Le Wall Street Journal accable France 2 et Charles Enderlin tout en citant Media-Ratings
More About France 2
10 December 2004
Two weeks ago on this page, Stephane Juffa, editor in chief of the Israeli-based Metula News Agency, accused French state-owned television channel France 2 of the most serious crime a news organization could possibly be charged with: He said France 2 journalists aired a false a report and that the TV channel refuses to publicly acknowledge the deception. He was referring to TV images that showed a young Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Durra, allegedly being killed by Israeli soldiers in September 2000.
On Tuesday, we published a letter by Charles Enderlin, the Jerusalem correspondent of France 2 and one of the two accused journalists. But his 560-word rebuttal never addressed the actual charges leveled against him, his Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma or his employer.
Mr. Juffa accused Mr. Enderlin of having falsely claimed that additional film material exists that shows the child's death throes. Mr. Juffa also says that France 2 admitted that Mr. Abu Rahma, the sole witness to the alleged crime, has retracted his accusations against Israel. Yet, France 2 has not made a retraction public. Instead of trying to refute the charges that the images were faked or misrepresented, Mr. Enderlin cites other evidence seemingly in support of his case. But we are unable to corroborate his claims.
Mr. Enderlin wrote that France 2 "has filed several libel suits against Web sites and individuals accusing us of having participated in the staging of the video." But we have contacted Mr. Juffa as well as Serge Farnel and Philippe Karsenty, two Frenchmen who have also taken up the al-Durra case. None of them are the targets of any lawsuits, they told us.
We asked France 2 about this and were sent a list of several lawsuits the channel said it has filed. However, they were not against "individuals" or "Web sites" but against "X," parties that are as yet anonymous. When we inquired why France 2 wasn't charging individuals directly, we were told: "From a legal perspective, it is false to say that `we know exactly' who Messrs. Juffa, Farnel or Karsenty are."
But that really shouldn't be so difficult, one would think. Mr. Farnel, a Frenchman residing in Paris, is one of those accusing France 2 on his website ( www.truthnow.org ) of having staged the al-Durra scene. He challenges France 2 to sue him: "I will fully avail myself to the station in order to give it the elements necessary to take legal procedures against me," he writes on the site. He is still waiting.
Mr. Karsenty, the president of a French media-rating agency, offered to donate 10,000 to a charity of France 2's choice if the channel can prove that the pictures depicted a real event. His firm, Media Ratings, also challenged France 2 to file suit, displaying the company's address prominently on its Web site. Media Ratings also is still waiting to hear from France 2. Their reports in French can be viewed at: www.m-r.fr
Aude Weill Raynal, Mr. Juffa's lawyer, believes the real reason for France 2's cumbersome legal procedure, which can take months and might not result in an actual lawsuit, lies elsewhere: "This procedure allows France 2 to tell everyone we are suing `them' for defamation without anything necessarily happening."
Mr. Enderlin quotes Israeli Gen. Giora Eiland who said on Oct. 3, 2000 that the boy was probably killed by Israeli fire. Mr. Enderlin also included as "proof" that his story was correct the fact that the Israeli authorites supposedly never complained and that "France 2's bureaus in Jerusalem and Gaza are functioning normally."
All the second point proves is that Israel is a functioning democracy where even reporters suspected of violating normal journalistic standards can operate freely. As to the first point, Mr. Enderlin was rather selective with his quotes. The Israeli government told us that Gen. Eiland long ago retracted his original statement, which in itself was based purely on the France 2 report. Since then, an inquiry commissioned by the Israeli military, which Mr. Juffa cited in his article, has argued that the boy could not possibly have been killed by Israeli soldiers.
"It is misleading, disingenuous and unprofessional to quote Gen. Eiland on what he said back then," Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli government press office, told us.
Finally, Mr. Enderlin claims France 2 has produced all relevant evidence to "professional journalists," most recently at a press conference last month in Paris. This event, though, had some shortcomings. France 2 denied access to anybody who accused the channel of any wrongdoing. Even the French audiovisual trade union was outraged: "The station thus avoided any questions concerning this controversy either about the topic at hand, or about the station's respect of its own charter."
"It is more than time to get to the truth," the union said in its statement. It would seem so, wouldn't it.
Le Conseil d'État

Le Conseil d'État vient de rejeter une requête tendant à l'annulation d'une ''''.

Cette demande émamait de la société Media-Ratings qui s'était déclarée comme la première agence de notation des médias.

L'affaire tire son origine de la diffusion par France 2, d'une vidéo filmant la mort d'un enfant palestinien sous les balles israëliennes ainsi que de son père blessé par balles.

L'agence d'information israëlienne avait présenté ce reportage comme un faux diffusé par la chaîne publique française, ce qu'avait relayé la société Media-Ratings. En outre, le journal américain, The Wall Street Journal avait dénoncé le  de ce reportage. Le Pot-aux-rose avait été dévoilé par l'agence israëlienne d'information Metula News Agency qui avait accusé France 2 d'avoir diffusé un faux.

Cette information avait été reprise par Media-Ratings laquelle aurait relevé certaines incohérences dans le reportage de Charles Enderlin. Une plainte avait été déposée contre elle et avait abouti à sa condamnation pour diffamation. Media-Ratings a donc interjeté appel.

Parallèlement à cette affaire, cette même société avait demandé au CSA de  mettre en demeure France 2 ''''

Par cet arrêt du 11 mai 2007, le Conseil d'État a rejeté son recours au motifs que la société en question n'avait pas qualité de saisir le CSA d'un telle demande pour défaut de qualité. La Haute juridiction a estimé que Media-Ratings était ni une organisation professionnelle et syndicale représentative du secteur de la communication audiovisuelle, ni une association familiale reconnue par l’Union nationale des associations familiales, lesquelles sont seules habilitées pour effectuer une telle démarche.



''