Let's have a show of hands here. Does anyone know who Henriette Caillaux happens to be? Let's see, Harold, do you know of her? "Well sir, wasn't she third backup singer for Jaques Brel?" No, not quite right except that Brel like Caillaux was French. Maybe Jacquiline knows?
"No sir. I really have no idea. Besides, I'm French-Canadian not French."
I have to say that hyphenated distinctions haven't worked well in Canada and have only led to a feeling of disunity. In America, hyphenated descriptions have led to problems and where the American experience should be one of inclusion, hyphenated distinctions have led to the rise of special interest groups rather than groups unified around American principles. I would prefer, if one needs to identify themselves ethnically (Another problem I'll address in another post.) that we say or use something like I'm American of Italian extraction or American of African roots. There's no need for anyone to identify himself as an African-American. Quite frankly, the persistence of this is stupid and only causes us to view each other as something other than Americans.
But enough digression. The real issues here are the perversion of news to fill time, our fixation with news as entertainment and our fascination with scandal involving people we have elevated to prominence through a cult of personality. I'm using a trial from 1914 to illustrate many of the same things we are experiencing now as far as news fixation is concerned.
Since none of you, I'm sure knows anything about the trial of Henriette Caillaux, I will give some background:
* On March 16, 1914 at 6:00PM, Henriette Caillaux entered the offices of Gaston Calmette, the editor of the right-leaning newspaper "Le Figaro" and accidently shot him six times.
* Gaston died from the wounds. Caillaux was detained and arrested at the scene where she freely admitted the "accident."
* During the prior three months, Calmette had used his newspaper to character assassinate and libel Henriette's husband Joseph Calmette. Joseph was a former PM and head of the leftist Radical Party. (Remember, in 1914, left and right political distinctions in France were different than those we know in 2010 America. But they were political enemies and politically polar opposites.)
* The articles had become so vitriolic that even the very liberal sensibilities of the "Belle Epoch" found offense. Even avid readers of Le Figaro found the treatment of a former PM harsh.
* Three days before the killing, Calmette printed a facsimile of a letter from Joseph to his mistress on the front page of Le Figaro. The mistress became Joseph's first wife, Henriette was his second. The letter was not only extremely amorous but also confessed to a certain amount of political double-dealing. Calmette have become a de facto whistle blower. While the French were certainly not prudish, the letter caused a lot of embarrassment for the Caillauxs' (Henriette and Joseph) and the political disclosures added fuel to the fire.
* While the pieces published against Joseph by Calmette were partisan, it was generally viewed that private matters were never discussed. While there may have been private rumors, the press rarely got involved in the personal lives of public figures. By printing the letter, Calmette was ridiculing the social status not only of Joseph but of Henrietta. It turned out that Joseph had left his first wife for a mistress, Henrietta, who became his second along with other "affairs d'amour." Henrietta also had a somewhat scandalous past that she didn't want to be made public in so crass a manner.
So here's what we have so far: Henriette Callaux had seen fit to shoot and kill the editor of Le Figaro for attacks on her husband and for printing a scandalous letter. She was arrested, endured a four month pre-trial "investigation" which completely captivated French high social and diplomatic circles, and was finally tried for the crime. The trial only lasted eight days but the eight days were days that changed the world. This was no ordinary trial. Due to the social status of all parties involved, the entire government was fixated on the proceedings. The coverage made the O.J. Simpson trial, the Watergate Hearings and the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill affair seem like child's play. The coverage was so intense and engrossing that history was changed in a way that had ramifications in most of the Western world. While people were following the trial, Europe spun out of control. I'll deal with the ramifications of the trial in Part 2. In Part 3, I'll deal with the similarities between our fixation with news and the comparison with the "Trial of Madam Caillaux." (1)
FB
1. Information about the trial are taken from: Berenson, Edward, "The Trial of Madam Caillaux", University of California Press, 1992, 296 ppg. Wikipedia and other internet based research.
No comments:
Post a Comment