As a citizen, there is perhaps no evil that worries me more than the rise of murderous anti-Semitism in recent years. I have devoted the entire – very personal – prologue of my book to it, A French sorrow (Observatory editions). And I think that both the scale of the phenomenon and its consequences are largely underestimated. As a journalist, I am extremely vigilant with regard to these subjects, while taking care not to transform my torments as a citizen into a professional obsession: it is a necessary balance, sometimes tormenting, to which many reporters and editorialists compel themselves. daily.
Five years ago, L’Express was one of the first press titles to take the “Sarah Halimi affair” seriously from the outset: as soon as we learned that a Jewish woman in her sixties had been beaten up then defenestrated with cries of “Allah Akbar”, “I killed the Sheitan” [NDLR : le diable] – it was already a month after the events – we investigated this drama which had only been covered in the community press. The newspaper was therefore, with Le Figarothe first “generalist” to deal with this murder, and the first to publish an investigation.
Talking about it later with colleagues from other newsrooms who had come up against a diffuse refusal to take up the subject in their ranks, I discovered that this affair had embarrassed some at the corners: journalists had been afraid that in the middle of the presidential campaign (we were then in April 2017), the overexposure of a violent and potentially Islamist murder, moreover, plays the same role as the “Papy Voise affair” in 2002 (named after this pensioner whose highly publicized beating would have favored the surprise accession of Jean-Marie Le Pen to the second round of the presidential election), and that the press is once again criticized for having blown in the sails of an extremist candidacy. Others had argued about a so-called “community paranoia”, which saw anti-Semitism everywhere in general and in the murder of Sarah Halimi in particular…
Two reasons given. Two bad reasons, in my opinion. Journalists must certainly be careful: not to speak before knowing; and constantly asking the question of the correct hierarchy of current affairs. Do we deal too much or not enough with a fact or an event? This is a question at the heart of our profession, on a daily basis. But prudence never prevented us from investigating. This is the basis of our mission. To abdicate is to maintain distrust and resentment with regard to our role as an intermediary body. And that doesn’t lead to anything good.
taste of truth
Today, some criticize us for a “new Sarah Halimi affair”. We are summoned, on social networks, to open “all the news in France” with the Jérémy Cohen affair, of which we have only known the first elements since this Monday, April 4: this young man, this young French Jew with a disability, was beaten on February 17 in Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis). Trying to escape the pack of his attackers, he was hit in his flight by a tram, and died. Why does the case only come to our attention today? Did the police “under-investigate”, as the dignified and tearful family puts it? Was Jérémy Cohen lynched because he was Jewish (for now, we don’t know if he wore his yarmulke on his head or not)? These are questions that, as of this writing, have no answers.
To be a journalist is first and foremost to give priority, within the framework of one’s duties, to a taste for the truth, and therefore for investigation. Facts before emotion. It means not letting ourselves be intimidated either by those who suggest not dealing with, not investigating in the name of the fight against extremes, or by those who, in the name of a legitimate emotion, enjoin us to write and to denounce before knowing what evil, precisely, this terrible affair is the name of. These are the conditions for our participation in a serene democratic debate. But are we still collectively capable of it?