Le Figaro, Le Monde and Libération are France's newspapers of record, the Presse de référence. While the national edition of Le Parisien, Aujourd'hui en France, may have a larger circulation, I believe that these three best represent the voices of the French establishment: Le Figaro, the center right, Le Monde the center left, and Libération the left.
Yet French newspapers, like the French, are different from their American counterparts. The New York Times' mantra "all the news that's fit to print" which expresses the American concept of newspaper of record does not work for these publications. Nor are they written in the classical liberal style of Anglo-American journalism that places a premium on "fair and balanced reporting". These three, along with most all French newspapers, are advocacy newspapers. They begin with a partisan stance on an issue and report on the news through that lens.
This article in Le Figaro is an example of European advocacy journalism. The story published on 20 Oct 2012 entitled « Des identitaires occupent une mosquée de Poitiers » reports that a group young French nationalists, or nativists occupied the site of a mosque under construction in the city of Poitres. They unfurled a banner with the phrase 732, Génération identitaire -- a reference to the name of their organization and the date in which Charles Martel defeated a Moorish army that had invaded France -- halting the expansion of Islam into Europe.
Before I dive into this article, I want to say I am not so much interested in the events in Poitres but in the reporting on the events. What I see in this story from a center-right newspaper on a religio-political topic is a typical example of advocacy reporting.
The article is Le Figaro's first report on the incident and is framed to show the newspaper's dislike of Génération identitaire and their politics. It begins not with a description of events, but with a condemnation of the group by Socialist prime minister Jean-Marc Ayrault. The who/what/when/where/why are cited in paragraphs two, three and four with the report that a mouvement d'extrême droite (extreme right) had occupied a mosque under construction in protest to the « l'islamisation de la France ».
Jean-Marc Ayrault a «condamné fermement» samedi l'envahissement du chantier d'une future mosquée par une soixantaine de militants qui protestaient contre «l'islamisation de la France». Trois organisateurs ont été placés en garde à vue.
Une soixantaine de manifestants du mouvement d'extrême droite Génération identitaire ont occupé pendant quelques heures samedi matin le chantier d'une mosquée en construction à Buxerolles, à côté de Poitiers.
Les manifestants souhaitaient protester contre «l'islamisation de la France». Ils ont déployé une banderole sur le toit de l'établissement portant la mention «732, génération identitaire», en référence à l'année 732 où Charles Martel a arrêté la progression des troupes musulmanes au nord de Poitiers. «Nous ne voulons plus d'immigration extra-européenne ni de nouvelle construction de mosquée sur le sol français», est-il indiqué sur le site de Génération identitaire.
Here is a links to an English-language France 24 report on the issue. And for a sympathetic account, here is a story from Frontpage magazine.
Le Figaro then moves on to a litany of objections, denunciations and complaints against Génération identitaire. The prosecutor of Poitiers, Nicolas Jacquet, lists the crimes the Occupy Poitres movement have committed. The prime minister is quoted as having "strongly condemned" the action which was an act of "aggression against the Republic and its values." The minister of the interior is quoted as saying his ministry will deal with the group with the "utmost firmness", while the Socialist and Communist Party leaders have called for a ban on the group and their prosecution for "incitement to racial hatred." And not to be outdone, the Radical Party said that calls to end immigration of Muslims from North Africa to France "are poisons that divide our society."
The second day story from Le Figaro continues in this line. « Mosquée occupée: quatre militants en garde à vue » reports that four leaders of the group of 73 young people remain in jail. On top of this news is a condemnation of their temerity in protesting against the virtues of multi-culturalism.
What is wrong with this, you might ask? From an advocacy journalism perspective, nothing at all. The reader is given sufficient facts and told what to think about the incident. The voice of Le Figaro is the voice of God, or reason (this being France after all) and one must believe.
The voice not being heard is that of Génération identitaire. The group has a website, and has even translated its materials and proclamations into English. Nor did Le Figaro solicit voices from the French political establishment that might agree with the viewpoint, if not the tactics, of Génération identitaire. There is nothing from the Front national, the Mouvement National Républicain or the Mouvement pour la France.
Is it accurate, or fair to say that opposition to immigration is a conservative or "far right" phenomena? Have not trade unions historically been opponents of immigration? While the Front national, Mouvement National Républicain and Mouvement pour la France oppose the Islamisation of France, they do not share a common economic policy or foreign policy. The Front national is protectionist and socialist on economic issues while the other two support classical liberal economic policies --- free markets. Which policy determines whether your are right wing -- immigration, economics, foreign affairs?
In light of the enthusiasm many newspapers felt for Occupy Wall Street, Occupy St Paul's and other sit-in movements of the past year, I find it somewhat absurd that Occupy Poitres should receive such opprobrium in comparison to their fellow college students in New York or London. If the protest were held at a cathedral to protest the French Catholic Church's stance on gay marriage -- a live political issue in France -- would Le Figaro have responded in the same way?
This article fails the test of classical liberal journalism as it does not give both sides to the issue. The reader is not invited to think the issues through and come to a conclusion based upon his unaided reason, but is instructed what to believe. This is the future of newspaper reporting.