Il y a quelques semaines, chez Constant, nous découvrions le Bruzz hebdomadaire accompagné d’un fascicule du Vlaams Belang, flanqué du slogan “Eerst onze mensen” (nos gens d’abord). Une petite note de la rédaction se distançant du fascicule était jointe afin, j’imagine, de soulager ses lecteurs.     

La publicité politique dans un organe comme Bruzz est agaçante parce qu’elle nous rappelle à quel point cette presse est dépendante de ses publicitaires. Mais il y a quelque chose de fondamentalement beaucoup plus dérangeant dans ce cas précis.  

Lorsque Bruzz tend son micro d’une main à, disons, la gérante d’une nouvelle librairie faisant la part belle à l’afro-littérature, et de l’autre, prend l’argent d’un parti qui promeut ouvertement des idées racistes, sexistes et queerophobes, il y a une dynamique d’exploitation qui se met en place. Ainsi, Bruzz exploite la richesse de Bruxelles et de ses habitant.e.s afin de remplir ses pages tout en faisant la promotion de ceux.celles-là mêmes qui œuvrent à la détruire.

Ce geste se dessine comme un aveu. Promouvoir le VB est, pour Bruzz, la même chose que de promouvoir n’importe quel autre parti. C’est pourtant probablement très clair chez Bruzz qu’être reconnu comme parti politique légitime est la première nécessité de tout parti d’extrême droite. Cette stratégie, on le sait maintenant, a bien fonctionné pour le VB : à coup de costumes cintrés, de coupes impeccables et d’un énorme budget publicité, notamment dépensé chez Bruzz. 

Chez Constant, la découverte du fascicule VB joint au Bruzz nous avait enragé.e.s, tout comme les résultats des élections côté flamand quelques semaines plus tard. Mais à Bruxelles, aucun candidat d’extrême droite ne gagna les élections, ni aux dernières ni à celles d’avant d’ailleurs. C’est assez clair, le VB, ses candidats et ses idées haineuses n’ont aucun écho à Bruxelles. De ce fait, nous questionnons la place que Bruzz se dit occuper dans la ville culturelle bruxelloise au vu de ce cas manifestant un manque cruel d’éthique ou de simple bon sens. 


A few weeks ago, the Bruzz-weekly arrived at Constant sealed together with a booklet published by Vlaams Belang, carrying the slogan "Eerst onze mensen" (our people first). A note from the editorial staff explained that they distanced themselves from the content of the booklet but this did not do much to mitigate the impact of these two publications arriving together.

To find political advertising attached to a journal like Bruzz is in itself already annoying because it reminds us of what it means that the press is depending on its advertisers. This particular gesture was hard to read otherwise than as a legitimation of extreme-right ideas, as if promoting VB for Bruzz is the same as promoting any other party. The aftermath of the elections has made it clear that being recognized as legitimate was a first necessity for VB. This strategy as we know now, worked well: by curbing their appearance, showing up in impeccable suits and spending a huge amount of money on advertising (of which a part was notably spent on Bruzz), they managed to finally kickstart what they call themselves 'de-diabolisation'. But we felt there is something even more disturbing going on.

When Bruzz reaches out with one hand to for example the manager of a new bookstore that focuses on Afro-literature, and with the other hand takes money from a party that openly promotes racist, sexist and queerphobic ideas, an exploitative dynamic takes shape. Even if the editors do not agree with the decisions of their advertising department, Bruzz effectively fills its pages with the cultural wealth of Brussels and its multiplicity while at the same time carrying the message of those who are working to destroy it.

At Constant, the discovery of the VB leaflet attached to Bruzz enraged us, and still does, weeks later, as did the results of the elections in Flanders that followed. We are relieved but not surprised that in Brussels no extreme-right candidate won the elections, as was the case in previous ones. It is quite clear that VB, its candidates and their hateful ideas have no echo in Brussels. As a result, we ask ourselves how Bruzz thinks about itselfs and its role of voicing Brussels' cultural life. It's inability to be firmly on the side of the city it says to represent shows either a worrisome lack of journalist ethics or a cynical acceptance of the corruption of publishing.

[this needs to change if we include the info on the legal process in 2016?] Yes, now that we know that, we have to look at the problem from a very different angle. Bruzz is not to blame