This is because Mediapart does not claim to have simply stumbled across a few forgotten posts whilst browsing the internet. The outlet states that it has spent several months examining dozens of written conversations, dating in particular from 2013 to 2015, taken from a wider body of documentation and supplemented by witness accounts. The newspaper also claims to have carried out an independent verification of these materials. Jordan Bardella, for his part, formally denies being the author of the remarks attributed to him, describes them as ‘blatant fabrications’ and has brought a defamation case.
The exact origin of the documents has not been publicly established. However, the theory that the source knew Jordan Bardella at that time is no longer merely speculation from outside the National Rally: it is being discussed within the party itself.
Jean-Philippe Tanguy, an RN MP and close associate of Marine Le Pen, stated on LCI that, in his view, the revelations came from former anti-Semitic activists who had been expelled from the National Front. He described them in particularly harsh terms, referring to “anti-Semitic scum” who had been “purged” from the party following Marine Le Pen’s accession to the presidency. When asked what evidence his claim was based on, however, Jean-Philippe Tanguy acknowledged that it was his “firm conviction”. There is therefore, at this stage, no basis for presenting this origin as an established fact.
But this statement is politically significant. It shows that, even within the ranks of the RN, it is envisaged that people from the former activist circles may have retained conversations, archives or simply a sufficiently detailed knowledge of this period to guide a journalistic investigation.
And this is probably where one of the keys to understanding how this type of investigation works lies.
We sometimes imagine the investigative journalist as someone who miraculously uncovers a document forgotten in the depths of the internet. The reality is generally more prosaic. An investigation may begin with a source contacting a journalist, a former activist recounting what they witnessed, a document being passed on, an archive preserved for years, or simply a lead precise enough to enable journalists to then search for and cross-check information.
In Bardella’s case, this lead is all the more plausible given that the details reported relate to a very specific period in his life: that of the young National Front activist in Seine-Saint-Denis. The conversations examined by Mediapart are said to have begun in the summer of 2013, a few weeks before he turned 18. A year later, Bardella became the National Front’s departmental secretary in Seine-Saint-Denis.
In other words, he was inevitably surrounded by an activist environment: comrades, leaders, online contacts, members of discussion groups and people moving in the same political circles.
Some of these witnesses are now being interviewed by the press. Mediapart itself states that its investigation is based not only on conversations but also on witness accounts. Other media outlets have gathered recollections from former associates or activists from that period, particularly regarding the influence of Alain Soral in certain circles of young Front National activists. These testimonies do not, of course, prove on their own that Bardella is the author of the disputed messages, but they provide journalists with a context in which to cross-check the documents against the accounts of people who lived through that era.
This is precisely what distinguishes a leak from an investigation.
Someone may provide a document to a journalist. This does not automatically make the document true. The work then begins: determining its origin, searching for other traces, verifying dates, cross-referencing the content with other archives, tracking down people who were present at the time and gathering independent testimonies.
It is also for this reason that the identity of the source is not necessarily the key factor in determining whether the published facts are accurate. A source may be motivated by personal revenge, political disagreement or any other motive, and yet still provide an authentic document. Conversely, a completely disinterested source may provide a forged document. The motivation of the person providing the information and the authenticity of what they provide are two separate issues.
In this case, an apparent contradiction also arises in the RN’s defence.
On the one hand, Jordan Bardella claims that the conversations are forgeries. On the other, Jean-Philippe Tanguy argues that former activists may have leaked this material to Mediapart. However, referring to people who have ‘leaked’ old conversations inevitably raises the question: what could they possibly have possessed and passed on?
This in no way proves the authenticity of the messages. Tanguy himself admits that he has only a personal conviction regarding the origin of the revelations. But his statement inadvertently shifts the debate: the question is no longer simply ‘Did Mediapart fabricate or misattribute these messages? ’, but also ‘who held these archives and how did they end up in the journalists’ hands?’.
Mediapart, for its part, claims to have dozens of conversations and to have independently verified them. The Financial Times also reports that Mediapart claims to have corroborated its information with party members who were present at the time. Bardella categorically maintains his denial and states that he intends to prove in court that these accusations are false.
The legal proceedings could therefore take on particular significance. It will shift part of the debate from the political arena to that of evidence, even though the rules of a defamation case do not simply involve asking the newspaper to reveal its sources.
One thing, however, seems certain: politicians’ digital records from their younger years now constitute potential archives.
A conversation from thirteen years ago may still exist on a computer, in a backup, as a screenshot, or in the possession of one of the participants. A pseudonym thought to have been forgotten can be cross-referenced with other records. And above all, the people who were there at the time are also getting older. Some remain loyal. Others leave a party, change their views, fall out or simply decide, years later, to recount what they witnessed.
This may be the real lesson of the Bardella affair, quite apart from whatever the courts may decide regarding the current charges.
The internet does not forget easily.
But neither do former comrades .
