Vatican City – In recent hours, false information has circulated concerning the President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron. It all originated from an X account with just over 9,000 followers. That post, however, surpassed one million views and was recycled without any verification by blogs, websites, and pseudo-news outlets, particularly on the far right.
The claim being pushed alleged that Pope Leo XIV had refused an audience to Macron. This is entirely false. According to the author of the fake news, the supposed refusal was allegedly motivated by a series of arbitrarily stitched-together factors: the purported replacement of the stained-glass windows at Notre-Dame de Paris, the ongoing debate and legislative process in France on medically assisted suicide, and even an entirely fabricated papal disagreement with alleged French anti-Americanism. Not only that: claims went so far as to suggest that the Pontiff intended to remove the Archbishop of Paris. These so-called “revelations”, according to the anonymous X profile, were allegedly spoken by Giovanni Cesare Pagazzi, Archivist and Librarian of the Holy Roman Church.
Fake news and tabloid journalism
A serious journalist, however, does something straightforward: verifies. He phones Archbishop Pagazzi and asks for confirmation. The response is unequivocal: he has never said any of this, and in any case relations with Heads of State do not fall within his remit. At that point, the Secretariat of State is contacted. From the Third Loggia, the reply is just as clear: everything is false.
“There are ongoing contacts through the diplomatic channels of the Élysée to arrange an audience with the Pope; it is simply a matter of finding a date compatible with the schedules of both Heads of State. These issues, moreover, are not on the agenda of any future meeting. Nonsense, nothing more”.
The narrative of a clash between Macron and Leo XIV, however, suits a specific political agenda and fits neatly with the media echo of remarks made by Donald Trump against the French President, following a question from an American journalist. Trump was told that Macron would not be taking part in the Board of Peace. Trump did not check, did not verify. His response was immediate and aggressive: “Yes? He said that? Nobody wants him. If he is hostile, I will impose 200% tariffs on his wines and champagne.”
Journalism that serves whoever pays the salary
This way of handling delicate issues of diplomacy and geopolitics is deeply troubling. Macron described Trump as a bully - an accurate definition, because this is how bullies behave, not Heads of State. Whatever one’s political views, diplomacy and relations between leaders cannot be conducted this way. Even more absurd is the fact that the US President published on social media a screenshot of a private chat with the French President. We are witnessing an escalation of tone, language, and conduct that is genuinely alarming.
On this point, Leo XIV recalled words of disarming clarity:
“A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all is being replaced by a diplomacy of force, pursued by individuals or groups of allies. War has come back into fashion, and a war-like fervour is spreading. The principle established after the Second World War- prohibiting states from using force to violate the borders of others - has been broken. Peace is no longer sought as a good in itself, but pursued through arms, as a condition for asserting dominance. This gravely compromises the rule of law, the foundation of all peaceful civil coexistence.”
In all this, serious newspapers bear a central responsibility: verify, ascertain, check before publishing. Instead, over these hours we have seen individuals who claim the title of journalist without ever having been one pick up an anonymous tweet and amplify it through the outlets that host them. They did not call the Holy See Press Office. They did not call Archbishop Pagazzi. Why? Because, despite being well known in political circles as professional self-promoters, they have neither professionalism nor preparation, nor even the contacts. They often roam about hunting for the “mobile numbers” of this or that monsignor, hoping to con someone with their bluster. They introduce themselves by putting the name of the newspaper before their own, because their own name is unknown. This is the hallmark of a form of journalism that is neither serious nor professional, driven by the logic of the scoop, sensation, sensationalism, and emotional manipulation. A journalism useful to a certain politics because it serves a simple purpose: when there is an enemy to hit, you hit it - even if everything is false.
We are, moreover, dealing with title-claiming impostors who hop from one newsroom to another. The lawsuits that rain down on the outlets hosting them - because of articles riddled with fake news - are numerous and relentless. And that is not all. These individuals are burdened with judicial proceedings, not only for their writing- over which they are sued almost daily - but also for serious violent offences against individuals.
No clash between the Pope and Macron
The story, therefore, is completely unfounded. Archbishop Pagazzi has never said what is attributed to him. Leo XIV has never contemplated removing the Archbishop of Paris and, on political matters, he prefers to meet people to foster dialogue, not to refuse meetings. This confirms another reality: there are those who seek to manipulate the Pope to suit their own ends, but that narrative is far removed from reality. It is worth, however, asking serious questions about a certain type of journalism which, even before harming public debate, is of no service to the Church. It generates clicks, fuels sentiment, stokes conflict, drives traffic—and leaves wreckage behind: it poisons dialogue, polarises the faithful, and discredits ecclesial institutions. We are always talking about the same circles: those who spent years claiming that Francis was not the real Pope, who turned every decision of Bergoglio into a pretext for insult, personal vilification, and reckless judgments, rather than engaging with facts and the concrete exercise of ministry.
There is then a second level, even more unbearable: those who pose as champions of values - sometimes even “traditional” ones in words - while their personal lives tell a very different story. When one preaches well but lives badly, something simply does not add up. This pattern recurs everywhere: in Italy as in the United States. In America, in particular, websites often emerge funded by pro-Trump circles, awash with money and therefore able to buy visibility, dominate rankings, and set the agenda. They speak of the Church as if it were a political party. The outcome is always the same: a manufactured background noise, while serious debate - grounded in truth, source verification, facts, and evidence - is crushed.
For these people, verification is irrelevant, because it is not the goal. The goal is to reach the end of the month with a pay cheque, and those orbiting certain millionaires can afford it - especially in a context where many take information for granted, forgetting that behind it lies costly, exhausting, and often exposed work. That is why today, more than ever, conscious choices are required: to support, financially as well, those who guarantee truthful, verified information, and who provide analysis that helps readers grasp complexity without turning it into cheerleading or propaganda. Because truth, when it is inconvenient, does not go viral. But it remains the only thing worth defending.
fr.D.R.
Silere non possum