"On Monday, Libération said to Bernard Arnault, who is applying for Belgian nationality, "Get out of here, you rich bastard! This Tuesday, the daily newspaper did the same thing by publishing the headline "Bernard, if you come back, we'll cancel everything". A media coup revealing an era of radicalisation and partisan entrenchments.

There are headlines but not really unanimousThis is not only the case for the European Union, but also for other countries, even within their own "camp", and could even prove counter-productive, if they had any vocation to build rather than destroy.

Making a headline is of course a whole art, and a necessary one to catch the eye, to appeal, to make people want to read. To make people want to read, that is quite legitimate. And in our hurried, zapping, flickering lives, the art of the headline and the catchphrase is essential. To slam, to challenge, to summarise but not too much, to make you want to know more. To incite without soliciting, to provoke without insulting, that is the subtlety. Making a headline is quite an art, the art also of not crossing the line, not exceeding the limits, while considering that, it seems, the freedom of the press has no limits. This is undoubtedly where the bone lies.

Is a major press title like Libération shooting itself in the foot with this type of process? Beyond the ephemeral "success" of its "coup", which some people are obviously proud of, the image, the induced quality and the "reputation" undoubtedly benefit inversely.

But this title is also indicative of an era of radicalisation, of partisan entrenchments when they are not xenophobic. When times are hard, people take refuge behind their barricades and call for an uprising. The other, responsible for all the evils, becomes the enemy. The presidential campaign had set the tone, and we are now back in an intense period of class struggle, of rejection, of a war of fire, of the fragile fire of a growth that we are struggling to revive. So we condemn as others accused, we condemn dressed in virtue, because the time is also one of lessons in morality and virtue that we constantly give to each other. We are all responsible, but especially the other.

And since we live in so-called civilised societies, where "respect" and "responsibility" are the new omnipresent watchwords, which clutter up mouths like marbles clutter up cheeks in diction exercises, we no longer lynch in the public square but in the public media. It is no longer a time for the guillotine but for bashing, even Montfort (especially Montfort?). In other times and places, Mr Arnault would have been pilloried or tarred and feathered.

Of course, this is not so new, in his tribute to Pierre Bérégovoy, François Mitterrand evoked those who "delivered a man's honour to the dogs". But now, in 2012, the press is more than ever looking for readers, constantly and desperately, and that changes everything. Subscribers are fewer, the race is on for sales per issue, so the front page is recruiting, and therefore sometimes racy. This works for some, when it is not repulsive for others, who feel that the press sometimes loses its soul, its credit, or more simply its interest.

In 2012, we have all been won over by the Twitter attitude, but we must also beware of the 'Twitter effect' which consists of summarising everything, if possible in a humorous, ideally caustic way. Twitter brings us back to the time of "Ridicule" (the film), we are looking for the right word, the word that makes us laugh sometimes, that also kills.

But while a tweet may (unfortunately) make the front page, a front page is not a tweet.