Jump to content

Talk:Le Monde

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Defamation

[edit]

I researched the claim of diffamation of June 2005 and found this source. If we are to mention this event, I think we should write:

On May 26, 2005, a French court of appeal found Le Monde director of publication Jean-Marie Colombani and guest writers Edgar Morin, Samir Naïr and Danièle Sallenave guilty of racial defamation for an opinion piece in which they claimed that "Jews, who were the victims of an unforgiving [power], impose their own unforgiving [order] to Palestinians".

However, I don't think it's appropriate to include this condemnation inside the article:

  • Every major newspaper gets sued every so often.
  • The article mentioned was an opinion piece written by personalities not from the newspaper staff and thus one cannot conclude anything about the editorial line of the newspaper itself.

Finally, to be truly neutral with respect to the case, we'd have to get the record of the judgment, some copy of the article motivating the lawsuit, and explain it all. The reason for the condemnation is a wide interpretation of a statute prohibiting incitation to racial hatred; this crime, or the wide interpretation thereof used by certain French courts, anyway don't exist in most countries and thus some lengthier explanation would probably be necessary for this event to be understood by most readers. David.Monniaux 06:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think its important to mention while its true that major newspapers are sued ofthen but court rarely found the sues justifible in this case the court found the editor of the newspaper guilty of "racial defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people.I think its importan to show the slant of this newspaper.
In France, the editor (directeur de la publication) is responsible for any libel, defamation etc. published in the newspaper, even if it was written by guest writers and does not constitute an usual editorial line, so it's really not surprising that he was sued in this case. Furthermore, if Le Monde had a habit of publishing racially insulting texts (as you seem to imply, with the word "slant"), it'd get sued more often and it would not be an event.
Finally, they were not found guilty for defaming Israel, but apparently more for having equated Israel (a state) with Jews in general. It is of course perfectly legal to criticize the actions of a foreign government (or the French government). What was found illegal was to imply that Jews (in general) support Israel's policies, which were described as criminal.
In any case, I think that mentioning a single court case about a single op/ed in order to illustrate the "slant" of a newspaper is misleading, and is not neutral — not to mention the inexact legal qualifications. If you really want to mention this event, please use the right legal qualifications and explain the case properly. David.Monniaux 19:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone please detail editorial structure.

[edit]

I did a bit of reorganization and added a few bits, including the section on editorial structure. I hope someone who knows more than I will expand it. glasperlenspiel 05:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American-style reporting

[edit]

"Writers of lead reporting articles are not hesitant to venture interpretations and predictions in a manner which might surprise readers accustomed to American-style reporting, with its emphasis on objectivity, "just the facts", and leaving judgements up to the reader." What does the surprise of readers accustomed to American-style reporting have to do with Le Monde? The sentence also implies that American newspapers are impartial. It is both Americo-centric, and bias. Misodoctakleidist 01:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially since the news reporting of major US newspapers such as the New York Times is full of sneaky opinion (i.e. opinion presented in the guise of objective reporting). David.Monniaux 06:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I rightly disagree. American newspapers by and large, whatever bias you might think they covertly express, profess neutrality in their straight reporting. That the French style, or even simply the Le Monde style, doesn't may cause this surprise in and of itself. --24.131.209.132 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

profess neutrality in their straight reporting Yes, they pretend to do so. Let's not confuse what people claim they do and what they do in reality. David.Monniaux 10:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearstream Affair?

[edit]

I would like to see a mention of the Clearstream Affair added, but I don't know enought about it to do so.

Can you provide a link or reference or simply illustrate the importance of including such topic within this article?--Balthazarduju 07:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evening daily?

[edit]

When in France, even in small and remote villages with a kiosque, I can always buy the edition of that particular day in the early morning.

As the article says:
Le Monde is published around midday, and the date on the masthead is the following day's. That is, the issue which is released at midday on 15th March shows 16th March in the masthead. The rationale is that the paper reaches its subscribers the next day, by which time the date is correct.

It is an afternoon paper in Paris, and an evening or next-morning paper elsewhere.... --Macrakis 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it's evening in Paris & next morning everywhere else. Of course how far away from Paris you are probably makes a difference :)

phrase

[edit]

"with a circulation in 2004 of 371,803"; I don't understand this phrase. Please clarify and also update it. --Octra Bond (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newspapers published in France vs. Category:Newspapers published in Paris

[edit]

Category:Newspapers published in Paris is itself a category within Category:Newspapers published in France. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde and Alain Bauer

[edit]

There ought to be a footnote somewhere explaining why Mr. Alain Bauer played such a prominent role in the direction of Le Monde a few years past. He is, of course, a constitutional lawyer, but it would nevertheless seem unusual to a faraway observer to have a Masonic master either leading or helping a major French newspaper, as well as being a powerful figure in the recent Sarkozy government. ADM (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Le Monde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English version describes "Pravda"

[edit]

The English version of this page contains en entry for the Russian paper Pravda. This is obviously not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1600:A672:313C:122B:61E1:1C28 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona case

[edit]

Here's a strange couple of sentences: "Le Monde has been found guilty of defamation for saying that Spanish football club FC Barcelona was connected to a doctor involved in steroid use. The Spanish court fined the newspaper nearly $450,000"

Firstly, since the fine must have been in euros, why is it converted into US dollars? Fine for an exclusively American encyclopedia, I suppose, but not really acceptable in an international one.

Secondly, why is there no date and this rather odd use of the present perfect rather than the past simple, as if to say that Le Monde has been found guilty just now, or that it has been found guilty at some point during its existence, rather than pinning it down to an identifiable event?

82.28.107.46 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Le Monde not qualified as "centrist", "far centrist", or "left-wing"?

[edit]

I am surprised to see Valeurs Actuelles qualified as right-wing or far right, and not see a similarly dismissive adjective applied to Le Monde, which is as much militant as Valeurs Actuelles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plm203 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my name is Brian. In my late father’s scrapbook. 📔 there is about 30 pictures of the beaches during the Second World War.some of the beaches during the fighting. On the beaches with damaged tanks.and boats. And unfortunately there are some bodies on the beaches. Plus some of the victory pictures of General de Gaule. Going under the ark de triumph. In a ww2 tank . Plus kissing the French flag 🇫🇷. Didn’t know if you might like to see them. Not sure how to send them to you. Thanks Brian. Uk 🇬🇧

[edit]

Photos of France 89.240.150.226 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Le_Monde&oldid=1227083408"