Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
620
4 janvier 2004 — Le texte de Norman Salomon que nous publions ci-dessous présente un cas des plus intéressants : celui du commentateur américain George F. Will. (Will publie un peu partout, notamment dans le Washington Post et dans une myriade d’autres publications américaines.)
Will est un chroniqueur célèbre aux USA, très à droite, très américaniste, soutien de l’administration GW Bush, de la politique néo-impérialiste et ainsi de suite. Il fait partie de ces commentateurs américains (Safire, Friedman, Krauthammer, etc) dont on a coutume de dire, et jusqu’ici de penser qu’ils représentent une appréciation indépendante de la politique américaine et de tout ce qui l’accompagne. Qu’ils aient des engagements parfois très marqués, parfois insupportables, en général dans le même sens, constitue une évidence qui ne retire rien au jugement qu’on mentionne ici. Le cas de George F. Will, que démonte Norman Salomon, met en évidence une autre dimension, celle de la corruption.
C’est un phénomène qui commence à devenir public, et cette publicité, en général accompagnée de l’impudence complète des gens concernés, fait penser que la profession, dans une large mesure, évolue à ce rythme. On en tirera les conclusions qu’on veut quant à la réputation de la presse américaine dont nos propres commentateurs et experts font des gorges chaudes. Il y a un professionnalisme “à l’américaine” qui sert de référence à nos élites ; lesquelles élites devront, désormais, ajouter la corruption à ciel ouvert dans l’équation de cette référence.
Un autre aspect que découvre le cas George F. Will, venant après le cas Richard Perle, inquiété dans plusieurs affaires de corruption, est bien que cette corruption nouvellement apparue touche particulièrement la droite conservatrice et ultra-dure de l’américanisme. Cela indique une progression supplémentaire des USA vers un statut s’apparentant à celui de l’Union Soviétique. Jusqu’ici, on avait l’habitude de considérer que cette droite ultra-dure US, s’il lui manquait parfois la qualité de la finesse, avait au moins la vertu de l’incorruptibilité. Ces gens nous donnaient l’impression d’être des Robespierre de droite. Il s’avère que ce serait plutôt des Danton de droite, avec peut-être certaines finesses politiques en moins. Cette corruption de la droite conservatrice ultra-dure implique une évolution évidente : ces gens ne parlent plus, comme ils pouvaient encore l’affirmer dans les années 1960 ou 1970, au nom d’une “majorité silencieuse” ultra-conservatrice. Ils parlent au nom du pouvoir, politique et médiatique, et autres, et ils sont payés grassement pour cela. Dont acte.
Par ailleurs, on notera combien on retrouve dans ces situations toujours les mêmes “réseaux”, — on veut parler ici du magnat de la presse Conrad Black. Effectivement, avec Black et son alter ego un peu plus puissant Rupert Mordoch, on mesure la puissance de ces quelques patrons de presse qui ont décidé de s’orienter vers une politique droitiste, délibérément extrémiste, par les canaux d’influence des néo-conservateurs américains qu’ils financent pour l’essentiel, et au travers d’un maximum de commentateurs soi-disant indépendants, américanistes, adeptes de la force et donneurs de morale, — portrait non exclusif de George F. Will.
By Norman Solomon, Antwar.com (FAIR), January 3, 2004
We can argue about George Will's political views. But there's no need to debate his professional ethics.
Late December brought to light a pair of self-inflicted wounds to the famous columnist's ethical pretensions. He broke an elementary rule of journalism – and then, when the New York Times called him on it, proclaimed the transgression to be no one's business but his own.
It turns out that George Will was among a number of prominent individuals to receive $25,000 per day of conversation on a board of advisers for Hollinger International, a newspaper firm controlled by magnate Conrad Black. Although Will has often scorned the convenient forgetfulness of others, the Times reported that ''Mr. Will could not recall how many meetings he attended.'' But an aide confirmed the annual $25,000 fee.
Even for a wealthy commentator, that's a hefty paycheck for one day of talk. But it didn't stop Will from lavishing praise on Black in print – without a word about their financial tie.
In early March, Will wrote a syndicated piece that blasted critics of President Bush's plans to launch an all-out war on Iraq. Several paragraphs of the column featured quotations from a speech by Black. The laudatory treatment began high in the column as Will referred to some criticisms of Bush policies and then wrote: ''Into this welter of foolishness has waded Conrad Black.''
The column did not contain the slightest hint that this wonderful foe of ''foolishness'' had provided checks to fatten the columnist's assets at $25,000 a pop.
But Will claimed in a December interview that nothing was amiss. ''Asked in the interview if he should have told his readers of the payments he had received from Hollinger,'' a New York Times article reported on Dec. 22, ''Mr. Will said he saw no reason to do so.''
The Times quoted Will as saying: ''My business is my business. Got it?''
Yeah. We get it, George. The only question is whether the editors who keep printing your stuff will get it, too.
After three decades as a superstar pundit, Will continues to flourish. Several hundred newspapers publish his syndicated column, Newsweek prints two-dozen essays per year, and he appears each Sunday on ABC's ''This Week'' television show.
The syndicate with a very big stake in George Will cannot be indifferent to the latest flap, but there's obvious reticence to singe the right-winged golden goose. The man who's the Washington Post Writers Group editorial director and general manager, Alan Shearer, said: ''I think I would have liked to have known.''
A week later, via a letter in the New York Times, a more forthright response came from Gilbert Cranberg, former chairman of the professional standards committee of the National Conference of Editorial Writers: ''When a syndicated journalist writes favorably about a benefactor, that is very much the business of Mr. Will's editors and readers.''
Cranberg quoted from the National Conference of Editorial Writers code of ethics, which includes provisions that ''the writer should be constantly alert to conflicts of interest, real or apparent'' – including ''those that may arise from financial holdings'' and ''secondary employment.'' Noting that ''timely public disclosure can minimize suspicion,'' the code adds: ''Editors should seek to hold syndicates to these standards.''
But will they? George Will is a syndicated powerhouse. And he has gotten away with hiding other big conflicts of interest over the last quarter-century.
In October 1980, Will appeared on the ABC television program ''Nightline'' to praise Ronald Reagan's ''thoroughbred performance'' in a debate with incumbent President Jimmy Carter. But Will did not disclose to viewers that he'd helped coach Reagan for the debate – and, in the process, had read Carter briefing materials stolen from the White House.
When, much later, Will's ''debategate'' duplicity came to light, his media colleagues let him off with a polite scolding. The incident faded from media memory. Thus, in autumn 1992, when Will reminisced on ABC's ''This Week'' about the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate, he didn't mention his own devious role, and none of his journalistic buddies in the studio were impolite enough to say anything about it.
Will has also played fast and loose with ethics in the midst of other contests for the presidency. At the media watch group FAIR (where I'm an associate), senior analyst Steve Rendall pointed out: ''During the 1996 campaign, Will caught some criticism for commenting on the presidential race while his second wife, Mari Maseng Will, was a senior staffer for the Dole presidential campaign. Defending a Dole speech on ABC News (1/28/96), Will, according to Washingtonian magazine (3/96), 'failed to mention ... that his wife not only counseled Dole to give the speech but also helped write it.'''
In 2000, Will ''suffered another ethical lapse,'' Rendall recounts in Extra!, FAIR's magazine. The renowned columnist ''met with George W. Bush just before the Republican candidate was to appear on ABC's 'This Week.' Later, in a column (3/4/01), Will admitted that he'd met with Bush to preview questions, not wanting to 'ambush him with unfamiliar material.' In the meeting, Will provided Bush with a 3-by-5 card containing a crucial question he would later ask the candidate on the air.''
George Will has long been fond of denouncing moral deficiencies. Typical was this fulmination in a March 1994 column: ''Taught that their sincerity legitimized their intentions, the children of the 1960s grew up convinced they could not do wrong. Hence the Clinton administration's genuine bewilderment when accused of ethical lapses.''
In what can be understood as a case of psychological projection, Will derisively added: ''It is a theoretical impossibility for people in 'the party of compassion' to behave badly because good behavior is whatever they do.''
During the past three decades, Will – who chose to become a syndicated Washington Post columnist in the early 1970s rather than continue as a speech writer for Sen. Jesse Helms – has been fond of commenting on the moral failures of black people while depicting programs for equity as ripoff artistry. In February 1991, for instance, he wrote: ''The rickety structure of affirmative action, quotas and the rest of the racial spoils system depends on victimology – winning for certain groups the lucrative status of victim.''
In subsequent years, not satisfied with his own very lucrative status, Will made a quiet pact with corporate wheeler-dealer Conrad Black. When exposed, Will compounded his malfeasance by declaring that it was only ''my business.''
Words that George Will wrote 10 years ago now aptly describe his own stance: ''It is a theoretical impossibility'' that he behaved badly. ''Good behavior'' is whatever he does.
Nice work if he can get it. And he can.
Got it?
Norman Solomon's weekly syndicated column is archived at www.fair.org/media-beat. His latest book, co-authored with Reese Erlich, is Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You.
[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit être lu avec la mention classique à 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.”.]
-
