Consult
Register for Free
Private access

Press
Photographic

Law policies
Fiscal policies
Collective agreements

Jean-François Kahn - Marianne

"I would say that it is a good thing that journalists exert a countervailing power. It's necessary and even fundamental in democracy since, if it can't be done, then that means we are no longer in democracy. But it isn't too good either that journalists exert a power such that it becomes mainstream thinking and takes precedence on politics or culture.".

Jean-François Kahn
Jean-François Kahn was born on June 12, 1938. After a degree in Historical studies and a short time in postal services, he entered the print industry as an unqualified worker, rapidly working his way towards a career in journalism. Special reporter for the Parisian press regarding the events in Algeria, he was, in the sixties, correspondent for Paris Presse, editorialist with Europe 1, for television and permanent special correspondent in North Africa for Le Monde newspaper.

After having directed the Nouvelles Littéraires, he founded the weekly l'Evénement du Jeudi, and then Marianne, of which he is, today, the director of publication. Acute polemist, he is never reluctant to challenging the Establishment as well as what he calls "La pensée unique", which could be best translated by the "monolithic way of thought".

Well before Péan and Cohen's book criticizing Le Monde newspaper, you yourself over emphasized the overwhelming power of the press. However, everybody agrees to say that, even if only from an economical point of view, the French press is in trouble. How could you justify this apparent contradiction?

It is not really contradictory. The fact that economically, the situation is a bad one for the press, which results in the closing of many newspapers… a few years ago there were as many as 13 or 14 dailies of various political awareness, when now there are no more than three, results in lesser varied views. Those which remain have a much stronger ideological and political influence. The difference between all three is less marked. Thus the so called crisis in the French media has led to an ideological sort of communion. Especially with a heavyweight such as Le Monde which is however a little less influential nowadays. Up to a few years ago, Le Monde used to give the tune to what people ought to think. Radio and TV, much like journalists from the provincial press lined up to what Le Monde had to say. Le Monde had a circulation of maybe 350 000, nevertheless, views expressed by the daily gave the tune to nationwide media. That's what led to the monolithic way of thought

Do you believe there is a kind of consensus between the Le Monde, Libération and Le Figaro?

The consensus is very strong. Well, it used to be between Le Monde, Libération, most of the provincial titles, radio and TV, since things have changed a little. Well, Le Figaro, is officially supposed to be the liberal right wing newspaper, the difference in processing of news is different by more or less 30%. To an extent of 70% Le Figaro develops the same opinions as others and there is only 30% difference, pertaining to immigration and public security for example.

Do you believe that newspapers, or at least journalists are too powerful in France?

Well, it's a bit complicated. I would say that it is a good thing that journalists exert a countervailing power. It's necessary and even fundamental in democracy since, if it can't be done, then that means we are no longer in democracy. But it isn't too good either that journalists exert a power such that it becomes mainstream thinking and takes precedence on politics or culture. Why? Because any abuse of power is criticisable, whether it is economic, cultural, political or media related and also because journalists come from the same sociological environment, live in the same city, Paris, have the same cultural background and have had more or less the same itinerary. Meaning all have been extreme left-winged in their youth and adopted the economic neo-liberalism, and thus, they all have similar ways of thought. But public opinion does not necessarily share their views. And there is no reason why their views should supersede the ways the general public feels especially as the latter sees things differently.

Would it be the Parisian spheres which lead the French way of thinking ?

Well when it comes to the media, yes! I think that the Parisian media, while being much less significant today than it used to be, continues to weigh on the provincial press. It is in part their own fault, because if the provincial press said: "enough of this Parisian dictatorship, we'll have ideas of our own and will write our leading articles accordingly, if they trained journalists to be really independent, and then from Marseilles, Bordeaux or Lyon journalists claimed to conquer the Parisian market and not the contrary, then we wouldn't be in this situation. Thus this "resignation" of the provincial press, which is an important part of the French media, which doesn't dare express it's views independently, helped strengthen this Parisian ideological dictatorship.

You think that journalists have too privileged a statute?

Not enviable since, for example, press laws are rather unfavourable for journalists. For example it's very difficult for a journalist to win a libel lawsuit. But what is true, is that journalists recently managed to get - and that's a real progress - the right to say whatever they want. A right to denounce scandals for example. A right to question the ability of someone, the reputation of another, or the integrity of a third. It's a powerful feeling. So they must accept that one can react to them otherwise there is no balance. However, they do not accept that. They claim the right "to destroy", "to kill", "to hang", while not accepting that others be able to call them into question. There is a risk of imbalance in favour of the media. Did internet change something for your editorial board and how do you consider the evolution of the profession within the framework of these new technologies?

The transformation is visible in the sense that there is lesser and lesser paperwork. I lived in a time where everything was on paper But there is no longer any traditional paperwork. Everything is done on screen. Being from another generation I get everything I have to read on paper. That said, 90% of the newspaper is made on screen, so paper is on the decline. For investigation, internet plays a very significant role. At the beginning of Marianne for example, we made a thorough enquiry into the social policy of a large fast food company, only to demonstrate that this chain of restaurants had a social policy close to slavery. Well on Internet, we were able to find hundreds of testimonies of people who had worked for this chain and who told how they had been exploited. So internet is a powerful tool. At other times, it would have been necessary to go out and find all these people. In the field of documentation too, on Internet, you very quickly find whatever you are looking for. However, I do not think that a newspaper should put itself on line. If it does, then it unnecessarily competes with itself. If a newspaper wants to have a online counterpart, then it is necessary that this be an original and independent offer, which incites people to consult the newspaper. Otherwise, one will attain the results of Libération, which lost thousands of readers because people read it over the Net.

You think Internet is likely to undermine the printed media?

No. If paper media is put on Internet as such, then there is a true risk. But otherwise, no. When author S. King wanted to put his novel on the Net, that was a failure, people didn't read it.

However, newspapers have not yet found "the" economical model with a big "M" for Internet?

I think they have. There is a complementarity, which is very significant. Today, newspapers can manage real time exchanges or connect with their readers, or from people all over the world, that's fundamental. But that has not changed their internal structure, they nevertheless remain printed newspapers.

Do you have any connections with other European media?

Not really!

Do the journalists of Marianne encounter particular difficulties in the course of their work?

Well yes but one really should not attach a great importance to threats of any kind. I for instance have sometimes received death threats. One thing is for sure, when someone threats you, he won't gun you down. Someone who will, won't warn you of anything. Threats are just for impressing people. Things can probably be more dangerous where there is no threat. Otherwise investigations are sometimes difficult, there are people who refuse to answer you. But the real problem resides with the lawsuits? We retain each year more or less 450 000 euros for lawsuits.

What would you suggest to a young journalist starting in the written media?

First of all he needs to write extremely well, not only must his writing be pleasant to read but it must also be very clear and understandable for the public. He or she has to learn how to write quickly and be able to synthesize. It is essential. It isn't even worth trying if he or she doesn't have these qualities. Lastly, the would be journalist must have a good background. He or she must be knowledgeable about economics, history and ideology. They must know Karl Marx, liberalism, etc. They must be fluent in English.

Do you think that journalism training teaches all that nowadays?

No! They teach too uniformly but having said that, they aren't too bad.

September 7, 2003