When I read the guest list of this conference I found out that, to my surprise, I am the only representative of the North American press. Therefore I decided to speak from my seven-year-long experience of Paris correspondent of a Quebec newspaper fairly representative of North American press traditions and ethical values. I'd like to speak about the culture shock suffered by North American journalists coming to Europe and meeting its political leaders, which is the keynote of this conference anyway.

Let me introduce my newspaper. Le Devoir is a Francophone daily published in Montreal. It was established in 1916 to help sustain French in an increasingly English-speaking environment. It has gradually emerged as a respected paper sought after in political, intellectual and cultural circles. Today, Le Devoir is the only Quebec newspaper which is does not belong to one of the two press empires that own all the print media and TV stations in the province. Its ownership structure is unique in the world. Le Devoir really cannot be threatened by ownership disputes as each new director receives 50 percent of the vote in the board the moment he is appointed. He is the sole master of his newspaper and cannot be disciplined or dismissed because of his views. This does not give journalists full protection against political and economic influences. But it protects them at least partially against the monotony of expression, common in the big press trusts which prefer multiple placement of materials on the internet, in radio and television to the pursuit of original publishing ideas.

Back to the culture shocks I suffered upon my arrival in Europe. Let me begin with some typical situations. Two years ago I was supposed to interview the general secretary of an international Francophone organisation. The interview had been planned two months in advance but on the eve of the day I had a phone call from the official's press secretary. After a couple of polite phrases he made it abundantly clear that his boss wished to read the text before publication. Of course I turned him down immediately, citing North American press codes of procedure. The interview was not called off immediately. It was on an express train from Avignon to Paris that I learned it was cancelled one hour before its scheduled start. When I reached Paris I had no other option but hop on the return train.

This is but one of many culture shocks I suffered. Imagine my surprise when I was required to contact DTS, the French secret service, in order to obtain my journalist pass. a DTS official mused at length about his trip to Newfoundland and his passion for hockey, then asked me, as though this was the most natural question to ask, if Le Devoir was a leftwing paper. If this happened in Montreal I would at once file a complaint to the Press Council of Quebec and notify my trade union. The issue would certainly get a lot of publicity. Do in Rome as the Romans do, they say. In Paris, it was "business as usual".

North American journalists in Europe are invariably taken aback by the reverence accorded to political leaders in your countries. I wouldn't want to condemn this approach outright as there is something to be said for reverence as long as it ensures respect for institutions and politics. But its many setbacks should be closely monitored lest they lead to some form of subordination or even obedience.

This reverence causes a gap between journalists and politicians, economic circles and civic society leaders that puzzles anyone who comes from America. In Montreal, I routinely used to call the director of Banque Nationale - a leading local bank. I always used the same trick. I always phoned him around six in the evening when his secretaries had left work. Half of the calls were answered by the president himself, who would greet me, Hi, Christian! I don't have to stress that such intimacy is unthinkable in Europe.

Reverence often prevents journalists from asking the obvious questions. Questions that are on everybody's tongue but which no one dares to ask for fear somebody could be shocked or embarrassed. Yet the role of journalists is not to protect politicians but to make them answer their readers' queries.

i will never forget the morning in the Elysee Palace when i heard my French colleagues ask President Jacques Chirac - Mr President, any comment? i couldn't believe what i heard. This is the kind of questions (are they questions at all?) for which one was fired from exams at my university of journalism. Each time Canadian journalists invade the presidential or prime-ministerial office they look like - pardon my French - a band of savages.

The Prime Minister and the President receive briefings on any topic. They must be prepared to face various uncomfortable questions which tend to be recurrent from various angles, and must be prepared to face criticism. In Ottawa, a government minister was nearly knocked down with a microphone during one of those wild interviews that happen every day in the parliamentary anteroom and are known as scrums, like in a Rugby play.

True, such aggression lacks sophistication and finesse. But at least it keeps political leaders alert. No U.S. or Canadian politician would ever dare to dismiss a reporter seeking details of a corruption scandal with - as Jacques Chirac did - the rebuff, Next question, please. The Czech Prime Minister, who recently called journalists "a bunch of idiots", could hardly get away with it in Canada. There, it would be a political suicide. Not because he would automatically face the wrath of the media but because that would convince the public - rightly or wrongly - that he has something to hide.

In France last summer, this reverence led Le Canard enchanté, France Inter and some other media that wanted to speak their mind on their president to merely quoting or reading my articles for Le Devoir and articles published in The Economist.

During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, American journalists were often criticised as being over- ethical. But the end result of this often aggressive, overblown and generally moralistic approach is, I think, the confidence that Canadian and U.S. citizens have in democratic institutions. When I came to Europe I was surprised to see courts, ministries and public institutions viewed as the snake's nest of corruption although this may not be the case.

"Everybody's corrupt," says my newspaper vendor. It seems most people identify with him. I think the French and European incredulity is partly due to the poor performance of part of the press.

How can you condemn a young Arab for burning a car or disrupting a soccer match if leading figures continue to ignore press questions about the abuse of public funds? Europe in general, and France in particular, are enthralled in a serious crisis of government. The crisis in which relations between journalists and political leaders play their part.

i am not saying the press-politics relations in America are flawless. They suffer from a malaise for which we journalists bear chief responsibility. i want to talk about the contempt of politician and denigrating his role.

Watching Canadian TV news today I am shattered to see so much contempt of politics. a political leader is allowed not more than two or three coherent sentences in the news today. a mere two sentences to explain how terrorism will be fought, the hospital system revamped or primary school curricula reformed.

I'd say that on some channels, the voices of elected politicians form only background noise to the news, a kind of elevator music nobody listens to.

The clip culture is a grand equaliser. To the point of quoting incomplete sentences, shrieks and interjections.

It happens ever more frequently in Quebec that statements made in English are not translated into French so those with no command of the language of Shakespeare are kept in the dark. At best, statements are stripped down to their elementary meanings. Canadian TV has virtually abandoned subtitles. They are thought of as boring for today's viewer!

Instead, a "man-in-the-street" is presented. Even if he has nothing to say. How much time has been wasted on TV and in the newspapers by quoting citizens who are "scared" by kamikaze attacks on the World Trade Centre, "fearful" of the upcoming recession and "saddened" by the coming death.

a longer interview with a politician is ever more difficult to obtain. If you want to spend a whole hour in the company of a government minister, you look like a chatterbox. Especially when important things are happening and the reader wants a context. Politicians themselves have finally bowed to the dictatorship of "short sentences" which calls for a complex idea being squeezed into two or three catchy slogans.

The Quebec premier visited Paris last week. September 11 was hanging in the air so security was the main topic of his visit. It was absolutely necessary to use the word very often in order to calm voters concerned over anthrax and terrorist strikes. So the talk was about "police security", "economic security", even "cultural security". This talk lasted long enough to completely obliterate the meaning of this word.

Ideal journalism is probably a fine blend of North American zeal and transparency with the European sense of distance and analytical mind.

i think we in America have reached the rock bottom of the language of the for illiterate that breeds disinterest in politics. The kind of disinterest Tocqueville mentioned, which leads to the abandonment of public affairs.

Tocqueville also concluded in his book Democracy in America that "newspapers are the more useful the more equal the people are and the higher the danger of individualism is. To think that newspapers merely serve as the warranty of freedom is to belittle their significance: They keep the whole civilisation alive."