interview published in cross Zamane / February 2011
Different, complementary, sometimes in competition, historians and journalists are competing for business writing in the world.
By Suleiman Bencheikh
The years of lead are aptly named: next to an actual physical violence was erected a wall of silence that has prevented the History written. Enclosed in a wall of silence, wrapped in an awkward silence, Morocco was both blind, deaf and dumb. Impossible at the time to write anything on the present or recent past. This wall of silence will be broken only with the book Gilles Perrault Our friend the king . The noose is then released gradually, the floor is released along with Hassan II provides guarantees of openness. Moroccan journalists were quick to take the helm. Khalid Jamai splits an open letter to Driss Basri in the columns of L'Opinion . The process seems so brave. At the end of the decade 90, the machine is already running, the freedom of speech found gives rise to real investigative journalism breakers of taboos. Le Journal Hebdomadaire then TelQuel stand-by sites dedicated to the rewriting of history, far from official trails. Historians, long confined to the years of forced conformity lead, emboldened and find the taste of a story activist. It will soon turn to the monarchy itself to initiate at lower costs, a vast movement of introspection under the auspices of the Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER). The flood of books of historical value does not dry up: memories of military prison literature, testimonials, analysis of foreign journalists ...
It will be understood, history, when it was hidden, and when it contains many secret wounds, always interested. Responsibility those who are the custodians, that historians and journalists, then that is handling a sensitive, sometimes painful, which can earn them the fiercest resentment. Since history has never been far or distant. Through the identity that each of us recognizes, forged by a history perceived, it is contrary to the heart of our intimacy and becomes a control issue. This history, gradually released, thus becomes an object of power coveted. Even more than the manipulation, the risk is that it serves the interests or hidden agendas unknown.
No doubt the wealth she is ultimately a lesser evil. Perhaps it is better to believe in pluralism, which alone brought down the dogmas, and especially not confined in the past the historian and journalist in the present. Perhaps the difference between historians and journalists she resides less in their subject of study in their recipients: historians do not eventually they would turn for posterity while journalists arrested citizens of today?
Jamaa Baida (left) is a historian of the press. He teaches at the Faculty of Letters of Rabat.
Ignace Dalle (right) is a journalist and author of numerous books on Morocco.
What is the difference you feel between the historical writings of historians and those from journalists?
Jamaa Baida. Writing historian is supposed to be thorough, well-documented and not be partisan. That said, all historians do not observe this necessarily rigorous. As for the writings of journalists, they are generally characterized by staining partisan or controversial, and a schematic approach due, mostly, not the incompetence of the authors but rather the conditions under which journalists work, namely a race against time to "close". It was sometimes said that the journalist would be the historian de l’instant, tandis que l’historien serait le journaliste du passé ! Bien entendu, en ce qui concerne le journalisme, nous ne devons pas mettre sur le même pied d’égalité le travail effectué au sein d’un quotidien avec la rédaction d’un hebdo ou d’un mensuel. Chaque périodicité impose un rythme. L’historien, lui, a tout son temps pour effectuer ses investigations, compulser des archives avant de rédiger tranquillement et publier lorsque le « fruit » lui semble mûr. Il a même, contrairement au journaliste, l’avantage de connaître la suite des événements qu’il étudie !
Ignace Dalle. Generally, historians are more rigorous definition, do not work in haste as some journalists. Their sources are often more numerous, if not more serious than those of journalists. They are therefore less freedom with reality. The downside is that their work is sometimes dry. The boundary is fuzzy, however: as historians Chaunu Philippe Erlanger have "popularized" their work in saving drive details tedious, while journalists like Jean Lacouture his Mauriac published biographies that historians have little criticism to make.
The journalists' sources are they the same as those of historians?
JB. Journalists and historians have in common is the search for information, documentation, records and testimony. For a long, the sources were more abundant for the historian for the journalist. Things are changing with the Internet revolution. But it is mainly how to exploit these sources differs. The historian will find information for reconstructing the distant past or recent past. It is not generally the case of journalist who research, hastily, a scoop. It is true that the journalist has sometimes resorted to history books, as the historian uses the press as one of its sources. But a newspaper article is often the result to read a book or two diagonally or a few conversations and phone calls went right and left, while an academic article is the result of dozens of books and hundreds of records scrutinized. It's not underestimate the journalism, it is of utmost importance in a democratic society, but do not confuse the genres; " each his job, the cows will be well guarded , "says the proverb. That said, it is possible to find talented journalists who would make excellent historians and good historians who would make quality journalists.
ID. course there are common sources. But as we have seen, it depends on the objective pursued by the journalist, who, occasionally, rarely, can become a historian and therefore tend to work on as many sources as the historian.
journalists they sinning by too much sensationalism and historians too conformist?
JB. Yes, to some extent! It is not wrong to say that the journalist looking for information that makes the "event", the scoop, sensationalism, novelty, even "blood to the one ". If it does not, it's his boss, a box that grows ... because there is a product to sell, to gain a readership, competition is tough! Journalist is often in the scrum, in passion. As the historian, it is true that often prefers the cozy comfort of conformism, do not make too vague. His interest is rarely caused by themes that make the event. Generally, at least in our country, not living income from his books and is often teacher-researcher, the sale of his product is not essential for everyday life.
How do you explain that very few Moroccan journalists have looked back at the history of their country, whereas otherwise the writings of foreign journalists abound?
ID. I do not really agree. At the end of the reign of Hassan II and then under the present reign, many periodicals Moroccan, Arabic or French, have studied the history of Morocco, raising the passage number of taboos. However, it is true that this work is not facilitated by both the authorities always quick to punish what they consider unacceptable gaps or causes damage to the sacred (monarchy, Islam, Sahara, etc..) As part civil society that lacks democratic culture. The discussion of ideas too often turn into insults or squalid settling of scores.
I wanted to talk about books written by journalists and dedicated to the Moroccan kingdom's history. It seems that if the testimony of former officials leading multiplied (Abdelhadi Boutaleb, Abdellatif Filali in particular), the Moroccan journalists, they have produced little book, unlike their French counterparts, for which Morocco may even be a bonanza. What do you think?
ID. If there are few journalists who write books on Morocco's recent history, perhaps because investigative journalism is relatively new in Morocco, dating from the mid-nineties. Previously, political journalism was partisan journalists being political activists. Meanwhile, to make a good investigation, we need to work in an environment where trust and confidence and without fear to discuss sensitive issues or allegedly sensitive. However, given the problems encountered by much of the independent press in recent times, one can understand the reluctance of journalists to address issues concerning the recent history of the kingdom. But things change and books will be all in the coming years.
The historian must be held by a certain duty to reserves?
JB. The "duty of reserve" is a concept to outline very waves. States sometimes tend to talk to muzzle public servants. It may, however, some situations require. But the historian, who is above all a citizen has the right to speak his conscience and according to its political and cultural environment. He can enjoy himself when he has to observe that "right of reserve" and when it must, instead, out of its reserves and assume his duty as a historian-citizen. In this case, it becomes "activist" of a cause and its role is not quite far from that of the journalist!
Have you, one and another, been confronted with a form of censorship in your writings on Morocco?
ID. The Three Kings could safely return to Morocco but was not permitted for sale. I never had the slightest beginning of an explanation. I see nothing further to report on the side of authorities.
JB. few years ago, during a symposium at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities in Rabat, I presented a paper on the image of Sheikh Malainin (d. 1910) in the newspaper Essaada of French origin. My goal was to demonstrate how a colonial propaganda organ could try to tarnish the image of a strong Moroccan who was unanimously popular. When I wanted to illustrate my point with some quotes the Journal, a person has sprung assistance to insult me, call me a traitor and calling outright lynch me ... The meeting ended in a total uproar! In the days that followed, the intruder moved heaven and earth to harm me, claiming I had blasphemed against the Saharawi Mujahid. Fortunately, there were witnesses to attest that, contrary to the accusation against me, I had done my work in an objective academic historian. However, given the context of the Sahara issue, and the friendly advice of several colleagues, I did not insist on publication, so that my paper contained in the conference proceedings.
Have you sometimes self-censorship?
ID. No. There was some information that I have no data because the sources seemed to me not sufficiently reliable. But this is not specific to Morocco.
JB. Self-censorship starts with the choice of a story. The choice is not fortuitous. When I say it is not appropriate to deal with this issue today, for reasons political or religious, I censor myself. And when I have before me an audience of non-professional, I am also led to self-censorship on sensitive topics. The incident mentioned above can not be ignored.
What are your views on the present reign, especially the reconstruction of history recent years including that of lead (IER)?
JB. Under the present reign, the historian as much as the journalist also enjoy a wide freedom of expression, where a remarkable evolution over the years of lead. The work of the IER has been beneficial in this mutation. When I give my course at university, I no longer say that "walls have ears" and the discussion is quite free with my students. Opening a Master of Contemporary History at the Faculty of Letters of Rabat, an initiative also supported by the Consultative Council, is indicative of this trend. Talking Tazmamart or in Derb Moulay Cherif has nothing taboo. All pages of the history of Morocco deserves to be read and discussed calmly and dispassionately, Morocco will be even greater.
ID. Much has apparently been made for ten years on infrastructure: highways, ports, electrification and water supply in rural development in the tourism sector, etc. .... The king also multiplies the inaugurations. But all this lack of visibility. Morocco is there a development strategy or multiplied does one-offs? How not to be impressed by the development of unemployed graduates, the persistence of poverty and illiteracy in rural areas, by social inequalities? The revelations of wikileaks on "indecent greed" of the king's entourage in the property sector have given a bad image of Morocco. The political class has never been brought into disrepute and claiming to embody the opposition after 18 months of operation, WFP, however, led by a friend of the king, did nothing to improve the situation! The attacks were the subject of an independent press, the case Terhzaz, trouble magistrate Hassoun, the hassle of Transparency Morocco prevented delivery of the prize to two men known for their courage and integrity, constitutional reform remains a wishful thinking, all this installment on the hopes raised after the enthronement of Mohammed VI.
function of historiographer the kingdom you apparently she meet a real need, or is it instead an obstacle to the construction of a story objectively?
ID. In an absolute monarchy or authoritarian, one historian has its place. An objective history can indeed be conceived in a democratic framework, with a true constitutional monarchy.
JB. past, the historian of the kingdom's mission was to write history official state as conceived by those in power. He accompanied the harkis (military expeditions) and recorded the actions of his sovereign, hearings granted to foreign embassies and unraveled the central government with the tribes. He had the advantage of having access to official records which other scholars in the country could ignore its existence. In several countries that have experienced historians, this function has fallen into disuse with the advent of the press. The official press has done so - and still performs - this task. In Morocco, where the function of the historian has survived despite the debut of the official press, it is therefore redundant and anachronistic. That said, this does not constitute an obstacle to the construction of an objective history, because it's not even the vocation of the historian who has no such pretension. The work of the historian is more a work of memory as history. History is also the historian can provide him with the documentary material and can even become a subject of historical research.
