The French reaction to our cover

The Economist's traditional positions are a matter for comedy and some comfort. Teachers and the French have been targets for as long as I can remember (indeed, perhaps since the original Bagehot).However, it does seem increasingly to be in an ideological cul-de-sac. Outside of the Economist's bubble, it seems blindingly obvious that people will resist growing inequality and control by finance capital. Moreover, the French (while of course not well governed of late) do have a real government capable of planning, which has delivered excellent infrastructure. Is it so hard to accept that the state can do some things well? Comparing this with the current US situation, France seems a comforting place.

Is the Economist anti-France? What a joke! These "stories" in the media are a distraction to keep us from knowing what causes social divisions and violence. Go read "THE DELIBERATE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA" and see what REALLY matters. Both England and France use the "education system" invented by Washington D.C. !
Is washington D.C. anti-England and anti France?
Wake up!

France is a latin country, with a strong sense of individualism and people focusing on their own interest (I am French living in the Netherlands, and I've never felt in France this sense of community and trust towards the state as I've been experiencing it in the Netherlands).
Sad to say, but there is no longer a sense of "interet supreme de la nation". Sarkozy largely contributed to destroy it...
As a result, you'll never get elected in France by announcing sacrifices and tough times ahead. It will take education and time.We need to redevelop a sense of reciprocity and mutual effort in our country to get people accepting the reforms ahead. And from that perspective, Hollande might not be a bad choice after all....provided he contributes to establish a more social democrat government. Sarkozy had 5 years for that and failed.
his time is over.
I understand the skepticism of the Economist, but in what way Sarkozy would be a better choice?
Give him a chance. Frau Merkel is here to avoid him to go outside the austerity path anyway...

Well. I have been reading the economist for a least four years but lately I have been thinking about cancelling my membership.

They hate the EU, every article favours David Cameron or his government and they nearly ever talk good about the EU and the success of the German economy during the recession. Only until last week.

My point is that I don't trust this magazine any more and their way of relating news only favours UK , USA or Australia.

Mr Sapin probably doesn't appreciate getting a second helping, after your cover story from a few weeks ago of "the West's most frivolous election" (which gave me a good occasion to laugh). It might be expected that a man who already sees himself returning to the French Finance Ministry twenty years after beeing ejected from it by the electorate, and who has counted on the unfailingly glowing reports of his national media, to find a cheap xenophobic remark to make in complaint about an article that does not tow the party line. One would think naturally that a man who expects to deal soon with his European counterparts in order to try to fix all our economies might have the maturity and sense to overlook this tiresome "Anglo Saxon conspiracy" strategy. He doesn't, because he still has an election to win, and for the professions of xenophilia coming out of Socialist officials, British and American bashing is a sure vote winner. It only succeeds the German bashing or the Polish bashing of yesterday.

It is good you saw fit to have the archives searched for different examples of The Economist's attitude that debunk Mr Sapin's dismissive remarks. I'll share another anecdote.

In 2005, I attended a discussion organized by the Economist at which its suscribing readers were invited, on the "French model". Ségolène Royal, who was still only the president of the Poitou-Charentes region and then-partner of then Party Secretary General François Hollande, was one of the panelists. In reaction to a question raised by a person in the audience, she lost total control of herself and screamed and insulted her listeners in a way that I have never seen any other political personality behave at a public event. To me this showed an unbalanced character and a severe lack of judgment on the part of a person with such high personal political ambitions, a feeling that was reinforced in me when she decided to run for the presidency in 2007. However, I found it interesting that the author of the article above, who was moderator of the debate and a witness to this very unusual behaviour, refrained from mentioning this in any further articles written about French politics, the Socialist Party and Ms Royal. You showed an elegance about this that I wouldn't have, and I'd say the socialists have cause to thank you rather than criticize you. Now, is Mr Sapin capable of this kind of elegance?

Good post, Ms Pedder.

I think the Economist's perception/description of France is the consequence of:

1) French people's regrettable tendency to speak too loudly about their perceived (and largely fading) greatness, and their prickliness to foreign-originated (often legitimate and useful) criticism; and,

2) Some remnants of historical rivalries between former great European powers, which take the shape of occasionally misguided, and sometimes frankly offensive, clichés about France or French people, propagated by Anglophone media, thus failing to take into account complex realities at work in a country more than 1500 years old.

A clear illustration of these clashing tidal waves would be the Economist's own comments fora, especially under articles or blog posts covering French news. Such fora descend into chaotic trash-talk and calls to arms at a pace and frequency that have pretty much put me off now. They compare poorly with similarly-charged political blogs such as DiA, which stand out by their generally friendly tone, and the ability/willingness of commenters to stick to substantive discussion, in an English that TE's own columnists would be proud of. The fact that a few French commenters' English could use some serious work probably does not help either.

Anyway, all that stuff conveniently glosses over daily experiences on both sides of the Channel, which see hundreds of thousands of French people working in the UK, and similar numbers of British citizens holidaying and retiring in France (of course, you have the exact opposite population flows for the same purposes, albeit in significantly smaller volumes). All in remarkable harmony, and with overwhelmingly positive contributions to both nations' welfare.

By the way, S.P., I'm only 20 minutes through listening to you on L'Esprit Public, and really good stuff so far (which one expects from such a high-quality show).

TE provokes often. Sometimes the title is a mix of boulevard and serious journalism.
However, TE writes mostly what is in favor of London. It reflects a Anglo-Saxon view on matters. And the solutions and statements expressed can be understood as - what would be best for London? Before Mr. Hollande it was Mrs. Merkel and Germany who/which was criticized. Stereotypes were applied and agitation are being brought forward.
So the article about Mr. Hollande is not a exception, however, it is the standard.

The economist is not anti-France. The economist is engaged in a fanatical crusade against everyone who doesn't believe in the invisible hand. France is just an easy target thanks to the mediocrity of its political class and the immaturity of the French.

What a shallow defense of an already shallow article!
Pathetic at its best, but truly representative of the cynical, argumentative alright, but miscreant character of US & English -journalism about France.

And I thought the French were famed for their thick skin.

If you are going to say anything about France make sure it is flattery as the the French respond aggressively to criticism especially when coming from anglo saxons. It is due to low self esteem.

I don't think you're anti-France, but I think you haven't completely realized (I understand it perfectly since you're british) "socialiste" and "socialist" doesn't have the same meaning in French and in English. For instance Hollande doesn't have an anti-market approach and he is a very moderate candidate in fact ( though he used to have far left ideas as a young man). I don't think he would bother being associated to a liberal newspaper. Never forget he gave lectures concerning economy at Sciences Po Paris, a famous French university !

Why should The Economist, or (Sophie?) P. personally care about what someone (anyone) thinks on this moronic non sequitur issue - pro-France or anti-France?
.
The newspaper and its special correspondent should just try to do their job properly, and more often than not they do. That's what matters.

France's people can't stand any criticizes, but what is interesting is that M.Hollande seems really likely to be the next President. I laugh when reading " the first trip in Germany " : just in time to say to germans " Well, all my speeches were bunk, now let's start austerity plans "

Apologies for typos in previous post. Off the cuff ex-temporisations are tricky.

The French chattering classes may pay attention to what The Economist print on its cover when they pick up a copy in an airport lounge. However, by and large, the French don't care a fig about what others say about them. Remember: they gave the Revolution to the world. On a more serious tone, what I mean is that they are far more insular than the Brits, and far more hooked on their own grandeur than the latter to the Empire. The French feel they are exceptional, and if to prove the point they have to return a Communist-backed Socialist president they will! Even Sarkozy made fun of the ECB in in Thursday night TV show. Short of " B***r the ECB". This is what the French and the Brits are so alike: they feel they are unique, and superior, of course. Mind you, they did rule the world, once.

Is Der Spiegel anti France?

This is much harsher than TE on Hollande.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,830193,00.html

The problem is not that TE doesn't support Hollande is that they prefer Sarkozy...Just tell us what are his last declarations about Europe and immigration and tell us what is good about that. Is liberalism at all price is your idea of the economy?

Actually it can be dangerous to be too gentle when public deficits are getting out of control : remember Louis XVI, who was always reluctant to balance the state's books, by reducing spending and getting everyone to pay taxes. Still, he could'nt bring himself to severely repress the revolt that was to turn into a Revolution.

If elected, François Hollande may not lose his head shortly thereafter, but will he be able to prevent chaos in France and in Europe when the question will be : who should be robbed by whom ?

I think that French are alittle too sensitive to open criticism, and yes TE is abit cut and thrust in its opinions, but who wants to read a boring article. Also what of all the so called complaining of the 'Anglo Saxon' model that the French love to kick and complain about.