I present to you, via reader MJ - a guest post. Enjoy.

How do you define "hero" in France? If you're a journalist, it means that stealing computer files containing private financial data, lying to a court about it, and then, when forced to admit your theft by a judge who finds you "utterly lacking credibility," DECLARE VICTORY!

Australian freelancer John Macgregor was found to have committed the above ethical breaches by the Supreme Court in Australia.

So having had his head handed to him in a court of law, who comes to his rescue? Zut Alors!! The brave Socialists at Reporter Sans Frontieres will not stand for this persecution!

Amazing how when a court rules for them them it's justice, but when a court finds that their champion is a thief and liar: it's harassment.

Krempasky, you're amazing.

Hey, me and Jayson Blair and Rick Bragg are all having a drink. French wine, of course. We were talking and hoping this Macgregor fellow could get US some of those neat Euros the Socialists are throwing his way. After all, our lies were bigger.

Maybe we could get one of those cool French Academy medals, Le Grand Order of Zee Snivelling Misfits, perhaps.

C'mon Chirac!

[The original author of this comment has posted under someone else's name. The comment has been deleted per the request of Cynthia Gracie, and the original author has been banned from Pave. -- Editor]

Nice post, but the French are beyond parody. ONe can never tell if they are serious or not.

Why don't you ask them ?

Ummm.... this guy Macgregor? He IS a serial wanker....Crosseyed with his own self importance..
Now he had one big win - a prize sponsored by Radio National, the Aussie Goverment broadcasting service...It's called the Munster Prize...you get to have dinner with Herman,Eddie and Uncle Fester...then you can watch all the dancing girls in Reporters Sans Frontieres dancing around with no knickers on(that's how they got their name!)
He's no Journalist...he's actually a farmer..grows green things hydroponically...Sheeesh!Oh and he does medical experiments for drug companies...big on Herpes:)

Have reporters without frontiers revised their French press freedom condition? Remember Alain Hertoghe anybody?

Article 3b of the 'collective agreement of the journalists' (convention collective des journalistes)

Freedom of thought:
The contracting organizations point out the right for the journalists to have their freedom of thought, the public expression of this opinion not having to in no case to attack the interests of the company of press in which they work. The litigations caused by the application of this paragraph will be submitted to the friendly Joint Committee envisaged to article 47.

LaCroix used this article to fire Alain Hertoghe, just like LeMonde with Daniel Schneidermann.

LaCroix used this article to fire Alain Hertoghe, just like LeMonde with Daniel Schneidermann.

When someone tells you that "you have freedom of thought, except in the cases where I tell you that you don't," are you really dumb enough to think that you have any freedom at all?

No, that just means, "you have your freedom of thought, but don't bite the hand that feeds you (and if you do, don't whine at how unfair the world is)".

steph- In the real world outside of fantasy land france, common sense dictates- that if it turns out that that "hand" is feeding out shit to the masses, it is then up to someone among the masses to expose that shit and stink.
Thats what Alain did. Now he's out of a job for exposing lies and child-like bais, and your country sinks futher into a hell whole due to fetid perspectives such as yours.
Your thoughts are odd in the modern world of today.

Who is to say when the the interests of the company are to propagate lies and ignore the truth? Why the company of course! How naive of me. The same thought occured to Martha Stewart and Enron.

Beo: "When someone tells you that "you have freedom of thought, except in the cases where I tell you that you don't," are you really dumb enough to think that you have any freedom at all?"

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." Declaration of human rights.

---

Goooood Pato, turn around Pato ! Greeeat, give a leg. What an impressive little animal we've got here.

Max, your quote basically implies that law supercedes freedom. A very French perspective. (Freedom in France = freedom from something; Freedom in America = freedom for something or freedom to do something.)

Pato :

Yours (thoughts) are nonsense because you're not able to agree that someone have an other point of vue than yours !

I wonder if your lobotomy was very useful ?

So you can stay in your "real world" and leave us alone...

"So you can stay in your "real world" and leave us alone..."

That quote is so French that I had to laugh out loud.

Why do you come here if you totally accept the agtiprop that your press hands you? You come here to repeat it to us? As if we would accept it? Good froggie, parrot back the govt line for us now, here's a cookie.

One test of the reality of your world would be the ability to provide facts that support your contentions. Absent those, along with your apparent hapiness to know only what your state-controlled press feeds you, I can only surmise that you are happy in your fantasy land.

For a really good take on France, read this link I got from Merde In France. There are comments if you are up to it little froggies.

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004742.php

Calling all Frogs! Could you Frogs answer a few of these questions for me? Thanks.

There was supposedly an interesting report in Le Monde about Iraqis who are criticizing France for doing nothing for them. Did anyone read this, and could you fill me in on this article, if in fact, there was?

When I read a story here in the US, and it says the “conservative Le Figaro”, well, just how conservative is that paper? I mean, I read the Washington Post (somewhat liberal) and the Washington Times (conservative). So, many times I can read a report about the same event and both papers represent the event differently, and have different objectives. Is this the same with, say Le Monde and Le Figaro?

Speaking of Washington Times, story here about McDos
A quote from the article: “The two French nutritionists, meanwhile, refuse to blame McDonalds or any other restaurant for contributing to a French obesity problem.” Is this correct? Is there one in France, too?

No, France's level of obesity have not reached your levels yet. Is it true that the US congress passed a law prohibiting fat people from suing fast food restaurants for their obesity problems?

laughs histerically

Skinny Africans meet genetic altered food. Soon as the Euros quit their trade sanctions we can all have a great meal.

"Is there one [obsesity problem] in France, too?"

Just like in all occidental countries, but don't stop shaking your flag, you're #1.

A little secret for you zoomer. We mostly think that it is pretty funny too.

Obesity will soon replace smoking as the number one killer in the US. Yes, real funny.

Drive-by :

All right ; prove that we have a state-controlled press.

Why shouldn't I be happy in my fantasy land, I can eat, I can sleep under a roof, I can study, I can work, I can have fun, I'm not repressed or opressed, there're no camera in my house...
So where is the matter ??

Andy :

Well, the problem with the figaro is that they hate left-leaning people, hate socialism, and do not have an impartial point of vue. You could notice that only conservative capitalist read it, I mean, those who are making money on poor people !

:-)

'Why shouldn't I be happy in my fantasy land, I can eat, I can sleep under a roof, I can study, I can work, I can have fun, I'm not repressed or opressed, there're no camera in my house...
So where is the matter ??'

OK, so why do you care at all about Iraq or this web site? What bothers you about the US? Let us deal with the terrorists, or our nation's mortal enemies if you don't like the word 'terrorist', as we see fit.

As for proof of your state-controlled press, I admit that state-controlled is a bit strong, but ask yourself if you don't regularly see stories here critical of Chirac or France that you don't see in your French media, then ask yourself why. Obviously something is bothering you or you wouldn't come back.

zoomer, is that the best you can do? Fat Jokes?

Nothing critical of Chirac in the French media?

(chuckles)

Chirac not going along with the Iraq war is about the only thing he is not being criticized for. And he was right all along that it was unlikely Saddam possessed WMD, even though your state-sponsored propaganda Fox News was claiming that "French-made" WMD were going to be found in post war Iraq. The same network that reported "french-made" missiles were found by Polish troops months ago, soon retracted by Poland (and its spokesperson fired). Naturally, Fox News let the story unretracted, why admit fucking up when it comes to the frogs?.

Did you say "accuracy" in the media?

"but ask yourself if you don't regularly see stories here critical of Chirac or France that you don't see in your French media"

ask yourself why you don't see them in French media.

"zoomer, is that the best you can do? Fat Jokes?"

yeah, we're trying to taunt you on what you can understand.

We have state sponsored media. Its all socialist leaning. NPR was started by the Clinton adminisration, mostly because regular commercial radio (ie; popular with people), was trashing him and his record. If not for public funding Socialist NPR would fold up and die of natural causes.
Fox is not paid for by Government. We saw shortly after the Poles found French made missle,(the date of manufacture was the only issue in question) some of your reporters shooting video of some of those French made missles in action. Some of saddam's boys shooting those missles at cargo planes, with AFP reporters along as cheerleaders.
Don't try and pretend that most of France wasn't cheering along at home.

Stephane:

You post that Le Figaro does not have an impartial point of view; so Le Monde does? I seriously doubt that it does. It seems to me that no newspaper today has an impartial point of view. None that I read do, and I would bet heavily that nobody could point me to one that does.

Since no Frog posted on the Iraq article, I guess you all do not read that paper?

Say what, papertiger? I seriously doubt AFP reporters were "cheering" (by the way, AFP reporters are not necessarly French), even less "most of France". Any link to your story? Oh boy, you would have loved it if French WMD had been found, wouldn't you? Keep dreaming. It's amazing to me how Pakistan got away with a slap on the wrist while that highly unstable buffoon Kim Jong Ill has been taunting you whether or not he has the goodies. You blame the French for being whores while you don't even see your own gigantic double standards.

As for Fox News, I was kidding about being state-sponsored, even if it has an obvious neocon slant.

You don't remember the Cargo plane being hit while landing in Baghdad? We thought it was sort of fishy when the cover story of a French magazine featured up close and personal , first hand accounts by the French reporters.
Yes they were French, not Arabs hired by Frenchmen.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/25/sprj.irq.missile.tape/
Then the Fucking Video of the incident. With the French whores own voice over, and description of her week spent roaming the Iraqi countryside with these thugs of the former dictator. She was in anticipation of shooting down an American Aircraft. Yes, we were shocked to say the least.
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/241103/index.htm

I can't believe you don't remember this. The week after this bitch released her story and video, President Bush landed in Baghdad to celebrate Thanksgiving with the troops. You didn't see this in France? Are you that cloistered?

How about current events? Did you see the statement from the President of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski? He answered the mischaracterization of his comments, perpetraited by the French media on March 19th.
He said, "we will be in Iraq as long as necessary to reach our goals, and still another day".

So AFP you want to be on the wrong side of history, fine. We will be over on the other side as long as it takes, and still another day.

Papertiger, you confuse AFP and Paris Match.

Anyway, why are you not shocked when CNN is showing US missiles falling on Baghdad?
Horror is not just when american people die, you know.

"And he was right all along that it was unlikely Saddam possessed WMD"

I would like to see the quotes where he said that. I don't think they exist.

"ask yourself if you don't regularly see stories here critical of Chirac or France that you don't see in your French media" does not mean "Nothing critical of Chirac in the French media"

It means that certain stories get surpressed there. Maybe your English is not as good as I supposed. I would be fascinated to see the links to the wide coverage that Alain's book recieved in the French media.

Also, and I mean this sincerely, could you please provide me with any links to major French media regarding the 100 billion dollars worth of oil that Saddam promised to Chirac if he could get the sanctions lifed? Any French coverage of the Oil for Food scandal at the UN would also be greatly appreciated. Here is your chance to prove me wrong. I honestly don't read enough French media to say whether these last two stories were covered or not. It is widely reported here that the first story was not covered in France, and that Alain was fired for writing it.

"yeah, we're trying to taunt you on what you can understand."

So it isn't because that's the best you can come up with? Becuase that is sure how it looks from here.

drive-by,

Time magazine, a few weeks before the war (sorry I don't have the exact date). Chirac was quoted as saying just that. The article was titled: "France is not a pacific nation". In fact, Hans Blix recently confirmed Chirac's claim. That is not to say that he was 100% certain. More time for inspections and the use of force if necessary was France's position.

I'll look at your request. By the way, I have never claimed France was innocent of any greed and corruption. Unlike it was depicted in your media, Chirac was not particularly fond of Saddam.

The Polish president did question Bush's real intent although he vowed to stay until their contract ends. Just like Spain. Nothing surprising here.

Zoomerx

SO your saying that Polish troops will be leaving Iraq in the summer, if the UN doesn't take charge of Iraq?

Time magazine, a few weeks before the war (sorry I don't have the exact date). Chirac was quoted as saying just that.

zoomer,

I am sure that in your zeal to believe the best about France and the worst about Bush, you believe what you are saying is true, but I need links, because I am calling bullshit on this line.

And, to help you out, I think the title was "France is not a pacifist nation" but there is no such title in Time's archives. There are many articles that quote the French govt as making the claim that "France is not a pacifist nation", but none that gainsay the existence of WMD that I could find. I think that you are lying again. The best I could find was that Chirac wanted to give the inspectors more time. Not the same thing. You are so deluded.

Don't call me a liar, moron. Call TIME magazine if you don't beleive me. Chirac said - and I quoted - that he "did not think" Iraq possessed WMD but was willing to let Hans Blix find them if there were such weapons. The title was indeed "France is not a pacific nation". You just can't admit the fact that your "official" reason to invade Irak is a major embarassment and worst, a lie. Chirac may be a worm but he was in fact correct.

Zoomer,
I have your claim of a statement that I do not recall hearing. You have no link to it. Time Magazine has an archive feature. There is no such article. You are just making stuff up, obviously. Now is your big chance to get the better of me, go for it. Find the article! Prove that I am the liar, prove that I am a moron! But until you have the link, I can only be embarrased for you. And I didn't say you were a liar, I said you were deluded.

Here it is (Feb 24 edition). It needs subscription, though. But this one is for free.

It took me a minute to find both.

Shall we then call you a liar or an incompetent?

Thanks Stephane!

Drive-By, are you there?

And he was right all along that it was unlikely Saddam possessed WMD, -- Zoomer

I would like to see the quotes where he said that. I don't think they exist.

-- Drive-By

From the story in Time Magazine submitted as proof of Zoomer's claim.

President Jacques Chirac laid out his policy with admirable clarity. France, he said, had no difference with the U.S. "over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." The point of distinction was simply that Chirac thought that war — which he believed would outrage Arab and Islamic public opinion and "create a large number of little bin Ladens" — should be a last resort.

So I am sticking to the deluded charge, which referred to your original claim.