The impossible debate

Saturday 29 March 2025. The weather is splendid over Brussels, and I have no desire to shut myself away for two hours in an LED‑lit basement. But I told the secretariat that I would attend the debate organised by the AJP (Association des Journalistes Professionnels), and I rarely back out.  So I go down the steps to the meeting room where the General Assembly has just ended.
There he is, standing in the middle of the room, jovial, surrounded by a few journalists who are perhaps congratulating him on his recent appointment as editor‑in‑chief of Le Soir. Xavier Counasse is in very relaxed mode in his meadow‑green sweatshirt, with a few days’ stubble. I have already told myself that someone whose Facebook page opens with a photo of a team of Scout leaders could not be a bad sort.

I try to catch the eye of an AJP member who attended the preview of my latest documentary^[1]. But he avoids my gaze. I have developed a keen sensitivity to this kind of behaviour; I have the antennae of a beetle.  I do not want to make him uncomfortable in front of colleagues less well‑disposed towards me. My recent contributions to the “alternative” press have probably earned me a few enemies among AJP members, and I would not be surprised if some dream of expelling me.

So I opt for blending in and sit down quietly in front of the raised platform where Xavier Counasse has taken his seat. We are face to face, a few metres apart.

Sarah Frères, the director of the AJP, announces that the debate will be filmed and put online^[2].  She suggests opening the discussion by watching a short video featuring Françoise Tulkens, former judge and vice‑president of the European Court of Human Rights. This eminent figure says, among other things: Everyone must be allowed to express a view, a thought, an opinion, without interference from the authorities, because that is ultimately the heart of a democratic society^[3].  No one during the debate will point out that the health authorities trampled on this right to freedom of expression during the Covid crisis. The journalists present perhaps feel a little uncomfortable at having let it happen.

Had I known, would I have come?

When Sarah Frères sets out the topics to be discussed, I realise that I was misled by the poster promoting the debate. Its title was “FAIRE FACE AU MEDIA BASHING”. Of course I knew that the notion of debate would be relative, the term having been diverted from its original meaning for several years already. On television, in podcasts or in academic circles, debates are mostly limited to courteous exchanges between people who broadly agree on a topic. Opponents with a shred of credibility are kept out. Sometimes a personality with caricatural positions is invited to speak, preferably by videoconference so that he can be cut off if he goes off the rails. Sacha Daout has become a past master of this exercise, which has more to do with manufacturing consent than with journalism.

As for media‑bashing, the debate focused mainly on rather legal aspects. Xavier Counasse spoke at length about a case pitting the Le Soir newsroom against Maxime Degey (an elected official from Verviers). There was much talk of the increasingly dubious role of the courts in matters of press freedom. Caroline Carpentier, a lawyer, recalled the case law and illustrated her presentation with a few cases.

The examples of media‑bashing cited mainly concerned the political sphere (George‑Louis Bouchez, Trump…), which allowed the AJP to shrug off any responsibility, or even to justify certain practices (the slightly delayed broadcast of Trump’s inauguration speech, for example). There was even talk of extending the famous Belgian cordon sanitaire to international news!

Jean‑Paul Marthoz, a journalist and author of the report on press freedom in Europe for the Council of Europe, was the only one to show a little humility. At the very end of the debate, he admitted: The gap that exists today with part of public opinion is also due to the mistakes we have made, obviously. To certain journalistic practices that have indeed been… bad. But also because we are unable to articulate to the public why public‑interest journalism matters; why press freedom matters^[4].

The debate was very interesting, and I admired Xavier Counasse’s ease during these two hours of journalistic navel‑gazing. He knows his subject, does not deal in waffle, and allows himself touches of humour. What a pity that such a brilliant guy is no longer open to realities other than those he perceives from within his ecosystem.

The question I did not ask

When question time came, I was hoping to ask the one I had prepared. It concerned citizen media‑bashing, that criticism of the media which does not come from the political or economic sphere, but from citizens exasperated by the slow corruption of journalism. The kind that produces more communication than information.  My question concerned what I experienced at close quarters during the health crisis, and have observed since: vengeful media‑bashing, initiated by individuals or groups subjected to insidious or frontal attacks by the media.

I did not ask this question; it seemed off topic since the debate was about legal aspects that I am not an expert in. I transcribe it here for the record:
Everything I heard in this debate suggests that journalists have nothing to reproach themselves for regarding the origin of media‑bashing. That is not how I feel. Put yourself in the shoes of a virologist who promoted vaccines throughout his career, but who was sceptical about the accelerated development of messenger RNA technology.  At the height of the vaccination campaign, he discovers this headline in La DH^[5]: “Ces antivax qui retardent notre retour à la liberté.” Don’t you think that media‑bashing is a response to certain harmful editorial positions?

So I swallowed my question and let a former La Libre journalist voice his support for Xavier Counasse in the Degey case. There was fine unanimity in this coterie on all subjects, including political ones, which confirms my view that there is no longer any pluralism in the Belgian media landscape. The panel launched once more into the theme of political and judicial interference, promising a coordinated counter‑offensive, before concluding.

Spoil the debate?

To tell the truth, I could have spoiled it, this AJP debate. The invitation email I received did indeed state: the debate is open to all.  The thought crossed my mind of letting a few virulent critics of the mainstream media know, who would have taken the opportunity to let off steam. For a moment I imagined Xavier Counasse being challenged by Alexandre Penasse (Kairos), Manu Poutte (BAM!), Anne Gillet (Zèbre) or Yves Rasir (Néosanté). These editors of alternative^[6] media are calling for a real debate on the role of journalists in representing reality. A debate that would cover, for example, the way newsrooms tackle the major issues of public health, gender, ecology or geopolitics, to name but a few. The big media have always refused to respond to these invitations to debate, with a certain contempt.

So why did I not inform the aforementioned troublemakers of this debate organised by the AJP?  First, because they would probably not have defended their point of view, but attacked Xavier Counasse’s, and probably in harsh terms. Personally, I believe that middle‑ground positions are more productive. Everything that is excessive is insignificant, said Talleyrand. What would have been the point of Xavier Counasse being roughed up by his detractors, other than to reinforce his idea that alternative journalists are decidedly beyond the pale, and that their media interest only a bunch of low‑grade conspiracy theorists?

The second reason is personal. I wanted the AJP, and Xavier Counasse in particular, to understand that I am not an enemy. I do not want to fight against journalism as it is today; I am campaigning for journalism that is a real counter‑power. I still hope that we can revive a press that does not stigmatise opponents of the dominant discourse, that does not systematically lump them together with the far right so as to be able to confine them within the cordon sanitaire of which the Belgian press is so proud.

When the debate ended, Xavier Counasse found himself surrounded by people; he cut something of a guest star figure. I quickly gulped down a mini‑sandwich at the buffet; I was in a hurry to see the sunlight again.  Before leaving the room, I held out my hand to the AJP representative I know personally.  With this handshake, I tried to convey a message: You see, I chose not to spoil the debate. Being there and keeping quiet ultimately seemed to me the best way to be heard.

Bernard Crutzen, documentary filmmaker.

Photos: The screenshots are taken from the video available online on YouTube.

Standfirst by BAM!

FAIRE FACE AU MEDIA‑BASHING

Speakers: Caroline Carpentier (lawyer specialising in information and media law), Xavier Counasse (editor‑in‑chief of Le Soir), Jean‑Paul Marthoz (journalist, author of the report on press freedom in Europe, Council of Europe).

Video introduction: Françoise Tulkens (former judge at the ECHR)

Moderation: Sarah Frères (AJP President)

[1] Le retour des corbeaux, supported by the Fonds pour le Journalisme. Bruxelles Sauvage, le retour des corbeaux. Trailer

[2] The debate is online:  Faire face au média bashing (AJP)

[3] at 00:02:10

[4] at 01:02:57

[5] L’Edito : ces antivax qui retardent notre retour à la liberté - La DH/Les Sports+

[6] There are many other media outlets that could be described as alternative, most of them pure players: asymptomatique.be, cite24.com, investigaction.net, lpost.be, pan.be, pour.press, etc. Not to mention citizen reporters.