The AJP, the RTBF and the WEF
Bernard Crutzen attended the preview of the film “September 5” organised by the Association des Journalistes Professionnels (AJP). After the screening, a debate was announced, bringing together figures from the mainstream media. But could it really be called a debate? Between muted consensus, absence of contradiction and questionable references, the director gives us his impressions of the evening.
A debate without contradiction
As is now customary, the three people invited to debate after the film broadly agreed on everything. Nothing could be more normal, since all three are senior executives in mainstream media (RTBF, RTL, VTM). In connection with the film, which recounts the live broadcast of the Munich hostage‑taking (1972 Olympic Games), the discussion focused on how to cover a dramatic event: live broadcasting, ethics, lived experiences (the Brussels attacks), competition from “rolling news” channels, from social media, etc.
For there to have been a debate, an authorised person would have needed to be able to talk about the news disseminated via social media (X, Facebook, Insta…). But I am well aware that such interlocutors are not easy to find. Who could represent X in Belgium? As for the question of inviting a representative of the so‑called “alternative” media, it was probably never even considered by the AJP, which does not recognise them as professional press outlets.
So instead of a debate, we witnessed a courteous, muted exchange, followed by a Q&A with the audience. Most of the questions went the way of the “debaters”: the responsibility of the mainstream media versus social media, quicker off the mark, but which disseminate information in a non‑professional way. Two questions from the audience caused a little unease. The first was political (an attack on Palestinians in Lebanon) and the other concerned media coverage of the health crisis (sensationalist images at the start of the pandemic). That question did not come from me. I would have liked to ask others, for example about the narrative of the war in Ukraine, where the media relay NATO’s point of view, prepare us for war and very rarely show us the suffering this conflict generates on the ground. I would have liked to ask at least one question, but there are evenings like that, when one lacks courage and says to oneself: “What’s the point?”.
Editorial media… or subsidised media?
An interesting moment was the search for an adjective to describe the mainstream media. Jean‑Pierre Jacqmin (RTBF) does not like this word, which he finds disparaging. His VTM colleague suggested “editorial media”, a term apparently used in Flanders. The RTBF’s director of news seemed delighted with this suggestion. I, for my part, think it is reductive. Indeed, some “alternative” media have a genuine editorial team: BAM!, Kairos, Zèbre,... (to name only a few French‑speaking Belgian titles). The term “subsidised media” would be fairly apt, but the TV channels present that evening probably do not want anyone to mention their possible complacency towards the subsidising authorities. Personally, I relish the term used by the Swiss weekly Antipresse to describe the mainstream media: “highwayman media”!
JP Jacqmin and the World Economic Forum
I nearly intervened all the same (but it was not question time) when the RTBF’s Director of News (Jean‑Pierre Jacqmin) cited the World Economic Forum (WEF in English) as a reference! Better known as the “Davos Forum”, this Foundation reserved for captains of industry, crowned heads and stars engages in illegal lobbying with complete impunity, as former lobbyist Frédéric Baldan explains very clearly in his book “UrsulaGates”[1]. The leader of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, notably boasted[2] of having infiltrated the governments of several countries thanks to his Young Global Leaders (including Messrs Trudeau and De Croo).
So it was an influential and resolutely undemocratic think tank that Jean‑Pierre Jacqmin paraphrased on Tuesday: “The three main global risks[3] identified by the World Economic Forum are 1. Disinformation 2. Climate change. 3. Societal polarisation.[4]” There was something ironic about the RTBF representative mentioning the polarisation of society, when the RTBF has no equal in stigmatising, lumping together and dividing citizens[5] on the basis of whether or not they adhere to the official narratives (freedom‑destroying measures during the pandemic, vaccination, climate change, EVRAS, wokeism, war in Ukraine or Gaza…)
I sincerely hope that the RTBF’s Director of News will refer to other sources, more academic, more democratic or pluralistic. And I advise him to read “UrsulaGates[6]” so that he understands what the sources he cites are made of. Out of simple ignorance? Referring to the World Economic Forum is certainly not in the general interest, that of the Belgian people and taxpayers who finance both the Belgium House in Davos[7] and the RTBF.
Bernard Crutzen
Documentary filmmaker.
[3] Le Forum économique mondial dévoile le Rapport sur les Risques Globaux 2024
[4] I am quoting JP Jacqmin from memory; I do not think there is any recording of this debate.
[5] For example: Complotistes, extrême droite et adeptes de théories pédocriminelles : voici le réseau des désinformateurs sur l’Evras en Belgique - RTBF Actus or #Investigation – Antivax, les marchands de doute - RTBF Actus
[7] Davos : ’the place to be’ où les acteurs politiques et économiques de la planète négocient, y compris la Belgique - RTBF Actus
