Chart 4.1 Frequency of frames in Le Monde and Le Figaro
I. Nationalism Frame
three selected frames, they still account for the dailies‟ positive slant in favor of the Roma and were thus retained.
Chart 4.1 shows the frequency of frames used in the two dailies. It provides the reader with the results in a glance, allowing him to have a first idea of the difference of uses between the frames by each daily. Next the author will address in detail the discourse for each of the three dominant frames in the two dailies.
Chart 4.1 Frequency of frames in Le Monde and Le Figaro
I.Nationalism Frame
The nationalism frame can be understood from two opposite perspectives. Both perspectives lean on the Republican values inherited from the French Revolution, but they hold very different interpretations about these values. The pro-Roma immigration nationalism frame understands the
“liberté, égalité, fraternité” motto as a spirit of openness to everyone, no matter the origin. The
13
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
65
against Roma immigration nationalism frame gives these values the meaning of “all equal before the law”, and no preferential treatment because of one‟s ethnic belonging. The daily Le Monde supported the first interpretation with the pro-Roma nationalism frame appearing in 36 articles while Le Figaro recorded only 13 articles. In contrast, Le Monde had only three articles against the Roma immigration and Le Figaro had 39 articles against the Roma immigration.
The difference in news discourse of the nationalism frame in the two dailies is equally conspicuous. The pro-Roma interpretation nationalism frame understands nowadays French Republic as the heir of the French Revolution. The Republican tradition that stems from the French Revolution is strongly egalitarian and stresses citizenship and human rights. The debate the Roma immigration triggered questions the Republican values. The pro-Roma nationalism frame claims that the Republic‟s spirit has been betrayed, and that a return to the original values of the French Republic is needed. The recent xenophobic actions bring shame on France. The French Republic is by definition opposed to racism and refuses a dichotomy between host society (in-group) and immigrants (out-group). This interpretation was the dominant discourse in Le Monde.
The against Roma nationalism frame, however, understands nationalism as a national identity on one hand and a commitment to a group on the other. It distinguishes the “us” (in-group/host society) from the “them” (out-group/immigrants). In the against Roma nationalism frame, people claim to be true to the Republican values and to have the duty to enforce the rule of law (Etat de droit). It gives the state legitimacy to control immigration and refers to it as a duty towards the members committed to the in-group: the citizens. Nationalism is also a matter of national sovereignty: support France, support her values, support her government, and respect the State.
This interpretation was the main discourse in Le Figaro.
‧
analysis of the rhetoric in the frame of the two papers.Table 4.1 Pro and Against Discourse in Nationalism Frame in Le Monde and Le Figaro Nationalism Frame
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
67
French Republic and her recent actions against the Roma. The values Le Monde writes about are values of hosting foreigners, treating everyone “on an equal footing”.
These values summarized in the motto “liberté, égalité, fraternité” (liberty, equality, fraternity) were inherited from the French Revolution of 1789. At that time, people fought to put an end to privileges and for equality of all people before the law. The modern concept of
“citizenship” was born at that period together with the concept of “everyone is equal, no matter the origin”. The French Republic was thus built on values of equality for all disregarding origins, ethnicity, and religion. This generous view turned France into a welcoming country for refugees and immigrants in general, and it is this basic concept that the government of Nicolas Sarkozy is believed to have betrayed.
According to these values, the “Republic should be blind to origins”. Ethnic discrimination like pointing at the Roma, calling them the source of the social unrest, is “disgraceful” from a country with such heritage of humanistic values like France. The French government‟s policy is a “shame” policy as an article from September 14 titles, and brings shame on the whole European Union. Another article from September 7 denounces these “anti-republican forces” that use scapegoats, “stigmatize the poorest” members and ignore the sovereign people. The article claims that “our Republic is not frozen in the marble of nationalism”, and that “it defends the right of minorities”. The new policy brings shame to France and damages image of the country on the national and on the international stage. Two articles, from September 12 and 16 discuss the problem of “image”. The Government feels concerned by the “dented image of the country”.
The Roma issue “damaged the country‟s image on the international level”. It is also said that France “used to have the image of the most open country to all those fleeing persecution in their countries”, a reputation of human rights‟ defender, and that this image is now lost. The recent
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
68
events on the Roma “affected France‟s capacity to present herself as the defender of human rights”. The country lost its credibility on human rights matter and consequently it lost the right to voice its concern regarding other countries deeds on that matter.
The French government was accused of racialization and ethnicization of the French nation, with all the damages these two concepts can bring to the society. Both concepts foster intolerance and radicalization in people‟s mind. Le Monde argues in an August 28 article that
“the society‟s fears were exacerbated” and exploited by the government in a debate that actually translates a fundamental struggle over the conception of the French nation. The choice here is between “an ethnic nation and a political nation”. The ethnic conception of the nation stresses the importance of the in-group as opposed to external threats represented by the out-group –the immigrants. The in-group shares a common identity, a common culture, and its goal is to preserve this identity from external threats brought by non-members of the group. However, the article argues that the French nation has traditionally been conceived according to the ideals inherited from the French Revolution, that is, a political conception where “no distinction between in-group and out-group are made on origin grounds”. This issue is related to the national identity debate that had happened a short while before the Roma debate started, and
“scapegoating” is part of the process. The strategy employed by the current government is contrary to this traditional conception of the nation. It is a conception favoring the in-group and scapegoating the foreigners with the goal to unify the in-group members. They believe that sending away the scapegoat will purify the in-group from its troubles and vices. This attitude inevitably fosters racism and xenophobia. Every time a society faces a crisis, it looks for a scapegoat (here the Roma) and sends it away (expulsion of the Roma) believing it will solve the problem and unify the group (René Girard, 1987).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
69
The analysis of the articles in Le Monde shows a President trying to unify its citizens against one group: the Roma, under the ground of tackling insecurity. In his book, Banal Nationalism, Billig argued that “the efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of attention of a people, and always concentrating it on a single enemy” (1995: 86). In a July 30 article, Le Monde stresses that “the President is the guardian of the national and social cohesion”. However, given the heated debate that followed, it is obvious that this strategy failed.
Numerous articles report the growing “division in the presidential majority” and the ministers such as Prime Minister François Fillon and Minister of Foreign Affairs Bernard Kouchner,
“taking distances with the government new policy”.
Against Roma immigration: Le Figaro. In the nationalism frame, Le Figaro was against the Roma immigration. Articles using the against Roma nationalism frame reported on the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) and the government reactions: they believe to be acting
“according to the Republican values”. The mission of the government is to address the French citizens‟ demands and expectations. In an interview from August 8, Brice Hortefeux, Minister of Internal Affairs, states that “French people want a society secure, founded on a republican order, which demands a balance between rights and duties”. Le Figaro supports the government in its news reports, broadcasting in many articles the government‟s sayings that “France scrupulously respects the national and international law”. That is actually the government‟s major justification: the new policy “respects the law” and “respected the legal ways”. The French government also argues that according to the Constitution, “everyone is equal before the law, and thus no preferential treatment should be allowed”, even on positive discriminatory grounds.
Enforcing the law is part of the “republican pact” the government accepts when reaching the power.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
70
The Roma debate is not a mere matter of legislation and criminal law. It needs to be replaced in the much wider context of the national identity debate that the government launched in the end of 2009. This debate aimed at asking people “what being French meant to them”. It made an explicit connection between national identity and immigration, questioning for instance the historic, economic, societal connection of France with immigration, and the link between national identity and the respect of foreign residents‟ cultures. This debate aimed mainly at assessing the French people‟s expectations regarding the immigration and integration issues.
Immigration was clearly at the heart of the national identity debate, and it was on the government‟s agenda from the beginning of Nicolas Sarkozy‟s term of office to address these issues. When examined under that perspective, the Roma issue seems to be a logical continuation of the government‟s immigration policy.
Along the same line, it has been observed that Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be really concerned by national identity matters since he created a special ministry named “Ministry of Immigration and National Identity” shortly after he had been elected President. The choice of setting up this new ministry is revealing about the government‟s political orientation and how it views immigration. Scholars have even mobilized against the creation of this ministry because of its powers and political leanings very similar to those of an extreme-right wing party. Two hundred French and foreign scholars and professors signed a petition started in June 21 2007, protesting against the formation of the new Ministry of Immigration and National Identity. These scholars
“found the connection between both concepts “immigration” and “national identity” worrying”.
They feared the connection between both concepts “could only strengthen negative prejudices against immigrants”.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
71
The national identity issue is closely related to the national sovereignty. The national sovereignty of the French Republic was undermined by the attacks of the European Commission on the legitimacy of her actions. The dichotomy between France and the European Commission takes a growing place in the dailies columns in September, when the situation between France and Europe becomes critical. The French government did not accept the interference in its national immigration policies. Nicolas Sarkozy “sent Europe back to her responsibilities”. The French government deems the critics and some wordings Viviane Reding, European Commissioner of Justice, “unacceptable”. Le Figaro qualifies Reding‟s attacks as an “improper slip” in a September 16 article. The results of a poll conducted by the Opinion Way Institute and published in Le Figaro in September 17 found that “fifty-six percent of French people disapprove of the European Commission‟s critics of France”. In these September articles on the issue opposing France and the European Commission, France is not called only “France”
anymore, but it is labeled “Founding State of the European Union”, and “Homeland of Human Rights”. Members of the government emphasize “the greatness of the French nation” when they face the European Commission. The aim is to flag the political and cultural importance of France on the international stage and remind everyone of her great contributions in History and to the construction of the European Union.
The duty of the government towards its citizens is to address their needs and fulfill their expectations to the best. However, French people feel oppressed by the xenophiles‟ stance of the opposition: “concessions are unilateral” and as a result, the French people are “forgotten by their own democracy”. Sometimes, French people have the feeling to be forgotten in the debate in the opposition‟s perspective. Two articles in particular address that issue, one published in August 27th and another published in September 24th. It is said that French people feel “humiliated by the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
72
indifference” of their elites, and that the French national identity and the French values have been set aside because of an “unbalanced tolerance towards foreigners”. These articles further analyze that the feeling of being forsaken by the social parties supposed to care about the whole society‟s well-being prompts people toward extreme-right-wing parties such as the Front National (the National Front).
The nationalism frame includes the concept of flagging the nation in newspapers. Billig found that “in the established nations, there is a continual „flagging‟, or reminding of nationhood […] structuring [of] newspapers” (1995: 8). The media take an active part in this process of nation-building as they flag the nation in their articles. Le Figaro continuously flags the nation in its articles with rhetorical figures such as “we” opposed to “the”, and the use of words like
“compatriots” instead of “citizens” that is more neutral and so on. The goal is to remind the readers they belong to the French society and they are committed to the French Republic. The opinion articles in Le Figaro always use a great rhetoric aiming at awakening the readers‟
nationalist feelings in order to support the perspective against the Roma immigration.
Comparing Le Monde and Le Figaro. As mentioned above, Le Monde‟s pro-Roma immigration nationalism frame appeared in 36 articles, while Le Figaro‟s against Roma immigration nationalism frame appeared in 39 articles. In contrast, only 3 articles employing the against Roma immigration frame could be found in Le Monde. This wide gap, 36 versus 3, clearly shows Le Monde‟s political position Likewise, Le Figaro was found to have 13 articles using the pro-Roma nationalism frame while 39 articles in its pages employ the against Roma nationalism frame. Le Figaro seems thus to have striven to present both aspects of the debate on the nationalism part more than Le Monde has.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
73
Both dailies adopted the frame opposed to their editorial stance only in articles where the opponent group was cited. The 3 articles using the against Roma nationalism frame in Le Monde were all interviews of members from the government: Prime Minister François Fillon, Internal Affairs Minister Brice Hortefeux, and the President Nicolas Sarkozy. In these cases, it was not the Le Monde journalist‟s opinion but the mere reporting of these politicians words. A close look to these articles actually showed a preconception from the journalist‟s part as the questions and remarks were not neutral and contained bias. In Nicolas Sarkozy‟s interview article of September 17, the journalist described Sarkozy‟s attitude as “he considers he is doing pretty good”, and “he settles comfortably in his armchair” and “he refuses to consider his mistakes”. This description gives the impression of a man self-confident and somehow proud. Whatever the President can say next is half undermined by the first negative impression conveyed by the journalist‟s description.
These findings show Le Figaro had a higher proportion of articles presenting the nationalism frame opposed to its own editorial stance. The articles were not like the interviews in Le Monde but news reports of what opponents to the government said. Articles using the pro-Roma nationalism frame in Le Figaro cited members of the Socialist Party such as Martine Aubry, First Secretary of the Socialist Party, members of the European Commission and more especially Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for Justice, and members of the Church. These thirteen articles presented the perspective of the opposition, and described their indignation at France‟s new policy. Aubry qualified Sarkozy‟s policy as “horrible, revolting, irresponsible and unfair” in an article of August 30. The verbs used in these articles were usually “denounced”, “to be offended”, “lost her/his temper” and so forth so show the indignation of the opposition groups at
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
74
Sarkozy‟s policy. An article of September 15 reported Viviane Reding‟s remarks, where she
“judged the French government‟s attitude as shameful”.
Keywords used belonged to the same semantic field in both dailies when they referred to the pro-Roma nationalism frame, “damaged France”, “damaged image”, “against the republican values”, “shame” and so forth. It makes sense since the articles on both sides were direct quotes of groups opposed to the government. However, even though the semantic field was similar, the rhetoric was different. When reporting Martine Aubry‟s words, Head of the Socialist Party, in an August 30 article, Le Figaro undermined them by using verbs such as “s‟offusquer” (to be offended) to describe Aubry‟s reaction, and other expressions such as “elle fait la part belle a l‟indignation” (she spotlighted her indignation) or “le ton empreint de gravité” (with a serious tone). The English translation can hardly account for the connotation of these words and expressions. In French, they are pompous and seldom used in news reports because too literary.
The intentional use of pompous literary expressions in a news report aims at appearing ridiculous because of the exaggeration in the tone.
No matter how both dailies tried to appear objective, they still remained deeply attached to the editorial stance of the daily they belong to and used rhetorical figures that counterbalanced the objectivity of the article. It might not be obvious and it might be totally unconscious, but a careful analysis of the journalists‟ discourse highlights their inherent biased attitude toward the other camp.