How franceinfo reports in its editorial line on the very dense news of this period. How are decisions made? This is what this meeting of the mediator of the antennas of Radio France with Emmanuelle Daviet deciphers every Sunday. To answer questions from listeners today, the deputy editorial director of franceinfo, Matthieu Mondoloni.
Lots of posts about the war in Ukraine. Listeners salute the remarkable coverage of franceinfo and special envoys. Other listeners tell us that they understand the absolute necessity of dealing with this news, regretting however that it crushes, according to them, the rest of the information and in particular the presidential campaign.
Emmanuelle Daviet: Do you find this remark justified? And how does the arbitration take place to process one piece of information more than another?
Matthew Mondoloni: It is justified. Obviously, when there is an event that rushes, the war in Ukraine was something unprecedented, incredible, very strong, very worrying and very anxiety-provoking. We’re not going to go back there. We were in special edition indeed for several hours, for several days even, on the antenna of franceinfo, because it was a question of being at the rendezvous of this event once again.
And we have remarkable journalists, technicians who have been in the field ever since. We actually bring this conflict to life in an oversized way, but because it’s worth it, I repeat. The rest takes second place and it’s sometimes all the difficulty that is ours, moreover, to come back down a little when events allow it. But we know that there were regular bombardments, there is still there recently, there is a theater in Mariupol which was targeted with civilians inside.
So this intensity, it comes back quite regularly. So obviously that chases the other news a little bit. Nevertheless, we try to keep them. Moreover, we follow the presidential debates, but they themselves are erased, not by franceinfo, but by the candidates themselves who feel caught up in this event. And we see it in the electoral debate and in the campaign debate. So we are both the image of society, if I may say so. We also reflect what is going on there. There are a few fewer other subjects. Nevertheless, they are always included, especially in the newspapers, in the half-hour news that you can hear on the air. We keep our diversity.
Emmanuelle Daviet: We continue with a message on the pronunciation of the name of the Ukrainian capital. Lots of posts look like this.
“I hear many journalists say Kyiv, but the Ukrainians asked that we say Kyiv and not Kyiv, Kyiv is the name given by Russia historically, Kyiv is the name of the Ukrainians. I think the resistance also goes through language and language.”
So at Franceinfo, you made an arbitration. What is it?
Matthew Mondoloni : Already, I recall that French-style kyiv, “kyiv”, there are not only the Russians. Obviously it comes from Russian, and there are so many people who speak Russian in Ukraine, that there are linguistic similarities between the two. But in France, we say “kyiv” and the Quai d’Orsay says “kyiv”, and we continue to say it.
Afterwards, we had no problem at all with Kyiv, and on the contrary elsewhere. You can hear it, dear listeners, on the franceinfo antenna, we explain why. Because there are many people who don’t know what it is, if we say Kyiv, we explain, we say it. On the other hand, we did not choose to use only this word in Ukrainian, quite simply because indeed, and the listener recalled it quite rightly, it is a sign of resistance, and that we are not, we , in resistance.
We are journalists and I remind you, even if sometimes it can shock, but in a position of total neutrality, of objectivity with regard to this conflict, we tell the truth, that’s what makes our credibility. We say kyiv, we explain why we can say Kyiv, but we don’t take sides.
Emmanuelle Daviet: At the beginning of the week, we received messages about Yvan Colonna, messages that all went in the same direction. Here is what a listener writes.
“I am surprised that Yvan Colonna is regularly presented as a separatist leader or qualified as a nationalist militant. This gives the impression that he is incarcerated like a political prisoner. However, he is in prison for the assassination of a prefect of the Republic.”
Matthieu Mondoloni, does this remark seem justified to you?
But then again, maybe we could only sometimes use the term militant nationalist leader? I do not think so. In fact, he is not a leader, he is someone who is imprisoned, because he is an assassin. He was judged three times, we recall, in first instance, on appeal, in cassation, systematically condemned for the assassination of the prefect Claude Erignac. It has been specified many times, “the assassin of the prefect Erignac, Yvan Colonna”, “the assassin of the prefect Erignac”, “the nationalist militant”.
But afterwards, it’s always the same. As a journalist, you sometimes also try to be able to diversify the way you present people. And in this case, he is also a nationalist militant. I hear the remark of the listeners, and I hear what can shock. But there again, we are in a position of objectivity, and we give and we define a person in relation to what he is. She is both the assassin of the prefect Erignac. She is both a nationalist activist. She is both a man who is in prison and who, today, is in a coma.