Les Medias , Armes de defaites massive.

[Gence]

J'ai eu l'occasion de parler avec un fils de diplomate sénégalais qui fait ses études avec moi, et qui en paralelle prend des cours par corespondance à sience PO... Il ma expliquer qu'un homme politique n'existe que par l'existence des médias. Et que les média n'existait que par l'existance des hommes politiques. L'ennui, c'est que l'homme politique connait cette vérité, mais pas tous les journalistes.......... Et qu'il apprenait a tiré partit des médias, et de leurs faire comprendre, que si il n'existait pas, le journaliste n'aurait pas de reportage... Je résume bien évidement, ce qu'il ma dit. Mais je pense qu'on peu en conclure, d'aprés ce qu'il ma dit, que les médias libres sont voué a disparaitre parce que dépendant du monde politique...

[Nkg-56]

"L'ennui, c'est que l'homme politique connait cette vérité, mais pas tous les journalistes.......... Et qu'il apprenait a tiré partit des médias, et de leurs faire comprendre, que si il n'existait pas, le journaliste n'aurait pas de reportage..." Le journaliste connaît cette donne - il ne faut pas les prendre pour des imbéciles - ils savent parfaitement s'en servir. Sinon le reste est parfaitement vrai dans notre société - ou plus exactement la société actuelle - Ségoléne Royale en est le malheureusement vivant exemple ou comment communiquer sur le vide (Nicolas Sarkozy la suit de peu - mais le débat n'est pas sur la politique politicienne).

[collectionneur]

"Caloniez", "caloniez", il en restera toujours quelques chose. Quand les médias font des erreurs, les démentis sont en petit caractéres à la 3e page. 655 000 MORTS EN IRAK écrit The Lancet , en gros titres, et quand le site Iraq Body Count dénonce ce chiffre absurde, quasiment aucun médias ne signale ce septicisme. Au Liban l'été dernier, on annonce la marée noire la plus importante de l'histoire de la Méditerranée lors des attaques Israeliennes; aussitot la guerre terminé, cette affaire est oublié et les filles sont de retour sur les plages de Beyrouth...

[medivil 47]

Les médias influencent les masses - mais pas au point de faire gagner des guerres

Pas toute,mais en influancent les masses ont influance indirectement la politique etrangère de sont pays ,ce qui arrive a bush avec ses defaite electorale.

[Zamorana]

C'est pas les médias américains qui ont fait perdre aux républicain les 2 chambres, ce sont des faits trop longtemps ignoré des mensonges éhontés, les médias aux USA sont entre les mains de gens comme Murdoch qui mangent dans la main de Bush et sa clique.

[Gence]

"Caloniez", "caloniez", il en restera toujours quelques chose.

Quand les médias font des erreurs, les démentis sont en petit caractéres à la 3e page.

655 000 MORTS EN IRAK écrit The Lancet , en gros titres, et quand le site Iraq Body Count dénonce ce chiffre absurde, quasiment aucun médias ne signale ce septicisme.

Au Liban l'été dernier, on annonce la marée noire la plus importante de l'histoire de la Méditerranée lors des attaques Israeliennes; aussitot la guerre terminé, cette affaire est oublié et les filles sont de retour sur les plages de Beyrouth...

on ne peu jamais savoir les dégats réel causé au homme, à la nature ou au matériel, parce que justement, les médias ne seront jamais d'accord (guerre psycologique)

...

Les médias nous donnent des chiffres et des images, c'est a nous aussi de faire des effort de compréhension et d'analyse. Malheureusement, l'analyse, ils la font pour les gens n'ayant pas envie, ou les capacités de reflexion, ou n'ayant pas les connaissances pour prendre du recul... (C'est pour sa que je suis là d'ailleurs... J'en apprend plus sur ce qui se passe dans le monde sur ce forum qu'au journal de 20H ... et en bonus, vous m'ouvrez les yeux sur un aspect possible que je n'avait pas envisager... [13] [27] )

[Nkg-56]

"Pas toute,mais en influancent les masses ont influance indirectement la politique etrangère de sont pays ,ce qui arrive a bush avec ses defaite electorale." Pas touteS, mais en influançAnt les masses on influance indirectement la politique etrangère de son pays, ce qui arrive À Bush avec ses defaiteS ÉlectoraleS. Merci à tout le monde d'éviter les fautes d'ortographes - ça devient parfois illisible.

[collectionneur]

"Soft Power", le rock à fait plus pour le chute du mur de berlin que les Perching 2 :)

[roland]

C'est pas les médias américains qui ont fait perdre aux républicain les 2 chambres, ce sont des faits trop longtemps ignoré des mensonges éhontés, les médias aux USA sont entre les mains de gens comme Murdoch qui mangent dans la main de Bush et sa clique.

Effectivement et nous Français on est bien placé pour se rendre compte de la manipulation des medias parce qu'on en a été la victime.

en anglais:

Anonymous Sources: The Media Campaign Against France

Justin Vaisse, Visiting Fellow, Center on the United States and France

Justin Vaisse

On May 15, 2003, the French ambassador to the United States took the unusual step of writing a public letter to administration officials and members of Congress denouncing the spread of false information about France. An article published in The Washington Post that same day about the letter made it clear that he was complaining not only about the fertile imagination of some media outlets, but about an "organized campaign of disinformation" from within the Bush administration—especially from hard-line civilians within and close to the Pentagon.1

Administration officials of course denied such charges, deriding it as "utter nonsense."2

Who's telling the truth? The disinformation campaign about France has certainly been part of the wave of France-bashing, or "francophobia," that spread in the United States as a result of France's spearheading of the opposition, especially at the United Nations, to an invasion of Iraq during the winter and spring of 2003. French products were boycotted, French fries were renamed "Freedom fries" in the cafeteria of the House of Representatives, and nasty stereotyping was used against "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"—to a point rarely reached for any other nationality in recent years. But to what extent did the press allegations actually originate from within the Bush administration?3

Let us review the evidence. The ambassador's letter points to eight allegations, between September of 2002 and May 2003, all of which were followed by denials and by detailed rebuttals by the press office of the Embassy. In September 2002, The New York Times alleged that France and Germany had supplied Iraq with high-precision switches used for nuclear weapons.4

The following month, The Washington Post claimed that France, along with Russia, Iraq and North Korea, possessed human smallpox strains, contrary to WHO provisions.5

Then the rhythm accelerated: in March, Bill Gertz of The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, alleged that two French companies had sold Iraq spare parts for airplanes and helicopters.6

Later that month the conservative columnist William Safire linked France to a complex scheme whereby a French intermediary was said to have facilitated Iraq's acquisition, via Syria, of chemical components for missiles.7

In early April, once the war had started, Representative Joe Scarborough (famous for sponsoring a bill to withdraw the US from the United Nations in the 1990's) accused France on MSNBC of selling Iraq "planes, missiles, armored vehicles, radar equipment, and spare parts for Iraqi fighter planes." On April 21, Newsweek reported the "possible" discovery of Roland 2 French missiles, manufactured in 2002, in Iraq (even though the Roland 2 production ended in 1993).8

Finally, during the month of May, Bill Gertz made new allegations about France in The Washington Times. A banner headline splayed across the front page of the May 6 edition of the paper declared that "France gave passports to help Iraqis escape." The article accused the French government of having facilitated the escape of senior Iraqi officials by providing them with French passports.9

After the French embassy in Washington denied the story, and even after U.S. government officials confirmed, belatedly, that they had no evidence to confirm it, Bill Gertz continued to refer to this supposed "scandal" in the following days, especially after chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James Sensenbrenner, asked for an investigation and said that France should be excluded from the U.S. visa waiver program that allows tourists from wealthy countries, including France, to visit the United States without a visa. On May 24, another front-page headline indicated that a US intelligence team had found French passports in Iraq.10

Many of these allegations, as the letter by the French ambassador, Jean-David Lévitte, points out, rely on information provided by "anonymous administration officials," an unnamed "defense official" or an "American intelligence source." This is certainly common in Washington, but it is also well known that these leaks, rarely invented by the reporter, exist to serve the leaker's interest—either the interest of the administration itself when it wishes to release information unofficially or the interest of some part of the government, in which case such serves as weapons in internal bureaucratic battles, for example between the State Department and the Pentagon.

In spite of this similarity, it is not difficult to make distinction between these allegations, by a basic external analysis. They fall into three categories.

The allegations of Bill Gertz in The Washington Times, for example, were never reprinted in more prestigious and more relatively scrupulous newspapers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post or The Financial Times—for the probable reason that basic journalistic checking demonstrated that the charges had little substance. Bill Gertz, reputedly well connected with intelligence circles, has a pattern of publishing sensational leaks, some of which turn out to be true, many others of which, to put it delicately, do not. Another sign of lack of credibility can be found in the logical weakness of the articles in question.

For example, his piece of May 24 begins by alleging that the famous French passports mentioned in the May 6 piece had been found; then it mentions the denial by the French embassy; then it talks about Powell's travel to Paris, which bears no relationship with the specific story; then it mentions the results of the investigation by the Department of Homeland Security, which concludes that the story is false, and that the passports do not exist; then it offers hypothesis as to why passports have been found (they may have been looted or forged); and it ends by summarizing all the allegations of cooperation of the French with Saddam, including the ones made earlier by William Safire, without the proper denials. Even the most sympathetic reader would be lost at this point, or, rather, would conclude that the piece is just not very serious.

Allegations made by William Safire of The New York Times should be placed in another category. The problem here is that his columns belong to the editorial pages, and that even when columnists give facts instead of analysis, newspapers do not publish a correction when these facts are contested. Rather, the rebuttal must take the form of a "Letter to the Editor," as if it was a mere question of opinion, not fact. This shocking situation allows columnists to write basically whatever they want, accurately or not, on any subject, in America's most prominent newspaper. And William Safire, by conviction, is ready to use even the most flimsy piece of information that would confirm his anti-French views.

The third category is made up of more serious articles, like the first two from the list, published in The New York Times and The Washington Post, which generally recognize their mistakes, print detailed denials and take them into account in later articles.

Even in this case, it seems difficult not to conclude that there is indeed a persistent campaign of disinformation about France (no other country has been targeted the same way) from within the ranks of the intelligence community and the Defense community. Depending on their professional standards, journalists choose to use these so-called "leaks" or not, and to hold on to them or not.11

So two questions should be asked. First, how "organized" has this campaign been, and at what level? Second, what are the motivations behind it?

Previous examples of leaks or "dirty tricks" tend to show that high-level officials are not generally implicated in these operations, whether because it could backfire on them, or because lower-level operatives take the initiative, sometimes on their own, sometimes following up on vague hints from their bosses. But the reluctance of administration spokespersons, who knew there was no basis to the allegations (especially in case of the passport allegation), to deny them publicly, show at least that the higher levels of government were not unhappy with the bad-mouthing of France.

But in order to understand the origins of this campaign of disinformation, it needs to be put in the context of rampant France-bashing since 2002, which climaxed in the winter and spring of 2003.12

When it became clear that France was becoming a major hurdle in the run-up to the war, the parts of the Bush administration favorable to an early war and their allies increasingly used France both as a scapegoat for Washington's own diplomatic failures (at the UN, but also in Turkey, as Newt Gingrich suggested ), and, more importantly, to discredit opposition to the war by branding it "French," hence unpatriotic.13

Bashing France, denouncing it as the active agent of anti-Americanism in the world and making all kinds of allegations about its supposed close relationship to Saddam, in the economic realm for example, was a way to incite patriotism and coerce the opposition, from the anti-war movement to Republican dissenters, into acquiescence.14

This is why some administration officials and conservative groups tied the democrats, or even moderate republicans, to France, calling them "French" or even (for senator Kerry) "French-looking."15

The anti-French campaign had different aspects. First, the administration has created a favorable climate in which francophobia and stigmatization of any kind of dissent could thrive.16

The rationale "You're either with us or against us" as repeated by the President on different occasions after 9/11 leaves no way of discussing the best political options to fight terrorism or deal with the Middle East. And both George W. Bush and his spokesman Ari Fleischer seemed to endorse the supposedly "spontaneous" reaction ("not stirred up by anybody except by the people") by Americans: "What you have to do is watch your television and see the natural reaction of the American people.17

They're reacting. [...] And that is their right [...] I think you are seeing the American people speak spontaneously."18

Some parts of the administration have played "the French card," either by using Paris as a scapegoat, by fanning francophobia or by spreading rumors damaging for France, even if it remains difficult to know at what level this last initiative has been taken. They were helped by journalists who shared their pro-war agenda and belonged to the same ideological camp on these matters, like Bill Gertz and William Safire. They were also helped in their assault against France by Rupert Murdoch media outlets. These range from the low-brow Fox News network to the more intellectual Weekly Standard magazine, and include The New York Post tabloid and its British counterpart The Sun. It was a consistent position of all Murdoch (and Lord Black) media outlets to encourage war in Iraq, to bash France and to use negative stereotypes and insults when referring to it.19

And this is important at least in one respect: if nobody reads The Washington Times, quite a few Americans watch Fox News. And this network, on the basis of what the press—especially The Washington Times—has written, has made constant references to France's supposed connivance with Saddam, its material support for the Iraqi military that was fighting and killing Americans, and the like, essentially asserting that such loose conjectures were established facts. The image of France, which had already suffered of its diplomatic posture, deteriorated even more.

This brings us back to the ambassador's letter, which offers a real case study in public communication. Was it a smart move? Did it stem the tide of disinformation about France? On the negative side, this highly-publicized move allowed all of the allegations to be printed and read once again, this time in more respected newspapers, it attracted even more attention and gave the impression of the French as whiners. Moreover, the fight against anonymous sources is always an uphill battle. But considering the accumulation of false information, the letter was a formal way to reject all of them, and to cast doubts on future allegations. More importantly, it was a message sent to supporters of France or of the French position (as well as the French-American community, confronted to accusations of stabbing the US in the back) that this older ally of America, while having dissented on an important policy issue, was in no way the treacherous country some Americans had tried to paint.

© Copyright 2003 Message

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/vaisse20030701.htm

aussi:

Retired Air Force Col. On How Bush Admin. Used Psy-Ops, Propaganda and Information Warfare In Build-Up to Iraq Invasion

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth.pdf

extrait:

Punishing the French - The Stories

The evidence points to the French being the focus of punishment in the strategic

influence campaign. There are at last eight times when false stories or engineered stories

were aimed at them, the majority appearing after their lack of support in the UN for US

and UK actions.

France and Germany supplied

Iraq with high-precision switches.

NYT

France possessed prohibited strains

of the smallpox virus. “American intelligence

sources” Washington Post

Two French companies had sold

Spare parts for aircraft and helicopters.

“US intelligence source” Washington Times

France and Germany supplied

Iraq with high-precision switches.

Independent, UK leaked UN Report.

In September, the New York Times was told that the French (and Germans) had

sold high-precision switches to Iraq that could be used for nuclear weapons. Keeping

with the cross-Atlantic dimension of the strategic influence effort, the same story

appeared in the UK press. The fact is that although Iraq had requested these switches,

and they were never supplied.

“American intelligence sources” leaked to the Washington Post the incorrect story

that the French has prohibited strains of smallpox virus.

A “US intelligence sources’ told the Washington Times that two French

companies had sold spare parts to Iraq. The companies have said they did not. No proof

has surfaced.

Punishing the French - Roland

Missiles

April 9th - Brig. Gen Brooks: “…found an underground storage facility

containing an abundance of food and also Roland-type air defense

missiles. That’s a specific air defense missile system.

When an A-10 was shot down near the Baghdad airport, a “Pentagon

spokesman” point out they thought it was hit with a Roland missiles; not

mentioned in CENTCOM Briefing.

April 21st - Newsweek: Lt. Greg Holmes, a tactical intelligence officer with the

Third Infantry Division, told Newsweek that U.S. forces discovered 51

Roland-2 missiles, made by a partnership of French and German arms

manufacturers…one of the missiles he examined was labeled 05-11 KND

2002 which he took to mean the missile was manufactured last year.

Someone created a story that French Roland missiles were being used to shoot

down American aircraft, and these missiles were new. It turned out story was not very

Truth from These Podia

well put together. The production line for the Roland 2 shut down in 1993.3

We were told the French were helping Iraqi official escape to Syria:

Punishing the French - Passports

May 6 - Washington Times

“An unknown number of Iraqis who worked for Saddam

Hussein’s government were given passports by French

officials in Syria, U.S. intelligence officials said.”

“…said officials familiar with intelligence reports.”

“…revealed through sensitive intelligence-gathering

means angered Pentagon, State Department and

intelligence officials in Washington.”

“…one official said. “…a second Administration official

said.”

This story had some legs, and the Washington Times kept getting fed information

to keep it alive.

Punishing the French

May 6

Ireland on Line

Australian Broadcasting Corp.

Expaticia, Netherlands

.

.

Fox News

“The reports add fuel to the fire

that Paris had been colluding

with Baghdad before and during

the coalition invasion of Iraq.”

.

.

.

May 7

Washington Times

“US intelligence officials are

intensifying the search in

Europe for officials of the

Saddam Hussein government

who fled Iraq with French

passports, US officials said

yesterday.”

.

.

Many newspapers carried the story, and it even generated an official inquiry.

3 It is hard to explain, but this Roland fabrication keeps surfacing. It came up again in

early October when a Polish unit was reported to have found recently manufactured

missiles. After it bounced around for couple days, a Polish spokesman announced that it

was not true.

Punishing the French

May 8

Charleston Post Courier

“France is rumored to have

issued passports of Iraqi

officials in Syria.”

.

.

.

House Judiciary Chairman

James Senesbrenner wrote Tom

Ridge: “If the Department of

Homeland Security receives or

uncovers any information

suggesting that this allegation is

true…France should be

suspended…from a visa waiver

program.”

May 9

Rumsfeld, DOD Briefing:

“France has historically had a

very close relationship with Iraq.

My understanding is that it

continued right up until the

outbreak of the war. What took

place after that, we’ll find out.

I’ve read these reports, but I

don’t have anything to add to

them.”

.

.

.

.

When Rumsfeld was questioned, he followed pattern. When something is on the

street that is part of the strategic influence campaign, let it linger. He said when asked

about the reports, “I have nothing to add to them.” Clearly, the implication of that kind

of answer is that he wanted people to believe the stories. He had nothing to add.

Even the White House got into this strategic influence effort. One has to believe

the Administration knew by mid-May that the stories were not true, but at the White

House press briefing, it was not stopped.

Punishing the French

May 14

Washington Post

French deny…

May 15 & 16

France accuses the United

States of a smear campaign,

using this as one example.

White House Press Brief:

Q Going back to France, the French have denied selling arms to Iraq

and issuing passports to Syria to fleeing Iraqi officials. Are those

charges valid?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that those are questions you can

address to France.

Q On that point, Scott, do you have any information that the French

did, in fact, issue passports to people so that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think -- no, I think that's a question you need to

address to France.

Q Well, no, it's information the U.S. claims to have.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have anything for you.

Truth from These Podia

Punishing the French:

Assessment

• Technique made effective use of the concept of “echo.”

– Less than professional journalism repeated in 100’s of

newspapers and on television reporting on the story as a

story.

– Washington Times repeated the story with small bits of

information so it lingered.

• Seems most likely that this was part of the strategic

influence campaign that can be traced at least

circumstantially to the Special Plans Office in the Pentagon.

I’ve been told from sources in the press that most of the leaks during the “armed

conflict” that appeared in the Washington Times came from the Special Plans Office in

the Pentagon. Using the kind of methods Admiral Poindexter was going to do on

information operations, there would appear to be validity in what I was told.

The Secretary of Defense told us before the war he was going to do strategic

influence. It appears as if the French were a target.

I’m confident from my research the white flag story was engineered. Even more,

it is beginning to appear as if it were fabricated to cover a very serious friendly fire event.

Details of two incidents involving white flags have surfaced. The first was

reported on March 23rd. General Abizaig, the Deputy Commander of Central Command,

said that right after some Iraqi soldiers surrendered artillery fire came in on a Marine unit.

He called it a ruse. On the surface the explanation seems strange. The Iraqi Army had

trouble coordinating artillery fire at all. It is a stretch of the imagination to believe they

could put together a plan in which a part of their force would surrender then they would

start firing artillery.

[g4lly]

J'ai pas trouvé ailleurs ou le mettre ... à écouter ou réécouter.

Taddéi qui s'est exilé chez "Russia Today" pourvoir organiser des débats inorganisables dans les médias français ...

https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/le-reveil-culturel/le-reveil-culturel-emission-du-vendredi-16-octobre-2020

Quote

Frédéric Taddéï : "Les artistes ont un regard sur le débat public qui peut-être aussi pertinent que celui des intellectuels"

Journée spéciale sur France Culture : "Que faisons-nous du débat public ?"

Dans le monde culturel, dans le milieu intellectuel et les universités, dans le monde scientifique, dans les médias nouveaux et anciens, aux Etats-Unis comme en France, le sentiment que le débat d’idées s’est dégradé est largement partagé. Pour quelles raisons ?

Tewfik Hakem en parle avec Frédéric Taddéï, dont le métier est justement d’organiser des débats d’idées, chose qu’il est devenu impossible de faire à la télévision française avait-il déclaré pour expliquer son arrivée sur la chaîne de télévision RT France, où il anime l’émission quotidienne de débat Interdit d’interdire.

Claire Blandin, historienne des médias, nous aidera également à comprendre si cette crise, amplifiée par les nouvelles pratiques numériques, est véritablement inédite.

"Nous sommes  aujourd’hui dans une période de réorganisation du paysage médiatique"

Claire Blandin :

Les médias sont censés être au cœur de l'espace public pour organiser le débat dans le cadre démocratique. C’est comme ça qu’ils ont été institués au fil de notre histoire par la Révolution française, par la loi sur la liberté de la presse en 1881. On leur a donné ce rôle-là. Mais il faut qu’il y ait des moments de réorganisation, et ce sont malheureusement souvent des moments de crises. Le paysage médiatique est presque obligé de se réorganiser pour permettre à nouveau à la démocratie de mieux fonctionner. 

La circulation des idées prend de nouvelles formes aujourd’hui. Et on peut se demander si le législateur n’a pas une forme de retard par rapport à tout ce qu’il s’est passé dans notre société sur le plan de l’évolution technologique ou sur le plan de l’évolution sociétale. 

"Des évolutions sociales majeures dont on n’a pas encore bien pris la mesure et dont on sent les soubresauts"

Ces évolutions, ce sont avant tout les fractures sociales, numériques, territoriales, le changement de statut d’un certain nombre de métiers intellectuels, qui se sont féminisés, dévalorisés dans le même temps au cours des 20-30 dernières années…

Frédéric Taddéï :

Les artistes ne doivent pas être dévalorisés, ils ont un regard sur le débat public qui est aussi pertinent que celui des intellectuels. Si on parle de légitimité, les gens vous diront toujours que tel artiste n’en a pas. Mais on s’en fout, ce qui nous intéresse c’est le travail, c'est la vision. Vous pouvez avoir une vision intéressante, originale, ou pas. Même si vous avez tous les diplômes qui vous rendent légitimes.

"Chaplin a dit sur la crise de 1929 des choses bien plus importantes que tous les journalistes de son époque"

Il y a des débats aujourd’hui sur Twitter, sur internet, il y a des émissions de débats, notamment sur les chaînes d’information en continu avec des chroniqueurs… Sauf que ces débats-là cherchent le clash. Le clash, c’est quand il y a un bon et un méchant. C’est très rassurant. C’est une logique (…) qui très souvent est encouragée par le populisme médiatique.

Le débat, à l’opposé du clash, est plus subtil, moins rassurant. Il vous montre toute la complexité d'une question et vous amène à reconsidérer l'opinion que vous pouviez en avoir. Et c'est la démonstration de ce qu'est la démocratie : ne pas être d'accord et tout en s'écoutant.

Programmation musicale

Eric Prydz, Opus (2016)

 

[cracou]

Il y a 5 heures, g4lly a dit :

J'ai pas trouvé ailleurs ou le mettre ... à écouter ou réécouter.

Taddéi qui s'est exilé chez "Russia Today" pourvoir organiser des débats inorganisables dans les médias français ...

Ben.... non. Il a 2 heures d'antenne et de débat par jour sur une radio principale....

Maintenant que l'on ne veuille pas de lui spécifiquement sur une chaine de TV c'est possible.

Citation

Les artistes ne doivent pas être dévalorisés, ils ont un regard sur le débat public qui est aussi pertinent que celui des intellectuels. Si on parle de légitimité, les gens vous diront toujours que tel artiste n’en a pas. Mais on s’en fout, ce qui nous intéresse c’est le travail, c'est la vision.

Donc si une personne n'a aucune compétence sur le sujet, il est aussi légitime car il a une "vision".

Désolé mais ça justifie Bigeard et ses délires sur les masques et les vaccins car ila une "vision".

Non ce qu'il oublie c'est que les artistes du passé avaient souvent une conscience politique et une formation réelle (souvent littéraire classique d'ailleurs). Ils ne se posaient d'ailleurs pas en visionnaires mais donnaient leurs expériences personnelles.