The editorial staff of the RTBF is warned the day before at the end of the day of the publication provided for by Lifetime of an article entitled “Georges-Louis Bouchez, his driver, and the embarrassing unlikely disabled card”. It was agreed the same morning that several journalists verify the information of Vifwith the aim of relaying this information in the wake of the publication of our colleagues scheduled for noon.
The Montoise editorial staff is mobilized for this purpose. She goes to the field and contacts all the people mentioned: anonymous witnesses, the administrative secretary and the spokesperson for the MR, as well as the companion of Georges-Louis Bouchez, Lucie Demaret, who also used the vehicle.
Around 10:20 am, a journalist in charge of radio contacts Georges-Louis Bouchez to collect his explanations, with a view to the broadcast of radio tickets at 1 p.m. and afternoon. The conversation lasts about 30 minutes, without any particular incident. The journalist has all the elements and shares them with her colleagues in charge of other platforms.
Your threatening
An article written by a colleague is put online on the RTBF site around noon. At 12:15 p.m., Georges-Louis Bouchez reminds the journalist in a angry tone, pointing to errors in the article. The journalist in charge of the radio discovers at this time the text she has not written and indeed notes inaccuracies. She then proposed to him to immediately rectify them herself.
The president of the MR does not calm down and uses a threatening tone, although the journalist repeats to him that she is not the author of the article. “I swear you are going to be super well received”threat Georges-Louis Bouchez about the author. “And maybe he may need a card afterwards. I can tell you.”
Contacted by our colleagues from the future, the president of the MR claims to have been misunderstood and that he was talking about a press card and not a PMR card. Journalists who have heard the whole conversation have understood the subject, unequivocal possible, as a physical threat to their colleague.
Georges-Louis Bouchez did not wish to respond to our requests for additional explanations on the incident. At the Belga agency, he specifies: “I react only on elements that are factually false. Never on an article or an opinion. If RTBF had done its job correctly, there would have been no call.”
Questioning
The public broadcast of this conversation has aroused many reactions and questions. Here are some answers.
Why was the conversation recorded and broadcast?
As the president of the MR calls for the radio journalist, several of her colleagues are present around her. They understand that Georges-Louis Bouchez gets carried away against her, while she is not the author of the disputed article. The editorial coordinator of Montoise that day then asks him to activate the speaker of his phone and requests that the rest of the conversation be registered. “We know that the file is sensitive. I hear a real blower that lasts, words that are increasingly harsh, a tone that goes up”, he explains. “The conversation is recorded for strict internal ends. We feel that there is something not normal that takes place, a party president who literally screams on a journalist. The goal is to be able to share it between us and to be able to think about what happened. It was. a very exceptional situation and a recording to strict internal ends uniquely.”
A week later, the very partial recording of the conversation leaked against the will of the editorial staff and was the subject of erroneous interpretations. RTBF management has communicated on this subject: “RTBF does not endorse the publication of the recording of a incomplete exchange between one of its journalists and Georges-Louis Bouchez. She is neither the fact of RTBF nor of her journalist to whom the RTBF confirms all her support”. Likewise, the RTBF journalists’ society deplored this broadcast.
Has Georges-Louis Bouchez have the right to request the rectification of the article? Has RTBF yielded to political pressure?
Anyone who quoted in a publication and which considers that there is a factual error can of course report it for a correction. The drafting evaluates if the remark is founded and proceeds if necessary for the modification. This is what happened when Georges-Louis Bouchez reminds the journalist. At that time, she reads the article, notes problematic passages, and corrects them while the president of the MR continues to speak to him.
“The call of Georges-Louis Bouchez has in fact delayed the modification of the article. The more he spoke, the more time we were. Our priority was to quickly correct the article”specifies the coordinator of the Montoise editorial staff. This is what was done as quickly as possible. This article since then has, as required by the ethical rule, the warning “This article has been published several times to bring corrections and clarifications”. The article has never been removed and remains available.
On the other hand, the use made of intimidation and threat by a political official is problematic. RTBF management has repeated that its “Information mission is accomplished whatever pressures, threats or intimidation”. For its part, the RTBF journalists’ society condemned “With the greatest firmness the threats” uttered by the president of the MR.
Why do the journalist and the president of the MR are silent?
Specialized journalists very regularly rub shoulders with public figures in their area of competence, whether in sport, culture or politics. Over time, tu is sometimes used in personal contacts. This is also the case in a regional writing, where journalists meet local officials on a daily basis. The journalist has been covering Mons for many years and knows Georges-Louis Bouchez since her very beginning in politics. The tu has settled between them, as with officials from other parties. “We are familiar with politicians we end up knowing, but with which there is no connivance”insists the coordinator. “The proof: if there was connivance with Georges-Louis Bouchez, there would never have been this article.“
Why did the management of RTBF not denounce these intimidation from the start?
The management of RTBF quickly meant to the president of the MR SA disapproval in tone and the remarks made towards his journalist. She asked him to now communicate his possible complaints to him directly.
On the other hand, after contact with the journalists involved, and at their request, the management and the SDJ chose not to communicate publicly on the subject. Internally, management has communicated to journalists “The assurance of a farm support for all in the professional approach”.
The situation changed after the publication of the conversation by Internet users and other media.