Salomé Saqué: "They posted instructions on how to kill me on the Internet."

BarcelonaSalomé Saqué (1995, Lagny-sur-Marne, France) is the most influential French journalist on social media, according to the 2024 ranking of the prestigious Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Specialized in social rights, feminism and international politics, since 2021 she is a member of the independent media outlet Blast, where she heads the economics section. She is the author of Sois jeune et tais-toi [Be young and silent] (Payot, 2023) and Resist (2025), an essay on the rise of the extreme right that has become a publishing phenomenon in France and is now published in Spanish by Plataforma Editorial.

Political instability, Sarkozy's imprisonment,the robbery at the Louvre...Is France's greatness over?

— For me, the real French crisis is not one of "greatness," but rather that of public services. The Louvre robbery, for example, reveals a structural problem of lack of resources. Security workers had already gone on strike in June to denounce the lack of staff, and the director had alerted the Minister of Culture. Public services have been under attack for years, politically and economically. To link this to another current issue, Nicolas Sarkozy has contributed greatly to this destruction. His conviction demonstrates, on the contrary, that our justice system works. What worries me is how the case has been covered in the media: few journalists have followed the trial closely, and many media outlets have simply repeated Sarkozy's words, which attack the justice system. It's the same strategy we saw with Marine Le Pen, accused of corruption. You can criticize a judicial decision, but you cannot discredit the institution itself. Doing so endangers the rule of law. And this, for me, is the real risk to French democracy.

The far right has never been so close to power in France. How is this?

— There are several factors. In every country where the far right has come to power, there has been economic decline and increased inequality: fertile ground for that vote. Today, in France, more than 16% of the population lives below the poverty line and 350,000 people are sleeping on the streets, while the wealthy have doubled their assets in twenty years. Added to this is the trivialization of hatred. In France, for decades it was unthinkable to give a voice to the far right: the memory of Vichy and collaboration with Nazism was too recent. But in the 1980s, alongside Jean-Marie Le Pen, the media opened their doors to it because it generated an audience. It's a fish that bites its tail: the more people vote for the far right, the more presence it is given, and the more presence it has, the more people vote for it. Finally, there is political responsibility. Liberals and conservatives, especially Emmanuel Macron, have contributed to the growth of the far right by presenting themselves as a bulwark against radicalism. By adopting their language, they have ended up trivializing their ideas.

And the left hasn't been able to articulate an alternative?

— I think that in France, above all, there is a problem of personalization, which is fundamental in a presidential regime like ours. We focus a lot on people and ideas. But, at the same time, I notice a strong internal division: the left-wing parties have a lot of difficulty understanding each other. They managed to form alliances for a time to create the New Popular Front, which, remember, allowed them to win the elections, but they have very different sensibilities. We'll see what happens, but it's clear that in France we don't have a united left capable of making a clear proposal.

You describe far-right violence as an ignored terrorist threat. Why?

— Because those are the terms used by the French Interior Ministry and Europol, which oversees security in Europe. It's a discovery I made while working on the far right. I didn't know the danger was so significant. In France, far-right violence—as the French administration calls it to distinguish it from the political far right—is the second-biggest terrorist threat in the country. What surprises me is that it's barely discussed in the media. We've put a lot of focus on jihadism, and that's normal after what we've experienced in France, but the threat from the far right is very high and almost invisible. Cases of young people becoming radicalized in a far-right environment are not isolated. After the June 2024 legislative elections, we saw a resurgence of racist acts and speeches saying that, once Marine Le Pen came to power, they could do whatever they wanted.

In the book, you highlight the increasingly prominent alliance between billionaires and the far right. What do they gain by promoting this ideology?

— They're gaining ground, power, and elections. This is evident in the United States, but also in Europe. In France, the clearest case is Vincent Bolloré, an ultra-conservative billionaire who has bought channels like Canal+, production companies, publishing houses, and is even trying to acquire UGC movie theaters. He controls virtually the entire cultural network. The objective is twofold: to create an image favorable to these ideas and to generate confusion in public debate. They generate biased controversy, and the entire media ecosystem owned by the billionaires amplifies it. Their channels reproduce the same stories, until they end up being discussed in public media as well. The result is a saturated and polarized news space in which the far right sets the agenda. They also discredit anything that might hinder it: institutions, judges, journalists. It's a never-ending process: when you give in, the far right advances. The media are trapped: if you don't give them a voice, you are accused of censorship; if you do, you amplify their propaganda.

What, then, is the way to address the extreme right from the media?

— Ideally, we should have reacted earlier, when the far right didn't yet have the clout it has today. First, we must accept that, no matter what you do, they will always accuse you of being "left-wing" or "far left." Their narrative is based on the idea that they are victims and excluded from public debate, when in reality they are everywhere. Based on this, we must stop giving them a place in the public eye for the sake of supposed balance, but without falling into the error of ignoring them. Ignoring them has never worked: they have conquered social media, which they have mastered before anyone else. But when we invite them to the mainstream media, we are offering them a new audience and, above all, legitimacy. A YouTube video is not the same as a prime-time interview. Good media coverage consists of documenting their ties to radical or neo-Nazi groups, their incompetence, and their lack of an agenda. It's not about "talking to" the far right, but about "talking about" the far right. And above all, don't forget the rest: talking about the economy, inequality, housing... issues that affect people's lives.

What makes the Internet such a favorable medium for the dissemination of these ideas?

— Radical ideas capture more attention than verified information, as does fake news. The algorithms and moderation policies of platforms like X and Meta are biased toward the spread and impunity of hateful messages; this makes them very powerful propaganda machines for the far right. That's why I believe stronger regulation of social media is necessary. I myself have reported several death threats, rape threats, and harassment threats, and none of them have been successful. This impunity creates an ideal ecosystem for misinformation and hate.

Do you interpret cyberbullying as a form of coercion?

— In my case, there are two dimensions. The first is online sexism, which stems from all political sensibilities. According to a study by the European Parliament, women are 27 times more likely to be harassed than men. Added to this is the far right: hundreds of coordinated accounts spread false information about me, and many people believe it. I open the book with this: a widely consulted neo-Nazi website published a list of journalists—including my name—who were to be shot in the back of the head, and posted instructions on how to kill us. This harassment is part of my daily life and it's exhausting. Just because it's online doesn't mean it's not real. We can't ignore it.

You claim indignation and joy as engines of resistance.

— Being outraged by injustice is not only legitimate: it's necessary. Outrage is the origin of social action. Historically, great progress began with outraged people who mobilized. Furthermore, joy is essential to sustain resistance. Allowing ourselves moments of happiness, celebrating small victories, and working collectively generates hope. For young people, the absence of hope is especially paralyzing in a context of climate crisis, inequality, and the decline of democracies. But hope is not passive: it is built through action. Stories of resistance, such as that of women in Iran or the massive mobilizations in the United States against Donald Trump, show that citizens can make a difference.