Our text from last Wednesday on Julien Lacroix1 was interpreted from all sides, each going from a personal reading drawn from their pre-existing opinions on the #metoo movement.
On the one hand, we saw the proof of a patriarchal society that punishes the courage of whistleblowers.
And on the other hand, we saw in it the proof of a complacent society with regard to whistleblowers and the excesses that this causes.
In short, many people see many things in the joint investigation by Isabelle Hachey and Marie-Ève Tremblay of 98.5 FM. So let’s get the facts straight by going backwards first, if you don’t mind.
This journalistic work is not:
- a counter-investigation on the investigation of the To have to on Julien Lacroix;
- a lawsuit against journalistic investigations linked to the #metoo movement;
- questioning the feminist movement or the importance of sexual assault victims speaking out;
- evidence that whistleblowers exaggerated, even made it all up two years ago;
- a rehabilitation operation for Julien Lacroix;
- a judgment on this whole story.
What was this long dossier?
A report that revisited the Lacroix Affair with hindsight, on the eve of the 5e anniversary of the #metoo movement.
There was therefore everything that such journalistic work requires. A statement by the women who denounced him, two years after the fact. An interview with the main actor and his current spouse. As well as a careful examination of the behind-the-scenes process that led to, and even encouraged, the whistleblowers, and then the fallout from this high-profile story.
Of course we knew the subject was sensitive, and not just because we were revisiting a survey conducted by a competitor.
Already, on October 20, when Isabelle Hachey offered me this subject of investigation, she mentioned a “difficult, but necessary” question to ask in the wake of the #metoo movement: how do whistleblowers feel when the aggressor falls and the dust settles?
This question, she imposed herself a month ago, after the publication on Instagram of a courageous message from a former spouse of Julien Lacroix, Geneviève Morin. The latter expressed certain regrets, two years after the investigation of the To have to who had caused a stir because of nine denunciations, including his own.
This is what prompted Marie-Ève Tremblay of 98.5 FM to propose a collaborative work to Isabelle, so that the two tend to their microphone to the actors of the Lacroix Affair once the storm has passed.
There was never any question of exonerating Julien Lacroix. To say that we “tried to pretend he didn’t do anything wrong” is disingenuous.
And there was never any question of questioning the word of the women who denounced. It is even very precisely the opposite.
The two journalists instead asked the whistleblowers if they were satisfied with the result, then collected Julien Lacroix’s version, because it is the very essence of journalism: to present all sides of a coin, even when it is difficult. or unpleasant.
And you read the result on Wednesday: some were, others said they did not “feel” a victim, and still others admitted that if they had to do it again, they would do things differently.
Should we rather have silenced these women on the pretext that their words interested us only when they claimed to be victims?
That said, many took advantage of Isabelle and Marie-Ève’s report to put on trial journalistic investigations related to the #metoo movement, from Salvail to Bond, via Rozon and Jutra.
It’s fair game: there are no taboo questions.
But I confess to not seeing anything in the 7000 words published by Isabelle which invalidates past investigations carried out by journalists.
Do any of the whistleblowers regret the magnitude this has all taken? Yes. Do others wonder about the place their testimony has taken? Yes too. But no one denies the remarks made at the To have to.
Some of them simply revisit with a critical eye, thinking that they have learned various lessons from it.
Journalists should therefore not be thrown out with the bathwater: the mainstream media do not publish baseless allegations or testimonies that are not directly or indirectly corroborated.
As I explained2 in the wake of our own investigation of another comedian, Philippe Bond, the journalistic work that precedes any publication is based on testimonies that may not have been given in court, but whose credibility has nevertheless been tested , validated and confronted, within the framework of a professional journalistic approach, in full respect of the ethical codes of the profession.
We can certainly criticize journalistic investigations. But we cannot only applaud those whose conclusions we like.