The Left’s war with reality drives it farther into insanity every day. Clement Weill-Raynal discovered that Paris jihad murderer Mickaël Harpon was a convert to Islam and said on the air that the attack could be jihad. For that, his employers are threatening him. It was a jihad attack, so they should be thanking him for allowing them to break the story, but they cannot bear that much reality.
“Prefecture of police: a journalist sanctioned for having evoked an Islamist attack?,” translated from “Préfecture de police : un journaliste sanctionné pour avoir évoqué un attentat islamiste?,” Le Point, October 11, 2019 (thanks to David):
Can we blame a journalist for doing his job? This is the question Force Ouvrière asks in a statement issued on Monday, October 7. According to the union, Clément Weill-Raynal, who works for the France Télévisions group, was summoned by his superiors for his coverage of the attack at the police headquarters in Paris. A few hours after the events, the journalist mentioned on the air “the hypothesis of an act motivated by radical Islam”. According to FO, he was threatened with sanctions for having “prematurely” mentioned the possibility of an attack.
Contacted by Le Point, Clement Weill-Raynal, who says he is “scared” by the turn of the case, returned to the events of Thursday, October 3. The journalist was one of the first to arrive on the scene of the search of the killer’s home with his team, they had the task of feeding reports to the antennas of France 2, France 3 and Franceinfo, which had switched to special reporting; this involved several direct phone calls. Thanks to “information collected in the field”, the reporter was the first to reveal on the air that the killer at the prefecture had “converted to Islam”.
A “lack of control over the air”?
But, as stated in the union statement, the professional was summoned several times the day after the attack: “During the interviews, which took place in a stormier atmosphere each time, our colleague was been criticized for his ‘lack of control on the air’, in particular for having mentioned too early the ‘hypothesis’ of a terrorist attack of Islamist inspiration, which, for his superiors, constituted a ‘fault’. According to the union, the management reportedly mentioned possible “sanctions” such as an “antenna ban”. Two turns of phrase were involved, explains the one who had filmed the “Wall of Cons”: first, “the author of what seems to be an attack”, then, later in the day, “the assumption of an Islamist attack”.
Clément Weill-Raynal explains that he did “only [his] job”, first by mentioning an “attack”, but without qualifying it – “It seems to me that when we stab four policemen, it is an attack” – and then, by making only one “hypothesis”, on the basis of what he was able to collect on the ground and which was verified the next day. For Force Ouvrière, these “threats and implications are unjustifiable”, and the union refers to “pressures” that “are intimidating in intent”. They wonder if “the approach of the information management against this journalist does not translate to an inability to discern the reality of information”. …