Chart 4.1 Frequency of frames in Le Monde and Le Figaro
II. Securitization Frame
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.
II.Securitization Frame
Security is one people‟s main issue and thus one of governments‟ paramount concerns. The debate on Roma immigration was triggered by violent actions perpetrated by some individuals of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
75
the Roma community in St Aignan that cast a general anathema on the whole community (see p.
30). These violent actions could have remained in the “news in brief” section, had the President not decided to establish an example by punishing the offenders and had the media not seized the story and set it in the political agenda in a “boomerang effect”.
Same as the nationalism frame, the securitization frame can be understood from to differing perspectives. One sees the security strengthening as a threat to the individuals‟ liberties –that would be the pro-Roma immigration securitization frame, while the other considers the security of the citizens as paramount –that is the against the Rome immigration securitization frame.
Findings show that Le Monde used the pro-Roma securitization frame in 68 articles while Le Figaro used the against Roma securitization frame in merely 27 articles. The pro-Roma securitization frame in Le Monde was used two and half times more than its counterpart, the against Roma securitization in Le Figaro.
The first interpretation of the securitization frame understands the new security policy enforced by the French government as an attack on the individuals‟ liberties. It is seen as a security drift implemented by a police state. The new security policy is believed to follow an authoritarian leaning, endangering democracy. Such security policies can nothing but foster racism when promoting the security and the well-being of the citizens at the expenses of the immigrants. The new French security policy points at the immigrants as the origin of the troubles and scapegoats them. This first interpretation was supported by Le Monde.
The second interpretation of the securitization frame emphasizes the government‟s obligations toward its citizens regarding security and well-being. Security is often an important stake during the electoral campaigns, and social unrest is often blamed on immigrant groups.
According to that perception of the securitization frame, immigrants represent a threat for the
‧
reflected in the security policies: the government implements intense security policies to address its citizens‟ needs and expectations. Immigration as a threat and a security concern has become the hegemonic discourse type in government‟s policies. This interpretation was supported by Le Figaro.Table 4.2 presents the keywords used by both dailies for each of the interpretation of the securitization frame.
Table 4.2 Pro and Against Discourse in Securitization Frame in Le Monde and Le Figaro Securitization Frame
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
77
Pro-Roma securitization frame: Le Monde. The speech of Grenoble by Nicolas Sarkozy on July 30 for the first time associated the Roma with delinquency and criminality. This political discourse about security was later broadcast by his ministers. In the Grenoble speech, the Roma were labeled as “delinquents”. The relation between Roma and criminality was explicitly established by the government, stigmatizing the Roma community and designating them as responsible for the social unrest. Several articles in Le Monde aim at rebalancing this vision, arguing that if the Roma camp on illegal sites it often is because the hosting areas every town is supposed to build have not been built, or worse, they have been constructed on a land no one would want to settle on such as near a waste ground or a polluting factory. In such conditions, the Rom populations feel rejected and marginalized. If they turn to petty crimes it is because they were stirred by necessity and not by atavism, i.e. hereditary instinct to crime. People‟s understanding and compassion instead of the usual rejection and the hardening political line of the French government would be a better help to the Roma‟s integration and stopping the petty crimes. Such was Le Monde‟s defense for the Roma in the securitization frame.
The hardening security policy implemented by the French government has been compared by Le Monde to the policies of an authoritarian state. Many critics (scholars, the Catholic Church, the Socialist Party, Viviane Reding and so forth) have made connections between Sarkozy‟s government and the fascist state of the Nazi during World War II. The articles report comparisons to the “Nazi deportations”. Even Fidel Castro interfered to compare the Roma situation in France to a “Holocaust”. This security policy and the government‟s line go against the Republican values, against the spirit of the Republic and “the spirit of the laws”, “against the fundaments that make French people who they are”. An August 24 article averred that this security policy “breaks France‟s honor” and “brings shame on the country”. Nicolas Sarkozy‟s
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
78
new policy is qualified as a “security drift”, and a “sharp bend security”. On a July 31 article, Le Monde describes the French government as “helpless in front of the security issue” and “lacking a political vision” on how to tackle all the social troubles. Sakorzy‟s policies are a failure: an August 18 article accuses Sarkozy of using the Roma debate to “avert the failure of his policy”
and to “divert people‟s attention” with the Roma issue.
In Le Monde‟s discourse of the securitization frame the government‟s new security bend adopted is similar to a police state. The means used by the police (high technology) and the tough methods used to dismantle the camps are criticized as too rough and not respectful of the individuals, exactly like a police state would do. Authoritarianism fosters xenophobia, marginalization, intolerance and hatred. An August 8 article “Love of oneself and hatred of the others”, shows the shocking aspect of a xenophobic security policy that “builds a wall” between the host society and the immigrants, fostering “prejudices” and “negative stereotypes”. In this issue, the whole power of the state machine has been set against one single group: the Roma. The disproportion and the unfairness of the situation are too great to remain unnoticed. However, Le Monde underlines that all this action is a mere fidgeting because in reality the Roma are not a real threat and expelling them will not solve the problem of insecurity. There were chosen as targets because “the community is not well-organized”; they have few representatives and are not empowered. In other words, they were easy victims unlike other communities such as the Islamic community that everyone fears for terrorist attacks. The articles describe Sarkozy as seeking to appear like a “hero”, caring about his citizens and personally involved in the insecurity issue. Articles from September 4 and 5, among others, denounce an instrumentalization of the Roma debate from Sarkozy‟s side with the goal to win people‟s trust
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
79
and earning more voters. Another article on August 8 argues that President Sarkozy uses the Roma question to “ensure the conservation of his power at the service of personal interests”.
Many articles in Le Monde denounced the government‟s manipulation of the public opinion for political purposes. The new security policy induces “a regime built on people‟s fear”. Fear as a political strategy is peculiar to authoritarian regimes. People surrender to the regime of fear and give away their liberties. Exclusion and racism are “institutionalized”. Xenophobia and racism were been institutionalized by the French government, giving leeway to abuses and mistreatments against the Roma minority. Many articles use the words “state xenophobia”, and
“official stigmatization”. The government put forward many legal excuses, but no matter the legal justification, pointing at a group fosters stigmatization and xenophobia and can bring nothing but trouble. In the end it is democracy itself that is threatened. A September 7 article argues that “social benefits were questioned” and that “Nicolas Sarkozy imposes a vision of the Republic breaking with the fundamental bases of our democracy”.
A September 2 article denounces that “the government manipulates the audiences minds" by using the media as broadcasting tools: terrible images portraying violence and insecurity are broadcasted by the media all day long on the television, the news report numerous acts of violence, the news in brief sections is regularly fed with the ultimate goal to foster fear among the audiences. Through the pervasive broadcasting of daily violence, “insecurity is brought closer” to the audiences‟ mind and makes it more present in their everyday lives even when these audiences never witness any act of violence. Fear becomes “an element that accelerates reality”
(Le Monde, September 2). People believe of an upsurge of criminality and are thus more prone to giving up their liberties as long as the government they trust tackles the insecurity issue. The risks of a hard security policy are at term the attack on individuals‟ liberties. The insecurity
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
80
theme is intrumentalized by the political sphere; it is not really about the Roma, but more about political influence over the society. The government uses fear to manipulate the audiences, and the media are its accomplices. It is against these risks of a possible authoritarian leaning that Le Monde‟s discourse warns the readers in its securitization news frame.
Against Roma securitization frame: Le Figaro. Le Figaro‟s articles describe how the Roma debate gave way to a polarization of the audiences for or against the Roma immigration, for or against Nicolas Sarkozy‟s line of policies. As outlined above, some thought the government‟s new policy was too hard and on the brink of an authoritarian regime. On the other hand, the supporters of the government saw this security policy as a necessity and thought the French government was courageous to „break a taboo‟ and take action for the well-being of the local populations when no one else had dared to tackle the problem. Such are the “two sides” of the issue Le Figaro attempts to present in the securitization frame even though its discourse (27 articles against the Roma issue versus 7 articles pro-Roma) tends to oppose the Roma immigration.
One of Sarkozy‟s electoral promises in 2007 was to take care of the insecurity issue which has been an increasing concern for the French society in the past few years. When Sarkozy served as Minister of the Internal Affairs from March 2004 to November 2004, he was nicknamed “Premier flic de France” (France‟s first cop) because of his personal commitment to solving the insecurity issue and his dynamism in addressing the issue. Then, in 2007, the French people voted for him because they believed he could solve this issue at once. An August 2 article emphasizes Sarkozy‟s personal commitment to be “true to his commitment” regarding security and to be “the first actor in the struggle against insecurity”.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
81
A country needs laws and it needs to enforce these laws without distinction of origins between the people. The government argued it had “no intention to stigmatize a community” and that it was merely “enforcing the law” “without hesitation” because it is “the right thing to do”.
The government‟s mission is to structure and organize the society to ensure social order. This is why, despite the national and international repeated critics, the government does not flinch and continues to implement his security policy “with firmness” and “will not let go” on the expulsions matter. Minister of Internal Affairs Brice Hortefeux and Prime Minister François Fillon both agree on the “necessity to act with firmness, continuity and justice”. In a September 1 article, Fillon insisted that the security policy did not involve “stigmatization, nor escalation, or powerlessness of the state”. Eric Besson, Minister of the Immigration and National Identity Affairs, stated the government‟s will to “reestablish the authority of the state”. He further added that the security policy is “firm, but always humanitarian”. The goal was to strengthen the French society, prove the power the French Republic, and “keep high the unsubdued flame of the Republic”.
Comparing Le Monde and Le Figaro. As mentioned earlier Le Figaro used the against Roma immigration frame in “merely” 27 articles, a little number compared to the 68 articles of Le Monde using the pro-Roma securitization frame. Seven articles using the pro-Roma securitization frame were also found in Le Figaro, which is four times less than the amount of articles using the against Roma securitization frame. In turn, Le Monde had 15 articles with the against Roma securitization frame, more than four times less than the 68 articles found with the pro-Roma securitization frame. The proportions between the use of both pro and con Roma frames is similar for both dailies. These simple statistics speak for the political slants of the two papers.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
82
Le Figaro‟s 7 articles using the pro-Roma securitization, comments of the opposition party, the Socialist Party, were reported, but also comments of Prime Minister Fillon. The latter, without denying the government‟s policy, took his distances with what he called “a security drift” and a “security escalation” and asked to “stop it”. Two articles also reported Christine Boutin‟s comments, Head of the Christian-Democratic Party and ally of the UMP and Nicolas Sarkozy‟s political party. She clearly broke the alliance between both parties and argued she could “not accept the new political turn of the government”. Her comments together with the Churches‟ comments prompted the Catholic electorate to part with the UMP.
The 15 articles found in Le Monde with the against Roma securitization frame were mostly articles presenting facts and using words such as “inacceptable violence”, “facts of extreme seriousness”, and acknowledged the need to act “with firmness”. These articles like August 22 and 26 reported comments from Brice Hortefeux and François Fillon, both members of the government and from the UMP. They argued that “this summer‟s actions were legitimate” and that they “complied with both French and European legislation”. However, these interviews of government‟s members contained bias. The questions asked by the Le Monde‟s journalists in Hortefeux‟ interview of August 22 were not totally objective. They asked: “France isolates herself, do you scoff at that?” or “What are you trying to prove with the expulsions? That you are taking action?” The use of verbs “scoff at”, and “try to prove” are clearly pejorative.