THE PRESS
Throughout the Dreyfus Affair, the press enjoyed a remarkable and unprecedented influence. In fact, the power they exercised was in some ways stronger than those in positions of power, like members of the Chambers of Deputies. After all, men like Celemenceau, Drumont and Jaures would ultimately exert far more influence as journalists then as members of parliament. (Bredin, 518) Why had the press become so important? The very nature of the Dreyfus Affair would be centered around public opinion, and it was no accident that rural and poor areas lacking press influence due to limitations in circulation, would throughout the entire process be immune from the hysteria the press would often times incite. Not only would the press sway public opinion, it would also effect what actions Parliament would take when dealing with the Affair.
The press would play a role from the start of the Dreyfus Affair, from the time of Dreyfus’s arrest to the time of his first trial. On October 29, 1894, the anti-Semitic newspaper La Libre Parole was notified by Major Henry that an act of treason was being investigated, which was exactly two weeks after Dreyfus’s arrest. (Snyder, xii) By November 1, the name of the traitor was leaked and the press campaign would be set in motion, participated in by all the major newspapers including La Libre Parole, L’Autorite, Le Journal and Le Temps. Within the articles were recurring themes often mirroring popular sentiment, like hatred for Jews and Germany, love of the homeland and the Army, and a persistent fear that such treason was an epidemic in society.
The anti-Semitic newspapers used the case as an excellent opportunity to advocate their principles. They called for a ban of Jews from the army, and accused Dreyfus of being protected by Jewish politicians and the wealthy Rothschilds. Pervasive in much of their arguments was the notion that Dreyfus, like all Jews, was not really a Frenchmen. Drumont, in his article appearing on December 26, 1894 entitled "The Soul of Dreyfus," argues that "In order for a man to betray his country, it is necessary first of all that he has a country, and that country cannot be acquired by an act of naturalization." (Snyder, 95) In addition to assaults on Jews, the right-wing and nationalist press sought to discredit Mercier, the Minister of War, as well as the government for covering it up. Count Henri-Victor de Rochefort, in an article in L’Intransigeant explains Mercier’s role: "The negligence, the stupidity, and the bad faith of our War Minister really make him a part accomplice of the traitor and explains to us his efforts to give as little importance as possible to the documents." (Snyder, 94) Eventually, Mercier would become a steadfast anti-Dreyfusard, mainly due to his responsibility, along with his underlings, in Dreyfus’s arrest.
Beyond the issue of Dreyfus’s guilt, which all papers were in agreement upon, came the conflict of whether or not his trial should be in open, or closed session. (Bredin, 92) Those in favor of keeping it closed included La Patrie, L’Intransigeant, and Le Petit Journal on the grounds that it was the only way of keeping secret important military information, which undoubtedly would arise during the trial. Those against it included Le Siecle, Le Figaro and L’Echo de Paris, who argued that it would only prolong the scandal and lead to inquiries of a possible cover-up. In the Jewish paper Archives Israelites they called for an open session, not with hopes to exonerate Dreyfus, but "to prove that we are not an inferior race as our detractors claimed, but, on the contrary, a race of the first order." (Lewis, 47-48) This sentiment was a reflection of most Jews in the country, especially progressive ones, who were eager not only to disassociate themselves from a likely traitor, but to avoid being put under attack. Despite all these calls for an open session, voiced especially fervently by Dreyfus’s family and defense lawyer, who hoped that it would reveal the flimsy evidence on which his arrest was based, the trial ultimately was conducted behind closed doors.
The guilty decision satisfied all papers, not only because they were unaware that forged documents were given secretly to the judges just prior to the decision, but also because Dreyfus had already been painted, based on the statements from his peers and superiors, as a contemptible villain. Georges Clemenceau, who would ironically become one of his most powerful defenders, elaborated on this sentiment in La Justice: "He has no relative, no wife, no child, no love of anything, no human - or even animal - ties, nothing but an obscene soul and abject heart." (Bredin, 98) At this point, Dreyfus had no support, apart from his friends, family, and lawyer, and it would only be after he had at least a part of the press on his side, that revision could be possible.
The intervention of Emile Zola, displayed how much power the press had. On December 13, 1897, he wrote a letter addressed to the youth of France, and stated with excellent insight how he perceived the Dreyfus Affair. He argues that "No one denies that there has been a traitor, all one asks is that it should be the guilty man and not the innocent one to expiate the crime." He urges the youths to "Put aside the imbecile anti-Semitism, with its ferocious monomania which sees a Jewish plot sustained by Jewish gold seeking to thrust a Christian in the place of the Jew into an infamoust gaol." He also stresses that the whole affair has been feeding off of the initial judicial error, and that silence and cover-up only make it worse. In conclusion, he speaks of the importance not only of legal justice, but of a higher justice which "accepts as a fundamental principle the fallibility of all human judgment." (Snyder, 163)
His next letter was addressed to the whole French nation, and in it he states:
It is you, France, who have come to this, that you forge for yourself convictions out of the most palpable lies, that you join hands with a horde of criminals against a few upright men, that you allow yourself to be driven mad by the imbecile pretext that your Army is insulted, and that there is a conspiracy to sell you to the enemy, when, on the contrary, the wisest and the most loyal of your sons desire to see you remain in the eyes of a watchful Europe, the nation of honor, the nation of humanity, truth, and justice.
He also felt that public opinion had been led astray, and that "a hundred newspapers repeat daily that public opinion does not wish the innocence of Dreyfus, that his guilt is necessary to the safety of the country." He goes on to condemn a number of newspapers for their sensationalism and lack of ethics, and warns that a continued love of the Army would only lead to a dictatorship. (Snyder, 168)
By far, however, Emile Zola’s most effective letter came just after the court-martial vindicating Esterhazy. Published by l’Aurore and entitled "J’Accuse!" Zola accused all those he felt were guilty for the injustices he had seen, saying, "I accuse the first court martial of having violated the law in convicting an accused person on the evidence of a document that had remained secret, and I accuse the second court martial of having covered up this illegality by committing in its turn the judicial crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty person." (Thomas, 96) By the end of the day, the article sold over 200,000 copies, and anti-Semitic riots broke out in provinces and Algeria. (Chapman, 179) In addition, a petition for revision was organized and signed by 3,000 intellectuals, writers, and artists, including Anatole France and Claude Monet.
The sensation caused by the article was very indicative of what the press was capable of, and what it was not. His article did succeed in causing the government to act, and they did so by putting him on trial. At the same time, despite all the uproar and rancor among the intellectual and conservative elements of France, there was still very little interest among the working class. (Chapman, 181) Drumont, Rochefort, Clemenceau, and finally Zola, all realized how powerful the press had become, and used it, very effectively, as a tool to obtain their respective goals.
