. and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBritish forces, USA Today reported (3\/3\/99).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut now that the Bush administration has placed the inspectors at the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcenter of its rationale for going to war, these same papers have become<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tnoticeably queasy about recalling UNSCOM’s past spying. The spy scandal<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbadly damaged the credibility of the inspections process, especially after<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\treports that data collected through UNSCOM were later used to pick targets<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tin the December 1998 bombing of Iraq: National security insiders, blessed<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twith their unprecedented intelligence bonanza from UNSCOM, convinced<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthemselves that bombing Saddam Hussein’s internal apparatus would drive<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe Iraqi leader around the bend, wrote Washington Post analyst William<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tArkin (1\/17\/99).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSuddenly, facts that their own correspondents confirmed three years ago in<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tinterviews with top U.S. officials are being recycled as mere allegations<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcoming from Saddam Hussein’s regime.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe UNSCOM team, explained the New York Times’ Barbara Crossette in an<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAugust 3 story, was replaced after Mr. Hussein accused the old commission<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof being an American spy operation and refused to deal with it. She gave<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tno hint that Saddam’s accusation was reported as fact by her Times<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcolleague, Tim Weiner, in a front-page story three years earlier.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAs recently as Sunday, Iraqi officials called the inspectors spies and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\taccused them of deliberately prolonging their work, the Washington Post’s<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBaghdad correspondent wrote recently in a story casting doubt on the Iraqi<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tregime’s intentions of cooperating (9\/8\/02). Readers would have no way of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tknowing that the Post’s Barton Gellman exhaustively detailed the facts of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe spying in a series of 1999 articles.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIraq accused some of the inspectors of being spies, because they remained<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ton their host countries’ payrolls while reviewing Iraq’s weapons, the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBoston Globe’s Elizabeth Neuffer wrote recently, in an oddly garbled<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\trendition of the charges (9\/14\/02). She could have boasted that her<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpaper’s own Colum Lynch (now with the Washington Post) was widely credited<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twith first breaking the story of UNSCOM’s spying in a January 6, 1999<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfront-page expose. But she chose not to.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt’s hard to avoid the impression that certain media outlets would rather<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat UNSCOM’s covert espionage had never been exposed in the first place.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe day after Barton Gellman of the Washington Post first reported the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tspying charges, in a story sourced to Kofi Annan’s office, his own paper<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tran a thundering editorial denouncing Annan’s gutless ploy<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(Back-Stabbing at the U.N., 1\/7\/99) and instructing the U.N. leader that<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tinstead of providing the information to a Washington Post reporter, he and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\this aides should have raised their concerns in private.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

En guerre 27 septembre 2002 Parall\u00e8lement aux p\u00e9rip\u00e9ties de la pr\u00e9paration de la guerre contre l’Irak, se poursuit et s’accentue la guerre de l’information. Elle prend des tournures finalement plut\u00f4t inattendues, notamment pour sa diversit\u00e9. On peut mettre deux faits g\u00e9n\u00e9raux en \u00e9vidence : La pr\u00e9dominance de l’information d’un seul parti, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral celui du… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[705,3617,3100,3616,3618,3478],"class_list":["post-65265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-blair","tag-daily","tag-information","tag-manipulation","tag-mirror","tag-onu"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}