On June 8, a Syrian refugee, armed with a knife, injured six people, including four very young children, in a park in Annecy. Many listeners shared with us their opinions regarding the media coverage of this attack. Philippe Rey, editorial director of franceinfo answers them.
Among the comments concerning this attack on Annecy on June 8, listeners believe that this event was overhyped. Here is a message: “I find that the coverage of the events in Annecy is invasive. Too much is too much. To believe that nothing more exists on this planet. The media have devoted almost hours to this drama, excluding, for example, the very disturbing situation of the interventions to repeal the retirement law in the National Assembly”.
Emmanuelle Daviet: Philippe Rey, why is it normal for the media to pay such attention to an event of this nature?
Philippe Rey, editorial director of franceinfo : So I don’t think the coverage was too much. The coverage was fair. For what ? Because let’s remember all the same the facts, and the conditions in which this event takes place: it’s a playground, in the morning, the weather is very nice, the mothers of families frequent this very popular park with their children, children in young age. And at that point, once the attack happens, well, it’s a pretty general moment of amazement. Because, once again, we are attacking very young children. I recall that there was in particular a Dutch girl, barely 22 months old, six injured in total, including four children.
So this dimension is necessarily to be considered. For the rest, the coverage was a bit like what we do each time, a coverage sized according to the events that took place, and especially the qualification that we could make of it. And very quickly, naturally, we decided to switch to a special edition, based on what I was telling you and to continue working in the same way as we do, each time on this type of news item.
Precisely, when covering such an event, the risk for an ongoing news channel is to fall into sensationalism. Do you think you have avoided this pitfall and if so, how did you proceed journalistically, according to what editorial criteria?
So, as I was saying, we are deciding, in view of what is happening, on an initial assessment which is available to us, six injured people, including four children, with both, I would add, forecasts vitals that are engaged. We decide at this time to switch to a special edition. The first elements are communicated by the journalists in charge of working on this dossier, journalists from our police/justice department.
We then decide, of course, to call on witnesses who were present at the park to try to give a qualification of the facts. We then have several personalities on the telephone, in particular political personalities. Then very quickly, at midday, the spokesperson for the Ministry of the Interior, who can, here too, go in the direction of qualifying the facts, and we are only moving forward on the basis of what we have checked, and what we can give.
I would add that at midday that day, quite quickly moreover, Élisabeth Borne, who had been there, held a press conference with the public prosecutor and the mayor of Annecy . In short, as always, we highlight these elements. We verify them, and we never go beyond explaining the facts. Only the facts, always the facts.
The attack in Annecy very quickly took on a political dimension. How did you choose to deal with this aspect, ask us listeners?
So, indeed, first by giving portrait elements that do not necessarily come to us very quickly, on the profile of the assailant. I remind you that he is a man of Syrian nationality, who was unknown to the police files. He lived 10 years in Sweden, where he obtained refugee status. He then applied for refugee status in France. So, we highlight the elements of the profile that we have, and we very quickly dissociate anything that could be related to political reaction, since, on this occasion, there were many politicians.
I remind you that we were in session at that time in the National Assembly, and that many deputies, depending on their political affiliation, qualified the facts, sometimes in a partisan way. But it was all very assumed. It was therefore necessary to explain once again that the elements concerning this assailant quite simply had nothing to do, and it was also important to say this, with a terrorist attack, since there was no terrorist motive and that the national anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office has not taken up this case.
During an episode like this, do you work with the Radio France agency to verify the facts?
Yes, absolutely. This is where we measure the quality and the essential presence of the agency alongside the editorial staff. The editorial team today is in any case absolutely qualified and accustomed to working with the agency and vice versa, and it is important for us, indeed, even if we have to take a little delay in distribution, or in to the antenna of these facts, to be able to verify them. Because I remind all those who listen to us that franceinfo, “it’s the right info”.
So everything on the air has been thoroughly checked?
Absolutely, everything that was given on the air has been thoroughly checked. Once again, we rely on the work of our journalists who make calls, many and many, to find out exactly what we are talking about. What is the condition of the wounded, what is the condition of the assailant, what is his profile? And then, we cross-reference this information with the various authorities who, on the spot, also cross-check it. And we realized on arrival that everything that had been announced was absolutely true.