The death of Bernard Descôteaux — for me, it was simply “Bernard” — deeply disturbed me, because, if I for my part lost a long-time friend, we collectively lost an unconditional supporter of the freedom of the press. He indeed devoted most of his life to consolidating one of its essential institutions in Quebec, the good old Duty.
I knew Bernard when we started our political science courses together at the University of Montreal at the end of the 1960s. When I was hired at Duty by Claude Ryan, in 1974, Bernard worked, if I remember correctly, at The Voice of the East. His career choice did not surprise me, because he had already campaigned for years at the National Student Press (PEN) and in the student newspapers of the time with his partner, Marie Lavigne.
He called me one day to ask me if there was a job opportunity at Duty. I remember having then looked closely at personnel movements and, as soon as a position became vacant, I hastened to notify him and warmly recommend him when the boss spoke to me about this application “of another science -po that you probably know! “.
A rigorous journalist, he left in all the sectors he covered the memory of an affable colleague, allergic to stardom, who invested first and foremost in his work, whose excellence imposed itself. . His distance from Parliament Hill never prevented him from participating in union activities and thus showing solidarity with his colleagues in the newsroom. A good indicator of the confidence that everyone placed in him: it was he who had been designated as strike director in a long conflict of more than a month that occurred after the departure of Claude Ryan.
When he was named editor-in-chief by the former director of the newspaper, Lise Bissonnette, everyone appreciated the accuracy of this appointment, because his level-headedness, his ability to listen and his solid judgment quickly marked the beginning of an approach more consensual, which proved to be an essential ingredient in the relaunch of a newspaper that really needed it.
His appointment as director of the newspaper in 1999 would allow him to consolidate in his own way this century-old institution, whose tradition of independence he has always maintained throughout his work to modernize structures and administration. of Duty. On the board of directors as well as on the executive committee, where I worked with him for 14 years, he always gave preference to the value of the arguments more than to the head of the person who defended them.
This is how, for example, after years of debate on the relevance of launching a subscription to the digital version against the tide, he finally agreed with the newspaper’s employees, who defended this approach, at a time when this additional income has fortunately pushed finances above the red line. If only for this strategic and historic decision, the newspaper owes him a lot.
Bernard will have been a unifier of all the living forces of the Dutyinterior and exterior, a work of consolidation less visible and spectacular than other previous directorates certainly, but which truly allowed the entry of the journal into the 21ste century with its procession of new challenges.
I remember his tact, often tinged with humor, the finesse of his relationships with others and his intimate knowledge of all the information challenges of our time, and I often wonder if another director than him would have succeeded in tackling all these challenges that the newspaper was facing at the time. It will undoubtedly have been the cornerstone of the Duty of today and tomorrow.
Many of us lost a long-time friend with his departure. But there is in The duty today an energy and a breath which perpetuate the contribution of this great director.