Abstracts
Résumé
Il s’agit dans cet article de montrer comment et pourquoi l’arène médiatique s’est progressivement faite l’instrument de légitimation d’une loi dans l’espace public français, de mars 2003 à mars 2004, afin d’interdire le port du voile à l’école (promulgation d’une loi le 15 mars 2004). L’analyse d’un corpus presse et audiovisuel assez large (Le Figaro, Le Monde, La Croix, L’Humanité, AFP, chaînes de télévision hertziennes) confrontée aux paroles d’acteurs qui ont produit l’information a permis de mettre au jour la chronologie de l’événement médiatique, de repérer les acteurs mis en scène ou non, leurs registres d’argumentation avec, en particulier, l’émergence d’un définisseur primaire prééminent, la commission Stasi, alors chargée par le président de la République d’organiser le débat national sur la laïcité. Ce processus facilite la mise à distance des logiques de dénonciation du rôle des médias, en montrant l’importance des « routines » journalistiques dans le traitement de la question, en particulier la dépendance aux sources et aux formats de production de l’information. L’approfondissement de deux cas très différents, ceux du journal d’opinion L’Humanité et de l’Agence France Presse (AFP), vient étayer cette démonstration.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze the huge media controversy that led to the parliamentary vote of March 15th, 2004, banning from schools all signs that “clearly show” a religious affiliation. The purpose was to forbid young Muslim girls from wearing headscarves. The role of media as “law makers” is discussed, showing for instance the variety of treatments among the different media. Key issues regarding the journalistic practices during the period are the way they chose their sources among people wanting the law, and the way they treated the information following journalistic “format.” Concerning the question of sources, many of the same feminist and laic arguments were heard whereas people against a law defending liberty of conscience and education rights did not have access to the media. Furthermore, the article shows how the Stasi Commission on laïcité, appointed by President Chirac in July 2003 to report on issues associated with laïcité, became the primary definer of topics leading to a law. The concept of “format” and its determining role in media coverage is illustrated with two cases. First, the way the French Press Agency (AFP) simplified the debate choosing “prolaw” or “antilaw” actors without any other alternative viewpoint. The second case deals with the political newspaper L’Humanité, which was very uncomfortable with the debate and which, most unusually, preferred not to take sides in this case. This research is based on a media corpus analysis (mainly newspapers and television). It uses the “Alceste” statistical software to investigate newspaper coverage, and a qualitative analysis of television and interviews with journalists and Stasi Commission members involved in the process.