The author is a professor of literature in Montreal, editor-in-chief of the journal Argument and essayist. He notably published These words that think for us (Liber, 2017) and The prose of Alain Grandbois, or reading and rereading The Travels of Marco Polo (Note bene, 2019).
Is it justified to speak of censorship at Radio-Canada, as former SRC journalist Gilles Gougeon recently did in these pages, following the publication by the management of the channel of its directives concerning the ” Potentially offensive language”?
Many people will no doubt say to themselves that one should not be against virtue, and that it is not worthy of a public channel to broadcast messages that would offend its viewers or to ensure that one can hold racist, misogynistic, homophobic remarks, etc., on its antenna.
Of course.
When it comes to censorship, however, it must be remembered that it always hides behind virtuous pretexts. To give just one example, the Russian law which prohibits all “homosexual propaganda” claims to “protect children”. That Radio-Canada therefore claims, for its part, to fight, thanks to this new code, against discrimination and stereotypes does not exonerate the Crown corporation from this accusation of practicing censorship.
The devil is in the details
Especially since in matters of censorship as in others, the devil is always in the details (because on the main lines of a condemnation of speech that would be hateful or discriminatory, everyone agrees, or almost ).
Thus, “offensive language” is defined by this directive as “abusive, degrading or unduly discriminatory, stereotyped or negative language”; but this directive is not accompanied by any exhaustive list, which has the consequence that the list of words, expressions or speeches referred to can extend indefinitely and that any journalist or presenter tackling one of these subjects which is qualified as “sensitive” will know that he is walking on eggshells and that at the slightest prank, he will risk a reprimand from his bosses, or even the loss of his job. In such circumstances, self-censorship will certainly reign in the studios.
Especially since the directive in question speaks of “potentially offensive language” (emphasis mine) and specifies a little further on, when it quotes the Fair Portrayal Code of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, that “the adequacy or inadequacy” of “certain words” is “constantly changing” according to “the norms in force in the community”.
Translated plainly and put in parallel with this absence of a list of forbidden expressions or words, this means that all the people who will speak on the air will have no way of knowing in advance which words, expressions or speeches will be “potentially offensive[s] and therefore “inadequate[s] when they speak. They won’t know they’ve sinned until the ax falls and “community norms” come into view. And how will these shifting, unwritten “norms” manifest? Well, through public complaints or social media cabals, of course!
When we know that the complaint of a single individual prompted Radio-Canada two years ago to withdraw an episode of The little lifeof its online dissemination platform (to put it back there, after reflection, with a general warning), it is not difficult to imagine the particular meaning and, let us say it, totally undemocratic, that the word covers community in the minds of his bosses. The employees of the public channel are therefore now at the mercy of the slightest individual whom a statement made on the air has allegedly “offended”.
In these circumstances, as Gilles Gougeon wrote in the conclusion of his letter, this new directive can only help to paralyze “the practice of free and responsible journalism”.
As for the public, it will only be entitled to a uniform and sanitized television discourse, from which it will turn away to go and listen to competing private televisions or new online channels, which will then be criticized for their iconoclastic character, their populism and their virulence, when we will have done everything to contribute to their success.
Rather than multiplying prohibitions and censorship in this way, to the point of transforming itself little by little into Radio-Cadenas — as the late Pierre Falardeau said with the mischievous verve that characterized him — or into Radio-Pravda (proud defender of an ideology state multiculturalist), shouldn’t a major public channel rather aim to play its democratic role by highlighting the objectivity and professionalism of its journalists, by practicing exemplary ideological neutrality (which obviously does not include to tolerate illegal hate speech) and by organizing, on all the hot topics of the hour, debates worthy of the name?
But it is probably already too late to demand such a liberating metamorphosis from Radio-Canada. That the few journalists who, like Gilles Gougeon and a few others, had the courage to denounce this censorship directive and the CRTC judgment to which it responds were, for the vast majority of them, retired journalists says a lot about the freedom that reigns today within the state corporation.