It is always fun and instructive to realize the contradictions of your adversaries. How, from this modern society so proud of its freedom, of its way of conceiving intimate things, this society of sensuality (when care has been taken to confuse sensuality and pornography), emerges a prudish, restrictive, voyeuristic and above all moralist (reread here the essay by Jean Marie Domenach: Une Morale sans moralisme). Where this plenipotentiary modern society tries to confuse the morality of Catholicism which it portrays as archaic, it very quickly develops anti-bodies in the form of a moralism which only feels good when judging the neighbor. This is petty-bourgeois morality. It is a French character trait. But that other European countries share with it.

The vulgarity with which the media pour out their ideology based entirely on envy is distressing. Tiger Woods, a unique athlete, was thus delivered to the dogs according to the disproportionate formula of François Mitterrand after the suicide of Pierre Bérégovoy. John Terry, English footballer, is also prey to the tabloids. For simple stories of buttocks… Distressing. But the most distressing thing is that these athletes, stars, politicians are judged by people who will never be judged. I specify. In ten years spent browsing the editorial offices of certain French magazines, I can assure you that three out of five journalists dream of the big shot. What is a big blow for a journalist? Getting an idol off its pedestal, or at least showing that its blamelessness is seriously in doubt.

Why is the job of journalist so prone to creating envy?

If I tried a quick explanation, I would say that the proximity of power, of success, of talent, can only generate jealousy, resentment and envy. Above all, that this proximity to a form of prosperity is an unattainable mirage; a window of which the journalist is only the spectator. The urge to turn the banquet over on the hosts' heads is itchy.

Moralism acts everywhere. We judge from the height of our experience (there is nothing worse), we judge from the height of what to think (often a conglomeration of urban legends and coffee shops agglomerated by a hint of common sense), we judge because the power we derive from it is like no other.

I was smiling the other night while watching a report on a private French channel. The staging was scary. They wanted to worry us, scare us about the future of fish in the world's seas. The guests answering the questions were all filmed in chiaroscuro, which gave them an eerie, dark look; the apocalypse point. The soundtrack could have illustrated Friday the 13th . The danger was there. At our feet. Within easy reach. Save our children! Here again, we have fun and learn from seeing journalists apply the techniques of politicians; techniques which among politicians is detestable, but which among journalists certainly takes on its full meaning. Intimidate, worry, frighten, weaken, guide. When politicians act like this, they are called demagogues. Isn't demagoguery contrary to the ethics of journalism? And then, isn't it the journalist who creates fear by relaying the discourse under the pretext of informing?

The documentary provided some interesting information. I learned many things about fishing in the world. The law promulgated in recent days against bluefin tuna fishing goes in this direction. I will not take sides between scientists and fishermen; especially since some of my childhood friends are or have been fishermen. I can still see this captain, a specialist in deep-sea fishing, explaining his job. How much this profession has already changed. How much more regulated it is these days. His story becomes joyful and playful, he recounts the many pranks he showed towards the main coasts. Playing cat and mouse. Strive to break the law, to be the smartest, to fool the constabulary. He is seated at his command post. He rejoices like a child having circumvented the prohibition. Next shot from the cameraman: a Madonna and Child on a shelf in the cockpit. Morality when you hold us...