{"id":65552,"date":"2003-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-04T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/04\/04\/shut-up-les-voix-de-la-dissidence\/"},"modified":"2003-04-04T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-04-04T00:00:00","slug":"shut-up-les-voix-de-la-dissidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/04\/04\/shut-up-les-voix-de-la-dissidence\/","title":{"rendered":"Shut up, les voix de la dissidence<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shut up, les voix de la dissidence<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t4 avril 2003 Nous pr\u00e9sentons un texte que nous jugeons int\u00e9ressant, du groupe FAIR-L (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media), que nos lecteurs connaissent bien. FAIR pr\u00e9sente des cas r\u00e9cents de mesures prises contre des journalistes, ou des groupes d’information adversaires de la guerre, aux USA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBien entendu, le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 comme un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne de censure, ce qu’il est indubitablement. Il ne faut pourtant pas s’en tenir l\u00e0. Les attendus, si l’on ose dire, de certaines explications de mise \u00e0 pied ou de mesures restrictives par les autorit\u00e9s qui les prennent, c’est-\u00e0-dire les groupes de presse priv\u00e9s, sont en nombre de cas particuli\u00e8rement int\u00e9ressants. Ils sont r\u00e9v\u00e9lateurs. Ils montrent que les forces dominantes de contrainte de la pens\u00e9e, aux USA, ne sont pas de nature polici\u00e8re ni coercitive stricto sensu<\/em>, que ce soit directement (bien s\u00fbr), ni m\u00eame indirectement. Elles sont appuy\u00e9es sur des traits psychologiques et des comportements sociaux qui ne sont pas habituellement convoqu\u00e9s comme explications fondamentales d’une dictature, ni de la censure : il s’agit essentiellement du conformisme, de l’hypocrisie, de la couardise, du mensonge conformiste, de l’utopie, de l’int\u00e9r\u00eat commercial, bref, de toutes ces choses qui, de pr\u00e8s ou de loin, ont en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral partie li\u00e9e avec la stupidit\u00e9, et une stupidit\u00e9 non dans un cadre pathologique mais dans un cadre d’une pens\u00e9e pauvre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tC’est-\u00e0-dire que nous ne croyons pas, malheureusement, que ces mesures marquent une perversion de la d\u00e9mocratie am\u00e9ricaine, ou une attaque grave contre la d\u00e9mocratie am\u00e9ricaine. Nous craignons au contraire que ces mesures ne font que r\u00e9v\u00e9ler, dans une situation extr\u00eame, la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de la d\u00e9mocratie am\u00e9ricaine. (Il faut rappeler que, dans toute l’\u00e9poque du maccarthysme, jamais aucun acte ill\u00e9gal ne fut pos\u00e9 contre les victimes de ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne, par ceux qui s’en faisaient les procureurs. Tout se passa dans le strict respect de la loi, plus que de la l\u00e9galit\u00e9.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCe qui est assez remarquable dans les attendus divers, c’est qu’\u00e0 aucun moment la cause des mesures de contrainte ou de licenciement n’est dissimul\u00e9e. Ce n’est pas l\u00e0 qu’il y a hypocrisie ou conformisme, pas par rapport \u00e0 la victime. L’hypocrisie et le conformisme se manifestent par rapport \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, ou par rapport au syst\u00e8me si l’on veut, en s’en manifestant le fid\u00e8le soutien et en affirmant que ce syst\u00e8me est une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence objective. On verra dans le texte le cas de Brent Flynn, ce journaliste texan, qui n’est pas vir\u00e9 mais \u00e0 qui on retire sa chronique d’opinion parce qu’il est anti-guerre (on ne le lui dissimule pas), et parce qu’\u00e0 cause de cette chronique il compromettait l’objectivit\u00e9 du journal (\u00ab Although Flynn was ostensibly sanctioned for compromising the paper’s objectivity,…<\/em> \u00bb). Le conformisme et l’alignement sur la pens\u00e9e centrale sont pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s comme des vertus, la pens\u00e9e du syst\u00e8me, la guerre dans ce cas est d\u00e9sign\u00e9e comme la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence d\u00e9mocratique de l’objectivit\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tD’autres sont remarquables d’une autre fa\u00e7on, notamment l’argument de MSNBC pour la suppression du talk-show<\/em> de Phil Donahue : \u00ab The report warned that the Donahue show could be a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.<\/em> \u00bb Dans ce cas, il y a une pr\u00e9occupation commerciale : la concurrence va profiter des pitreries lib\u00e9rales de Donahue pour faire de la surench\u00e8re patriotique et, ainsi, emporter des parts de march\u00e9, vous imaginez la honte ? On ne peut, en v\u00e9rit\u00e9, r\u00eaver censure plus d\u00e9mocratique, et cela plus d\u00e9mocratiquement dit.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCes incidents nous confortent dans l’analyse que les USA ne vont pas vers une dictature parce que, en un sens, ils en sont incapables. Et objectivement consid\u00e9r\u00e9, le choix de ces termes que nous faisons indique bien que c’est, dans ce cas, une faiblesse mortelle. A la place nous aurons un m\u00e9lange de lib\u00e9ralisme maintenu au travers du corpus des lois lib\u00e9rales et des moyens d’action dans ce sens, et d’actions de suppression de la libert\u00e9 de parole, de coercition dans des domaines bien pr\u00e9cis, sans la moindre retenue puisque la conscience reste s\u00fbre de son fait d\u00e9mocratique. Les USA n’ont gu\u00e8re de possibilit\u00e9s de passer \u00e0 une vraie dictature (au contraire de ce que craint Norman Mailer, \u00e0 notre sens) ; ils \u00e9volueront plut\u00f4t vers cet \u00e9tat interm\u00e9diaire, mi-bordel lib\u00e9ral, mi-autoritarisme tatillon, policier et l\u00e9gal, ce qui conduit effectivement au d\u00e9sordre, une sorte d’\u00e9volution vers le gorbatch\u00e9visme en beaucoup plus m\u00e9diocre, lorsque Gorbatchev commen\u00e7a \u00e0 desserrer certaines contraintes en tentant d’en conserver d’autres. Les USA ne vont pas contraindre (leurs propres structures comme celles de ceux qu’ils pourront investir pour les convertir \u00e0 la d\u00e9mocratie), ils vont d\u00e9truire. Mais ce n’est pas nouveau, simplement cela acc\u00e9l\u00e8re vers la perte de contr\u00f4le et d’\u00e9quilibre. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Some Critical Media Voices Face Censorship<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tBy FAIR, April 3, 2003<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAlthough the invasion of Iraq is being fought under the name Operation Iraqi Freedom, it has constricted the range of expression sanctioned by media outlets within the U.S. Starting before the war began, several national and local media figures have had their work jeopardized, either explicitly or implicitly because of the critical views they expressed on the war.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue’s talkshow after an internal memo (leaked to<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe All Your TV website, 2\/25\/03) argued that he would be a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war…. He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives. The report warned that the Donahue show could be a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• An email from a network executive, also leaked to All Your TV (3\/5\/03),<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsuggested that it would be unlikely that Donahue could be used by MSNBC to reinvent itself and cross-pollinate our programming with the anticipated larger audience who will tune in during a time of war by linking pundits to war coverage, particularly given his public stance on the advisability of the war effort.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Brent Flynn, a reporter for the Lewisville (Texas) Leader, was told he<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcould no longer write a column for the paper in which he had expressed anti-war views. I was told that because I had attended an anti-war rally, I had violated the newspaper’s ethics policy that prohibits members of the editorial staff from participating in any political activity other than voting, Flynn wrote in a note on his personal website. I am convinced that if my column was supportive of the war and it was a pro-war rally that I attended, they would not have dared to cancel my column…. The fact that the column was cancelled just days before the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq raises serious questions about the motives for the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcancellation. Although Flynn was ostensibly sanctioned for compromising the paper’s objectivity, he continues to serve as a news reporter for the paper, while losing the part of his job where he was expected to express opinions. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Kurt Hauglie, a reporter and columnist for Michigan’s Huron Daily Tribune, quit the paper after allegedly being told that an anti-war column he had written would not run because it might upset readers (WJRT-TV, 3\/28\/03).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• The website YellowTimes.org, which featured original anti-war reporting<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tand commentary, was shut down by its Web hosting company on March 24, after it posted images of U.S. POWs and Iraqi civilian victims of the war. Orlando-based Vortech Hosting told Yellow Times in an e-mail, Your account has been suspended because [of] inappropriate graphic material. Later, the company clarified: As ‘NO’ TV station in the U.S. is allowing<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tany dead U.S. soldiers or POWs to be displayed and we will not either. As of April 3, the site was still down.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• The Qatar-based Al-Jazeera news network’s attempts to set up an English-language website were foiled by unidentified U.S.-based hackers who launched a denial-of-service attack. Al-Jazeera is expected to try to relaunch its site in mid-April. The station’s reporters also had their press credentials revoked by the New York Stock Exchange, and were unable<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tto obtain alternative credentials at the NASDAQ exchange: In light of Al-Jazeera’s recent conduct during the war, in which they have broadcast footage of US POWs in alleged violation of the Geneva Convention, they are not welcome to broadcast from our facility at this time, a NASDAQ spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times (3\/26\/03).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett was fired by NBC as a result of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tan interview that he gave to Iraqi TV in which he said that war planners had misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces and that there was a growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war. After initially defending Arnett, NBC released a statement saying that it was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV especially at a time of war and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Shut up, les voix de la dissidence 4 avril 2003 Nous pr\u00e9sentons un texte que nous jugeons int\u00e9ressant, du groupe FAIR-L (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media), que nos lecteurs connaissent bien. FAIR pr\u00e9sente des cas r\u00e9cents de mesures prises contre des journalistes, ou des groupes d’information adversaires de la guerre, aux USA. Bien entendu,… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[625],"class_list":["post-65552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-fair"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65552","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=65552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}