{"id":65286,"date":"2002-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-12T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/12\/la-verite-par-la-puissance\/"},"modified":"2002-10-12T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-10-12T00:00:00","slug":"la-verite-par-la-puissance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/12\/la-verite-par-la-puissance\/","title":{"rendered":"La v\u00e9rit\u00e9 par la puissance<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La v\u00e9rit\u00e9 par la puissance<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t12 octobre 2002 Le sympathique institut am\u00e9ricain FAIR-L (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) rel\u00e8ve un dialogue tr\u00e8s significatif entre Connie Chung, anchorwoman<\/em> \u00e0 CNN, et un parlementaire US. L’analyse de FAIR-L date du 10 octobre et l’entretien date, lui, du 7 octobre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tChung est un charmant oiseau des \u00eeles exotiques (pardon, une Asian-American<\/em>) et vedette (anchorwoman<\/em>) de la soi-disant information t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9e aux USA. Elle fut pendant quelques ann\u00e9es, de 1993 \u00e0 1996, partenaire au JT de CBS de l’inamovible Dan Rather ; c’est-\u00e0-dire qu’elle fut en fait la sous-fifre et la faire-valoir de Rather jusqu’\u00e0 ce que celui-ci ne souffr\u00eet plus de seulement risquer de ne plus avoir la vedette. Chung est alors partie pour d’autres studios, pour \u00e9chouer \u00e0 CNN, avec un salaire plantureux approchant le $million. Cela pour dire, en r\u00e9sum\u00e9, que Chung en conna\u00eet un bout sur le syst\u00e8me.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tChung a compris que la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 dans le syst\u00e8me virtualiste de l’am\u00e9ricanisme tient, non pas \u00e0 la propagande, non pas \u00e0 la d\u00e9formation mesur\u00e9e, etc, mais \u00e0 la r\u00e9p\u00e9tition massive d’une chose baptis\u00e9e pour l’occasion information. Cette chose dite et r\u00e9p\u00e9t\u00e9e avec toute la puissance d’un appareil de communication finit par prendre sur le march\u00e9 de l’information la place de cet appareil de communication, c’est-\u00e0-dire la premi\u00e8re place si cet appareil est en puissance le premier sur le march\u00e9 de l’information. C’est alors ce qu’on nomme la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 et m\u00eame, pour \u00eatre plus s\u00fbr, la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 objective.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa CIA, au niveau de la communication (diffusion massive de la chose-information) ne fait pas le poids face au pr\u00e9sident qui, avec ses acolytes habituels (secr\u00e9taire d’\u00c9tat, secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense), dispose d’un formidable appareil de communication ; ce point est, bien entendu, encore plus vrai lorsqu’il s’agit d’un parlementaire rapportant s’appuyant sur des informations qu’il a re\u00e7ues lors d’auditions secr\u00e8tes de dirigeants de la CIA. Par cons\u00e9quent, pour Chung, le pr\u00e9sident l’emporte massivement. Il dit la chose qui va \u00eatre massivement pr\u00e9sente sur le march\u00e9, donc la chose-information, qui devient v\u00e9rit\u00e9. Chung, qui a le sens de la formule, parle donc de respect du aux d\u00e9clarations du pr\u00e9sident et il doit \u00eatre bien compris que c’est le respect qu’on doit aux plus grands CEO am\u00e9ricains, qui dirigent les entreprises qui ont investi massivement le march\u00e9 pour y tenir la premi\u00e8re place. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tD’o\u00f9 ce dialogue de Chung avec ce parlementaire, en l’occurrence assez obscur et qui a l’incroyable inexp\u00e9rience de songer \u00e0 balancer entre les affirmations du pr\u00e9sident et celle que lui a donn\u00e9 la CIA lors des auditions de la Commission de la Chambre sur les questions de renseignement, dont il fait partie. (On conna\u00eet la pol\u00e9mique qui est venue sur la place publique entretemps, que nous avons expos\u00e9e ici [le 10 octobre]<\/a> et l\u00e0 [le 11 octobre]<\/a>). Le parlementaire est manifestement d\u00e9bord\u00e9 par la conviction de l’anchorwoman<\/em> de CNN sur la fa\u00e7on dont il faut traiter l’information venue du pr\u00e9sident. Il est question effectivement de respect pour le produit qui tient par sa puissance la premi\u00e8re place sur le march\u00e9 de l’information, et par cons\u00e9quent respect pour le CEO de cette entreprise qui tient les tous march\u00e9s comme chacun sait, America Inc<\/em>. (On note m\u00eame que la malheureuse oiseau des \u00eeles\/Asian-American<\/em> manque de suffoquer \u00e0 l’id\u00e9e que le parlementaire peut mettre en doute une d\u00e9claration de GW. Signe que nous sommes sur le terrain de la conviction et de la meilleure conscience du monde.) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(Le dialogue est relev\u00e9, de mani\u00e8re critique comme on s’en doute, par FAIR, et nous publions ci-dessous une partie de l’analyse de FAIR en date du 10 octobre.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Connie Chung: Skeptical of Skepticism<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb October 10, 2002<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb On her October 7 broadcast, CNN’s Connie Chung took a U.S. congressmember to task for doubting George W. Bush. After Rep. Mike Thompson (D.-Calif.) told Chung that there seemed to be no evidence that Iraq posed an immediate danger to the people of the United States or its allies, the anchor responded, Well, let’s listen to something that President Bush said tonight, and you tell me if this doesn’t provide you with the evidence that you want.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb She then aired a clip from the speech that Bush made in Cincinnati: Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making, in poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb After this soundbite, Chung continued: Congressman, doesn’t that tell you<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat an invasion of Iraq is justified?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Thompson began to respond: Connie, we haven’t seen any proof that any of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthis has happened. I have sat through all the classified briefings on the Armed Services….<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb But this questioning of what Bush said appeared to be too much for Chung. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tShe interrupted Thompson’s answer, saying, You mean you don’t believe what President Bush just said? With all due respect….you know… I mean, what…<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Faced with Chung’s obvious alarm that someone might not take Bush’s word<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tas definitive proof, Thompson tried to reassure her: No, no, that’s not what I said…. I said that there has been nothing in the committee hearing briefings that have substantiated this. If there is substantiation, we need to see that in Congress, not hear it over the television monitor.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Later in the broadcast, Chung returned to the question of whether Thompson trusted Bush, suggesting that skepticism toward Bush was equivalent to an endorsement of Saddam Hussein: Congressman Thompson, there are those who believe that you and your two colleagues who went to Iraq came back with the basic position of President Bush may be trying to tell you something that in his effort to get approval for an invasion in Iraq, that you shouldn’t believe. So it sounds almost as if you’re asking the American public, ‘Believe Saddam Hussein, don’t believe President Bush.’<\/em> \u00bb<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La v\u00e9rit\u00e9 par la puissance 12 octobre 2002 Le sympathique institut am\u00e9ricain FAIR-L (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) rel\u00e8ve un dialogue tr\u00e8s significatif entre Connie Chung, anchorwoman \u00e0 CNN, et un parlementaire US. L’analyse de FAIR-L date du 10 octobre et l’entretien date, lui, du 7 octobre. Chung est un charmant oiseau des \u00eeles exotiques… <\/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":[868,3641,3642,3100],"class_list":["post-65286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-bush","tag-chung","tag-cnn","tag-information"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65286","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=65286"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65286\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}