> Except tha le Monde is not really quality journalism.
Agreed, but the other source you mention (Mediapart) is not what I would call quality journalism either, their political bias is intense.
I'm likely naive, but in my book, quality journalism is supposed to report facts, as much as they can be established without tainting them with a selection bias and must steer clear of injecting one's opinion in the content produced unless it comes with a truly clear warning ("this is an opinion piece").
Actually, every newspaper has some bias regarding the information they publish, and it's unavoidable.
The most honest ones acknowledge that, contrarily to "Le Monde" and all the others main french newspapers ("Le Figaro", "Libération") claim.
Regarding Mediapart, it is indeed strongly opinionated newspaper, but you know that beforehand.
They have significant issues, but I'll never say it's not quality journalism (part of it actually). I've been a subscriber for years because of the quality of their investigations. For the record, none of these are pursued by big newspapers in France anymore: "Le Monde" and all major newspaper just relay the general information/propaganda, with no strong analysis. When they talk about scandals, they are never at their origin, and mostly relay the work done by others.
And when you know that most of them are owned by billionaires who have their own agenda, and that a significant chunk of their money (several millions per year) comes from the French state, you understand why.
You cannot be independent if your owners are billionaires, and if your income don't exclusively come from people who are paying for you to be independent (ie. subscribers). Everyone that argue against that is a liar. And you have in France 2 newspapers matching this criteria : Mediapart, and of course "Le Canard Enchainé".
The main issue I had with Mediapart (which led to cancel my subscription) was indeed the fact that on some subjects (mostly the "woke' things), they twist the facts to match their agenda. Some would say it's another view on the same facts but my opinion was that sometimes, they tried to make allegations on something not strong enough.
Regarding the other subjects, I had nothing but praise for them.
> The main issue I had with Mediapart (which led to cancel my subscription) was indeed the fact that on some subjects (mostly the "woke' things), they twist the facts to match their agenda.
> Regarding the other subjects, I had nothing but praise for them.
It’s weird how you noticed they are twisting facts to match their agenda on a specific topic, and somehow still think they’re not doing the same elsewhere.
This is an oversimplification of things, but I'll gladly explain.
First, behind the term "newspaper", you have journalists. Not all of them are equal. Some are professionals, some have connections, and some are not good enough. Like every human. Yo also hae some journalist that specialize in some areas, when you better have solid arguments to avoid a lawsuit when publishing (and usually, only part of it is published to be able to react). I know the ones that I consider to be good. To drop a few names, Kevin Arfi, Laurent Mauduit, Martine Orange, etc. I mean, their career and their work speak for themselves, their papers are detailed, well structured, they provide facts and proofs, etc.
Then, sometimes, facts speak for themselves. You have so many evidences on a scandal that there is no point arguing. You may object that some other facts are deliberately hidden, but more often than not, the accused people never answer on the substance, always on the form. It speaks volume. I mean, Mediapart is not a young newspaper anymore, and they have their track record.
Also, in any case, you're free to form your own opinion based on the facts provided. I have sometimes - as I said on the "woke things" a different interpretation of the facts that the journalist. But to be able to do that, you still need the facts, and they are provided. I "just" read the things differently.
I take everything I read with a grain of salt, whether I like or not the newspaper, whether I pay for it or not.
But let's go. Tell me some cases when Mediapart was wrong ? It should not be difficult for an "unreliable" source. Oh and tell me also what are your reliable sources, especially on the subject of investigations. I'm curious. Because apart from the "Canard enchainé", I don't find any.
Because it will always be easier to discredit a newspaper like Mediapart, than to provide alternatives and fact. And if you want me to give some examples when scandals published in Mediapart proved to be true, I have many.
Sure but Le Monde, with all the veneer of real journalism (tm) that it supposedly has , is arguably even less neutral than the less respected mediapart.
French society is extremely "dérigée" by the traditional vielle elite, much more so than the US for example. And it's not because they are conspiring to keep control or anything! It's mostly just due to how french society is structured. Power is very centralized and so are cultural institutions, in both cases around Paris. The education system is even more elitist, with the Grandes Écoles acting as a very selective gatekeeper. To the point where a career at Le Monde is probably a lot harder if impossible to sustain without having attended those schools.
What does that all mean? Well you get a very incestuous relationship between state, industry and media and a media that is extremely "parisian". They all went went to the same school, know the same people, share networks, etc.
Once they get in that very bourgeois clique, they become less trustworthy than even an opiniated source like Mediapart imo.
[Especially since direct state interference in the media/culture (or in general) is much less of a taboo in France than in the anglosphere. ]
They definitely have a bias for the left. But they are, objective enough to be the first to report on, for example, embarrassing campaign funding issues from Mélenchon's last campaign, a few weeks before the election taking place these days.
I like the idea of situated knowledge. No one speak out of nowhere without any bias.
No one can cover all facts, and so any report will inevitably reflect biases in picking. For example, most human media out there are heavily anthropocentric. That doesn’t mean it is intrinsically bad, but this will definitely lead to covering events of the universe as if human actions was some kind of epitome phenomenon, despite the fact we have been capable of standing back as far as having pale blue dot.
Agreed, but the other source you mention (Mediapart) is not what I would call quality journalism either, their political bias is intense.
I'm likely naive, but in my book, quality journalism is supposed to report facts, as much as they can be established without tainting them with a selection bias and must steer clear of injecting one's opinion in the content produced unless it comes with a truly clear warning ("this is an opinion piece").
Mediapart is profoundly not that.