Journalists manhandled in Orléans: newsrooms urge the RN to condemn, press freedom is not negotiable

Six days after the Rassemblement national congress in Orléans, the affair is not dying down. On Friday 30 October, fourteen media directors, joined by the Spiil, the online press union, signed an open letter published by Mediacités. They ask the party of Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella to publicly condemn the violence suffered by journalists during its gathering, and to guarantee the safety of those who will cover its presidential campaign.

What happened in Orléans

The events date back to the weekend of 24 and 25 October, at the Zénith in Orléans. According to Mediapart's account reported by Puremédias, four of the site's journalists were booed before the congress opened, to chants of "Mediapart dehors" ("Mediapart out"), then removed from the hall by the party's security service. According to the outlet, one of them was reportedly carried by the waist, another grabbed by the collar, and two were reportedly pinned against a wall outside. The RN press office then apologised and let the team return, according to the newsrooms' letter cited by AFP.

The next day, as AFP reports, an action claimed by the Union of Jewish Students of France led plain-clothes police officers and the stewarding service to remove the activists, along with a Mediapart journalist who was filming the scene. A spectator reportedly told him to "go back to the bled", according to Puremédias. A Politis journalist filming the same action was manhandled and taken out. Mediapart's management then asked its teams to leave the congress, as their safety was no longer guaranteed. Friday's letter also mentions a Canard enchaîné journalist who was jostled and intimidated.

These incidents come amid a tense climate. In September, Mediapart published antisemitic writings it attributes to a young Jordan Bardella. The RN president firmly denies them and has filed a defamation complaint. In early October, some forty journalists' societies had already denounced, according to Euronews, threats against the authors of the investigation, and criticised Marine Le Pen for advising Mediapart to wear "un costard en kevlar" (a Kevlar suit).

The positions at stake

The party's arguments must be reported fairly. According to TF1 journalists on site, cited by Puremédias, the RN justified its security service's intervention by fear of a crowd surge. The context was heavy: several tens of thousands of counter-demonstrators were expected in Orléans, according to Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez as cited by Public Sénat, and an activist action did disrupt the second day. A party has the right to hold its congress and to keep order there. It also apologised on the first day, which is not nothing.

The newsrooms reply that order does not justify everything. On 27 October, some forty of them, including BFMTV, LCI, Le Monde, Le Figaro, Radio France, France Télévisions and AFP, were already asking to be able "to work freely". They addressed all parties, whatever their side. Friday's letter goes further: it recalls that a journalist covering a political event is not an activist, and calls for a clear condemnation of the violence, notably the racist insults.

Verbal violence calls for and legitimises acting out. — Carine Fouteau, Mediapart

What this affair says

The disagreement between the RN and Mediapart is real, and it belongs in the courts, where Jordan Bardella has indeed taken it. That is the republican rule: an investigation is challenged through the right of reply and before a judge, not by shoving. The strength of this letter lies precisely in the range of its signatories. Le Monde and Ouest-France, Public Sénat and L'Humanité, Politico and Le Canard enchaîné share neither the same editorial line nor the same readers. When they speak together, it is not one camp against another, it is the profession defending a principle.

That principle goes beyond the RN alone. Press freedom, enshrined in the 1881 law, cannot be divided according to whether the questions please or not. A security service that chooses which journalists are allowed in a hall, a crowd chanting a media outlet's name to drive it out, remarks targeting a reporter's origins: each of these acts, taken in isolation, may seem minor. Put together, six months before a presidential election, they create a climate in which informing becomes a risk.

The RN aspires to govern. That is its absolute right, and that is precisely why the same standards are expected of it as of any party of government. Gaullism had rough relations with the press, but the republican State has always held that power is to be criticised, challenged and checked. Both left and right have had their lapses with journalists; none has ever been good news for democracy.

A campaign under protection?

The newsrooms' request is simple and costs the RN nothing: a public condemnation, and a commitment that all accredited journalists will be able to cover its rallies without being targeted. The other political parties would do well to make the same commitment, in writing, before the campaign begins. Would a common charter, signed by all candidates for the Élysée and guaranteed by Arcom, not be the best answer? A presidential election is won at the ballot box, but it is also prepared under the gaze of a free press.

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.