{"id":68986,"date":"2007-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-08T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/07\/08\/lextase-de-la-guerre-ou-le-journalisme-extasy\/"},"modified":"2007-07-08T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-07-08T00:00:00","slug":"lextase-de-la-guerre-ou-le-journalisme-extasy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/07\/08\/lextase-de-la-guerre-ou-le-journalisme-extasy\/","title":{"rendered":"L’extase de la guerre, ou le journalisme-\u201cExtasy\u201d<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

L’extase de la guerre, ou le journalisme-Extasy<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tNous avons un probl\u00e8me de civilisation. En fait, nous en avons plusieurs, mais en voici un qui nous importe particuli\u00e8rement. C’est le probl\u00e8me du journalisme ; c’est le probl\u00e8me du conformisme journalistique de la presse dite MSM qui pr\u00e9tend pompeusement repr\u00e9senter tant\u00f4t la libert\u00e9 d’expression, tant\u00f4t la libert\u00e9 tout court, tant\u00f4t le Quatri\u00e8me Pouvoir ; c’est le probl\u00e8me des journalistes anglo-saxons en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, am\u00e9ricanistes pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, qui n’est pas mieux illustr\u00e9 que par leur attitude professionnelle durant l’attaque de l’Irak en mars-avril 2003. Ces journalistes-l\u00e0 s’\u00e9lev\u00e8rent (ou bien faut-il \u00e9crire : sombr\u00e8rent ?) dans ce qu’il est bienvenu de nommer une extase de la guerre. Un observateur grossier mais perspicace parlerait d’articles sur la guerre comme on \u00e9jacule.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNorman Solomon, du groupe FAIR<\/em>, met en ligne le 7 juillet<\/a>, notamment sur le site consortiumnews.com<\/a>, un article regroupant les extases de nombre de journalistes US en commentaire de la guerre contre l’Irak de mars-avril 2003. C’est une bonne occasion de se souvenir.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe texte est particuli\u00e8rement frappant, \u00e0 la mesure des avis, exclamations, appr\u00e9ciations extraordinaires qui fusent dans ces diverses citations. On a l’impression d’une vanne brusquement ouverte et d’une mar\u00e9e d\u00e9ferlante, et de l’extase commune exprim\u00e9e sans la moindre mesure, sans le moindre int\u00e9r\u00eat pour l’art de la nuance et la finesse de la compr\u00e9hension, rien que pour le plaisir grossier (le plaisir des dieux, comme disent les carabins, r\u00e9duit aux acqu\u00eats des coups \u00e0 la sauvette). S’arr\u00eatant \u00e0 un aspect particulier de ce d\u00e9lire, Solomon observe : \u00abthose claims were more than misleading. They were fundamentally out of touch with human reality.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl y a l\u00e0 l’expression d’un grave probl\u00e8me, dont le traitement nous ram\u00e8ne in\u00e9vitablement \u00e0 notre terrain favori de la psychologie. On ne peut parler de parti-pris, de propagande, de consignes ; on parle de virtualisme et de psychologies enfi\u00e9vr\u00e9es, enivr\u00e9es par le spectacle, si l’on peut dire, des nouvelles, des communiqu\u00e9s et des commentaires d\u00e9crivant la guerre. Tous sont \u00e9galement extatiques et sembleraient comme des jeunes filles prises soudain par les premi\u00e8res vapeurs de la pubert\u00e9. Cette mar\u00e9e ne semble devoir \u00eatre arr\u00eat\u00e9e par rien de ce qui forme d’habitude la raison humaine. L’esprit critique, le second regard, la mesure du jugement, tout cela est rel\u00e9gu\u00e9 au magasin des accessoires surann\u00e9s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abWe’re all neo-cons now<\/em>\u00bb, s’exclame Matthew Williams, de MSNBC, le jour (10 avril 2003) o\u00f9 la statue de Saddam est abattue dans la mise en sc\u00e8ne qu’on sait, sur la place de Bagdad r\u00e9serv\u00e9e \u00e0 cet effet (la statue et la mise en sc\u00e8ne). Parole r\u00e9ellement pr\u00e9monitoire, si l’on a le go\u00fbt de l’ironie graveleuse. Williams dit ce qu’il faut sauf que tout cela ne fait plus tr\u00e8s nouveau.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCes citations sont \u00e9puisantes. Un tel \u00e9talage de travers, de na\u00efvet\u00e9s, d’aveuglements, d’hypocrisies et de sottises sans masque, a de quoi vous d\u00e9courager. Le commentaire peut s’arr\u00eater l\u00e0, et nous c\u00e9dons la place \u00e0 Norman Solomon.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes enseignements, eux, sont inscrits dans le marbre, en lettres capitales :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t En v\u00e9rit\u00e9, il n’existe plus aujourd’hui aucune source qui puisse se parer de la vertu d’objectivit\u00e9 en se recommandant du soi-disant prestige du m\u00e9dia (dit de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence) qu’elle repr\u00e9sente, et selon la nationalit\u00e9 prestigieuse (US) qui est la sienne. Le journalisme US des grands m\u00e9dias de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence doit aujourd’hui \u00eatre, plus qu’aucun autre<\/strong>, l’objet syst\u00e9matique du soup\u00e7on d’aveuglement et d’all\u00e9geance \u00e0 la puissance dont il accepte d’\u00eatre l’instrument de manipulation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Cette puissance qui manipule le journaliste manipulable, le journaliste de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, doit \u00eatre elle-m\u00eame l’objet du soup\u00e7on le plus syst\u00e9matique, le plus inquisiteur, le plus m\u00e9prisant. Un porte-parole du d\u00e9partement d’Etat, de l’\u00e9tat-major combin\u00e9 ou de Lockheed Martin est bien plus faussaire per se<\/em>, et bien plus n\u00e9cessairement un faussaire que n’importe quelle petite gouape prise en flagrant d\u00e9lit de vol \u00e0 la tire et qui nie par automatisme. Il l’est d’autant plus qu’il nage en plein virtualisme et qu’il ignore la bassesse de sa condition.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Notre responsabilit\u00e9, \u00e0 nous qui sommes hors de leur Circuit, est d’autant plus grande que le champ nous est ouvert \u00e0 l’affirmation d’un cr\u00e9dit justifi\u00e9. Nous disons la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 bien plus que toutes ces ganaches. Nous n’avons aucune de leurs certitudes de paille mais nous avons des convictions de fer, forg\u00e9es au feu des batailles ind\u00e9pendantes et des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences de l’exp\u00e9rience. Nous ne les craignons pas sur le terrain de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 et nous leur disons tout ce que notre regard sur eux porte d’un m\u00e9pris roboratif pour nous-m\u00eames.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe texte de Solomon vaut d’\u00eatre lu. Savourez le souvenir. Dites-vous que tous ces gens tiennent toujours le haut du pav\u00e9, qu’un Hitchens reste plus que jamais aujourd’hui<\/strong> une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence de prestige, un des cent plus fameux intellectuels publics selon Foreign Policy<\/em> en 2005. Ricanez, ricanez, il en restera bien quelque chose pour inqui\u00e9ter dans un moment rare leurs innombrables r\u00e9serves de suffisance vertueuse, mais sans rancoeur excessive le ricanement, plut\u00f4t par d\u00e9rision.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl y a dans cet amour de la guerre que montre cette cat\u00e9gorie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale un cas psychologique fondamental. Il ne peut \u00eatre laiss\u00e9 de c\u00f4t\u00e9. Toute une soci\u00e9t\u00e9, toute une civilisation, a embrass\u00e9 \u00abla physique de la force<\/em>\u00bb et abandonn\u00e9 \u00abla m\u00e9taphysique de la force<\/em>\u00bb, selon les mots de Giugielmo Ferrero, que nous citions r\u00e9cemment<\/a>. De ce point de vue entre autres, ils n’ont pas tort : \u00abWe’re all neo-cons now<\/em>\u00bb, et plus encore qu’ils ne croient.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

How the U.S. Media Loved the War<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tBy Norman Solomon, July 7, 2007, Consortium.News<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMany of America’s most prominent journalists want us to forget what they were saying and writing more than four years ago to boost the invasion of Iraq. Now, they tiptoe around their own roles in hyping the war and banishing dissent to the media margins.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe media watch group FAIR (where I’m an associate) has performed a public service in the latest edition of its magazine Extra. The organization’s activism director, Peter Hart, drew on FAIR’s extensive research to assemble a sample of notable quotations from media cheerleading for the Iraq invasion.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOne of the earliest quotes to merit special attention came from ace New York Times reporter and chronic Pentagon promoter Michael Gordon. In a CNN appearance on March 25, 2003, just a few days into the invasion, Gordon gave his easy blessing to the invaders’ bombing of Iraqi TV.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tGordon cited what I’ve seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we’re trying to send the exact opposite message and so, the Times reporter went on, Iraqi TV was an appropriate target.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLet’s unpack Gordon’s rationale for a military attack on Iraqi broadcasters: They presented propaganda to viewers, aired triumphal images and touted the authority of the top man in the government, while an adversary was trying to send the exact opposite message.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBy those standards, Iraqis would have been justified in targeting any one of the American cable news networks, most especially Fox News Channel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tHart who is author of the book The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly includes some quotes from Fox in his collection of war-crazed statements from media.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFor instance, soon after the invasion began, Fox News commentator Fred Barnes declared: The American public knows how important this war is, and is not as casualty sensitive as the weenies in the American press are. (Unsurpassed bravery is a common denominator of rabid hawks in stateside TV studios.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut many of Hart’s examples are from U.S. media outlets with reputations for judicious professional journalism.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn NBC News, Brian Williams was singing from the choir book provided by U.S. officials. They are calling this the cleanest war in all of military history, Williams said on April 2, 2003. They stress they’re fighting a regime and not the people, using smart bombs, not dumb, older munitions. But there have been and will be accidents. …<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAnd there’s a new weapon in this war: Arab media, especially Al Jazeera. It’s on all the time, and unlike American media, it hardly reflects the Pentagon line. Its critics say it accentuates civilian casualties and provokes outrage on the Arab street.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe next day, on the same network, Williams’ colleague Katie Couric was more succinct in her fawning. Viewers of the Today program listened as she interviewed a U.S. military official and exclaimed: Thank you for coming on the show. And I want to add, I think the Special Forces rock!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tA week later, on MSNBC, the hardballer Chris Matthews was swept up in beach-ball euphoria as America’s armed forces toppled the Saddam regime. We’re all neo-cons now, Matthews exulted.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAt the start of May 2003, when President Bush zoomed onto an aircraft carrier and stood near a Mission Accomplished banner, Lou Dobbs was quick to tell CNN viewers: He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star and one of the guys.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn the same day, journalist Matthews assumed the royal we and, in the opportunistic process, blew with the prevailing wind.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbWe’re proud of our president, he said. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple. All too simple.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPerhaps no journalist was more shameless in echoing President Bush’s fatuous claims about the invasion than Christopher Hitchens.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMany Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you, Bush said on March 17, 2003.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe next day, Hitchens came out with an essay declaring that the Defense Department has evolved highly selective and accurate munitions that can sharply reduce the need to take or receive casualties. The predictions of widespread mayhem turned out to be false last time when the weapons [in the Gulf War] were nothing like so accurate. And, Hitchens proclaimed, it can now be proposed as a practical matter that one is able to fight against a regime and not a people or a nation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMore than four years and at least several hundred thousand Iraqi civilian deaths later, the most reliable epidemiology available confirms that those claims were more than misleading. They were fundamentally out of touch with human reality.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIf you had engaged in such cheerleading for the launch of the Iraq war in early 2003, by now you might also be eager to change the subject and argue about God.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNorman Solomon is the author of the new book, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. (This article appeared earlier at Alternet.)<\/em><\/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":"

L’extase de la guerre, ou le journalisme-Extasy Nous avons un probl\u00e8me de civilisation. En fait, nous en avons plusieurs, mais en voici un qui nous importe particuli\u00e8rement. C’est le probl\u00e8me du journalisme ; c’est le probl\u00e8me du conformisme journalistique de la presse dite MSM qui pr\u00e9tend pompeusement repr\u00e9senter tant\u00f4t la libert\u00e9 d’expression, tant\u00f4t la libert\u00e9… <\/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":[4],"tags":[632,857,5523,3381,3364,1376],"class_list":["post-68986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-notes-de-lectures","tag-bagdad","tag-irak","tag-msm","tag-neo-cons","tag-presse","tag-solomon"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68986","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=68986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}