CHAPITRE 2 – Performance et situation d’interaction au sein du Nigel Farage Show
III. A civilised, grown-up debate » : converser ou se confronter ?
Ainsi qu’il le souligne à loisir dans son émission, Nigel Farage souhaite organiser la mise en
tension des opinions et des points de vue dans un espace où il occupe lui-même un rôle pour le
moins ambigu, puisqu’il défend souvent une position que les auditeurs sont appelés à discuter. Or,
dans le même temps, Nigel Farage quitte fréquemment le régime de l’opinion pour se placer sur un
plan où il entend expliquer et éclairer les enjeux d’un sujet de la manière « la plus objective
possible », pour reprendre ses propres termes :
Nigel Farage: so my question to you (.) is are you pleased (.) that we're going to leave the single market or are you one those people (.) perhaps you were (.) a Remainer who's really worried about what that means uh and I'm quite prepared you know over the course of this next hour to talk to you (.) about what the upsides and the downsides of that are. and I will do it (.) as objectively as I possibly can no
honestly (nous soulignons –F:17.01.17:0-5)
Ainsi, face aux différents cadres de participation laissés à l’usage des auditeurs, Nigel Farage fait
montre d’un positionnement équivoque qui entremêle le discours d’expert (ou d’expérience, en tant
qu’homme politique qui connaît les « rouages » et les coulisses du monde politique) et l’idéologie,
puisqu’il ne fait nul mystère de ses positions et de ses adversaires. Dans ce cas, quelle est la place
laissée à la pluralité des opinions ? Qu’implique la position hybride de Nigel Farage, déjà en
situation de supériorité technique à l’antenne ? Comment sont gérées les situations de
confrontation ? Ces questions constitueront le fil de notre réflexion.
L’idéal de la conversation policée : couper court au conflit ?
La manière dont est censée se dérouler la confrontation des points de vue est rigoureusement
définie tout au long des émissions, quitte à devenir un leitmotiv insistant dans les propos de Nigel
Farage. Le discours tenu à l’antenne doit se maintenir à l’intérieur d’un cadre où le respect des
arguments de l’interlocuteur prime sur ses positions idéologiques. En d’autres termes, là où les talk
shows américains n’hésitent pas à verser dans la surenchère et la calomnie, Nigel Farage ne cesse de
rappeler un certain idéal de conversation, dans lequel les échanges observent les règles de la civilité,
soit un échange policé et « civilisé » (nous soulignons) :
Nigel Farage: and Joh n on Facebook says in reference to Rupert's call ‘hold on a second? did I just hear a Remainer (.) being civil (.) miracles can happen’ >the whole point of LBC< is whatever your view
we can have (.) a civilised grown (.) up debate (.) sometimes. ((he smiles)) you've been listening to the
Nigel Farage show exclusively on LBC (F:20.12.17:0-5)
Nigel Farage: well thank you very much indeed that was sir Vince Cable (.) .h leader (.) of the Liberal Democrats and proo:f (.) I think that people with diametrically opposed political views .h can do so (.)
in a civilised (.) proper environment .well next! ladies and gentlemen (.) it's your turn. (F:10.12.17:0-2)
Nigel Farage: I've been with you now (.) for a year I've tried my damndest (.) to get as many texts and tweets and Facebook messages and calls and I've tried to squeeze as much of that in (.) to every single one (.) of these programmes uh I'm more than happy to speak to people >whatever their view whatever they think of me whatever they think of Brexit whatever they think of Trump< uh I hope I've done my
best to be as polite and civil as I possibly can. (F:21.12.17:0-5)
De fait, Nigel Farage met en avant sa capacité à écouter les arguments de ses interlocuteurs sans
immédiatement les juger, en tentant de comprendre et d’envisager le point de vue adverse :
Nigel Farage: I'm asking if you're a Remain voter .h whether these- and they're not new revelations we've had them before but whether (.) .h this conversation would have changed your mind and I'm (.) really keen to listen to people .h who tell me why >a United States of Europe is a good idea< .h and when they do come on I'm really really polite and quiet and I listen to them because they've got a point of
view and what I wanna know is why they hold it. (nous soulignons – F:07.12.17:0-4)
Alastair Campbell, ancien directeur de la communication de Tony Blair et adversaire déclaré de
Nigel Farage, livre à cet égard un commentaire intéressant, suite à son passage dans une édition
dominicale du Nigel Farage Show (située en dehors de notre corpus) :
First of all I want to say something unlikely to win me many plaudits from the mainly Farage-hating readership of the New European... namely that the nicotine-stained man-frog, as we like to call him, is a good broadcaster. . . . he listens, he engages, he is polite with interviewees and callers even if he disagrees with them. Piers Morgan and John Humphrys et al could learn a thing or two by listening to Farage the non-hectoring interviewer, as opposed to Farage the bombastic, hectoring interviewee. It is a different persona to the Farage who rants and abuses from his seat in the European Parliament, or the Farage who called Andrew Adonis a weasel when Piers got them going on Good Morning Britain, or the Farage I almost came to blows with when Piers parked us millimetres apart on the same sofa and sparked a few torch papers between us.
Le Nigel Farage Show se présente donc au premier abord comme un espace où toutes les opinions
ont droit de cité, même celles qui contredisent le présentateur :
Nigel Farage: Frances says (.) ‘Europeans pay into the EU .h the EU funds so much (.) including (.) helping (.) to subsidize (.) the NH (.) S’ .h not sure I buy that Frances but it is (.) an opinion.
(F:12.01.17:0-4)
Contrairement à sa réputation et à son propre comportement lorsqu’il est invité dans des émissions
similaires, Nigel Farage s’emploie donc à entretenir les conditions d’un débat pacifié et apaisé – et
ce, au moyen de ressources rhétoriques qui se répètent d’une émission à l’autre. L’une de ces
stratégies consiste à reconnaître la sincérité des arguments de l’auditeur, mais pas leur validité, sous
une forme concessive qu’on pourrait résumer par la formule « yes but » :
Nigel Farage: Joe (.) I get your passion (.) I I understand (.) why you're making the arguments you’re making (.) but with respect Joe (.) we had these arguments during the referendum and every leading player (.) on both the Remain side and the Leave side made ab-solutely clear (.) every single big player made ab-solutely clear that a vote to leave the EU (.) was a vote (.) to leave the single market.
(F:09.01.17:9)
Lisa: a government needs to provide housing (.) a government needs to make sure that people can go to work for fourty hours a week .h and earn enough money to live on. not because (.)
[they happen to]
Nigel Farage: but Lisa [but Lisa] a government Lisa a government can’t possibly plan for how many houses need to be built when you have an open door immigration policy and you've ab-so-lutely no idea within the nearest couple hundred thousands .h how many people net will settle (.) next year. I completely respect your view Lisa but I will point this out to you (.) .h that a recent opinion poll when people were asked would they prefer to have (.) an Australian style point system (;) for immigration in Britain only eighteen per cent (.) in the country (.) opposed it. (F:10.01.17.1)
Nigel Farage: it’s not up to the Ukrainian people to say .h we can join the European Union it’s up to the European Union (.) to exert an intelligent foreign policy .h and they haven’t I get your passion I understand how you feel about your country but .h I I repeat the point .h I don’t think we behaved very intelligently. Peter would you meet Putin and talk to him about these things? (F:11.01.17:2)
Hugh: we could expel them from the UK and we'd have to pass another legislation we- and you're gone
Nigel Farage: this is pretty hard line stuff Hugh isn't it >just boot them out< yeah?
Hugh: ( ) you are a hard line! (.) you're a hard line Brexit supporter and I respect you for that .h I don't happen to agree that Brexit's a good idea but uh that's my uh again my opinion [yeah] .h however (.) it seems to me quite (.) hh (.) simple. .h Northern Ireland wants to stay in the union uh the European Union so uh and and the Irish Republic are already a member of that union okay Northern Ireland (.) do some deals with the the Irish Rep become part of that (.) overall [country] and get out [of our hair] Nigel Farage: [I] [I I Hugh] Hugh: I might come in too passionate [I'm not-]
Nigel Farage: [no::] no no I mean look passion's great and that's what LBC's for! and we want all points of view and Hugh! you are not on your own! there are people out there who feel like this I know that I understand that. I am not one of them .hh but I think this Hugh (.) I I believe in a referendum (.) Northern Ireland (.) would put its membership of the UK union above its membership of the European Union and in fact Scotland (.) is in exactly the same (.) position too
Dans chacun des extraits ici présentés, l’ardeur avec laquelle un auditeur partage son point de vue
est systématiquement soulignée et positivement évaluée, comme pour atténuer le désaccord et
l’argument contraire qui vient ensuite : « I get your passion I understand how you feel about your
country but ». De même, la récurrence des incises évoquant le respect dû aux arguments de la partie
adverse (« with respect » ; « I completely respect your point of view ») est frappante,
particulièrement après un référendum dont les débats ont été marqués par une série d’invectives, de
mensonges ou d’approximations de la part des deux camps. La conversation peut ainsi garder
l’apparence d’un échange poli de désaccords, comme le fait ironiquement remarquer un auditeur :
Nigel Farage: I think it is a (.) a a (.) it is a unified .h centrist Europe >that has already< taken away from most countries the basic facets that you would consider to make up a nation state but [.h I ]
Steven: [I understand] that I mean we would disagree on that probably very politely but my point is (.) you have to be very specific and detailed about what you're discussing. (.) this is a proposal by one man perhaps there are another out- [ ( ) ]
Nigel Farage: [Steven oh come on come on come on] it's Mr Juncker it's Mr Verhofstadt and d'you know something Steven? when Juncker get that speech the big .h we're heading towards becoming a united states of Europe .hh hundreds of them all around me (.) MEPs stood and applauded .h these aren't the odd voices of centre this is now the mainstream view Steven in the European institutions.
(F:07.12.17 :2)
Dans les faits, lorsque Nigel Farage ne parvient pas à convaincre un auditeur du bien fondé de ses
arguments, il fait appel à une autre « pirouette » rhétorique qui entretient l’idéal de l’échange
civilisé : l’accord dans le désaccord.
Patrick: .hhhhh I don't know (.) those people weren't asked I don't know what the the background was they could have been escaping from civil war they could have been uh [economic Nigel Farage [where were the women] (.) where were the women where were the children where were the elderly where uh (.) Patrick (.) whatever (.) we can agree to disagree on that interesting phone call I thank you (nous soulignons -
F:19.12.17:7)
Pour neutraliser les divergences, Nigel Farage s’emploie également à trouver dans les arguments
adverses des points d’accord et rapprocher de fait les deux opinions à l’antenne. Ces stratégies
rhétoriques favorisent l’impression d’un écart finalement minime entre les thèses de Nigel Farage et
celles de ses adversaires, comme s’il était possible de les concilier, voire de les réconcilier :
Nigel Farage: no well Jason I I I you know I and what you're saying and and again you make the point about ISIS and I think this is quite central .h uh to why we need to be talking and and hopefully (.) trusting and cooperating. it may not be possible! and Trump said that today. he said look I'm gonna try you heard it earlier in the clip I'm gonna try! I may not succeed but I am going to try and I think Jason
you and I agree .hh it’s the right thing to do: (nous soulignons - F:11.01.17:7)
On voit bien comment Nigel Farage parvient ici à réunir étroitement (« you and I ») les deux
positions, par un effet rhétorique inclusif. Le même procédé est à l’œuvre dans d’autres émissions,
et toujours au moment de conclure, comme s’il importait de clore les échanges sur cette note de
consensus (nous soulignons) :
Sabina: [...] we have a problem let’s solve it together let’s solve it .h in an inclusive way. .h we have a lots of foreigners now as you said rightly since nineteen fifty .h coming from the the former colonies coming from countries that have been visited by British people without any invitation they are here now! they're contributing they're honest people let’s not discriminate against them … show other policies (.) policies which do not affect UK citizens .h no matter what their origin is [that's all]
Nigel Farage: [Sabina Sabina] (.) we
both want and >I’m pleased you agree with me< that it's unnecessary what the police have been forced
to do here .h we both want the same thing Sabina we want a happy civilised settled ordered society .h that's at ease with itself I’m just suggesting .h by reducing the huge flow we have at the minute we’ll get there rather more quickly Sabina thank you! (F:12.01.17:3)
Dans l’extrait suivant, une litote remarquable joue sur l’attente de l’interlocuteur et du public pour
la renverser (nous soulignons) :
Michael: I think you would have to say that Nigel wouldn't you but the reality of the situation is this the politicians create the regulations and the environment for which business do (.) succeed and fail and they're doing an appalling job […] it's gonna be a bloody awful mess
Nigel Farage: no Michael look I don't actually disagree with you .h I think the government is making a complete hash of this uh I think we need to get on with Brexit .h uh to have the opportunity uh to reach out to a bigger (.) broader world. (F:20.12.17:2)
Dans cette forme de conversation, la confrontation perd de son caractère vindicatif et n’est
plus réduite qu’à une question de points de vue particuliers qui peuvent être aisément conciliés. De
même, pour désamorcer les oppositions, Nigel Farage utilise un autre genre de stratégie rhétorique
qui lisse les oppositions idéologiques, et tente d’atteindre un consensus malgré des différences de
fond. Là encore, des formulations récurrentes sont repérables (nous soulignons) :
Gary: I think he's a clown I think he's ((Nigel laughs)) no place in public office and I genuinely think .h I (.) kinda expect better of somebody like yourself than than to blindly follow such a fool!
Nigel Farage: .h well (.) you know my feeling Gary is (.) that uh we need to change in the Western world and and this effectively is the leader of the Western world who is gotta change the direction that America has being going in uh and of course don't forget that the president on his own (.) doesn't run everything the president appoints people and if you look (.) at the kind of people .h uh that >he's given the big offices of state to< (.) we've got two ro- two marine generals one Army general uh we've got successful (.) uh self made (.) billionaires uh we've got people and you're quite right to say (.) we've got people (.) who've never held elected office before you are right Gary (.) in saying this but actually (.) look what career politicians have done (.) for the West they've let us down terribly they've failed it was time time for a change .h and I would say to you Gary (.) whatever you think of Trump uh the way that he goes about things uh maybe (.) have a bit of faith in the people that he's appointed. surely some of those appointments Gary must have even impressed you. (F:19.01.17:5)
Comme on le voit dans l’extrait qui suit, la proposition en « whatever » apparaît également et vient
appuyer une série d’arguments, présentés à l’approbation de l’auditeur via des questions tags qui le
font littéralement « accoucher » d’une opinion qui va dans le sens de Nigel Farage
185(nous
soulignons) :
Simon : I just think the public would (.) surely respond to honesty there's nothing wrong in saying no I was wrong and there's nothing wrong in saying I don't know
Nigel Farage: well Simon I think (.) I I think frankly what's happened is (.) >that as our politics has been more and more dominated by careerists (.) people who do politics for a living and perhaps couldn't do much else in the real world ((he chuckles)) outside< .h uh that they're frightened of giving yes no (.) answers because they fear (.) that that current yes or no in the circumstances may not be popular with (.) you know the next Facebook the the next uh (.) focus group or whatever it might be so. .h you're right we do: that when we listen to politicians who say yes or no .h we're actually quite shocked and surprised by it and I agree with you whether we agree with them .h we like (.) their honesty u:h so but so Theresa May got herself caught (.) .h I think in a very (.) very difficult uh position uh I'm also a bit worried Simon that she gave this big strong speech last week and I said well jolly go well done uh we're now beginning to hear from Westminster today that perhaps (.) on EU immigration (.) th- they're actually going to soften it so! .h that's the other problem isn't it we don't get to get yes no answers .h and then sometimes if we do: .h they don't stick to what they've promised and isn't that isn't that why and I'm gonna bring it back just for once .h isn't that why Simon whether you like him or hate him isn't Trump doing the right
thing by carrying out his manifesto?
Simon: yeah (.) it's true.
Nigel Farage: yeah well I think so you know. (F:23.01.17:10)
Les propositions en « whatever » viennent donc fort utilement créer un certain état de consensus
puisqu’en dépit des différences d’opinion, il semble qu’il y ait tout de même un fond commun sur
lequel s’entendre (ici, « Trump fait les choses nécessaires et justes, qu’on l’aime ou qu’on le
déteste »). Il est évident que faire passer les actions de Donald Trump pour « normales » ou
« consensuelles » constitue bel et bien une prise de position idéologique. Mais c’est en
reconnaissant dans le même temps les oppositions que Nigel Farage les aplanit ou les manipule de
manière à leur enlever leur force de déstabilisation. Le Nigel Farage Show prend alors les
apparences d’une grande chapelle œcuménique (nous soulignons) :
Nigel Farage: one person (.) on the Eurosceptic side .h who has commented is Peter Bone! the Tory MP for Wellingborough .h who was here in the studio yesterday .h if you go to lbc dot co dot uk .h you can see Peter saying ‘FAR from agreeing to thirty-five or thirty-nine billion .h we don't owe them a penny!’ .h have a look at lbc dot co dot uk .h it you may agree with it you(.) may disagree with it .h but
it's certainly an opinion (.) that is put (.) in a very very forthright way (F:11.12.17:7)
Nigel Farage: I've been with you now (.) for a year I've tried my damndest (.) to get as many texts and tweets and Facebook messages and calls and I've tried to squeeze as much of that in (.) to every single one (.) of these programs uh I'm more than happy to speak to people >whatever their view whatever
they think of me whatever they think of Brexit whatever they think of Trump< (F:21.12.17:0-5)
Dans cette chapelle, le discours de Nigel Farage revêt les apparences du non-jugement, là où le
genre du talk show exige classiquement une position explicitement orientée du présentateur. Nigel
185 On remarque également que la simple comparaison de la durée des tours de parole joue presque toujours en la faveur de Nigel Farage, qui monopolise plus souvent et plus longtemps la parole ; il parvient de fait plus aisément à
Farage prétend ainsi reconnaître les opinions contraires aux siennes mais s’abstient ostensiblement
de se prononcer définitivement :
Emma: .h uh I don't (.) I haven't got a lot of good stuff to say about him to be honest I completely disagree with you (.) .hh uh regarding Trump I mean you just spoke earlier about (.) uh career politicians and having a job in the real world and (.) Trump's never really had a job in the real world has he (.) he got a (.) a nice million pound investment of his dad and he's used to come bankrupt six times [...] I think he's an appalling man. I think he's divided a nation that he will never be able to re-unite again.hh Nigel Farage: well (.) uh that's a strong view uh Emma and you're not alone (.) uh in feeling that