A reader wonders (and questions me) about the concomitance, in last Thursday’s La Croix, of two pieces of information published on the same double page, “perfectly opposite each other”, he insists, apropos of the same subject: the pig. On page 12, in the Legal notices section, we could read this: “Notice of liquidation of the company Les Petits Cochons. » Just opposite, on page 13, this brief: “The pork butchery sector targeted by the Competition Authority. » Liquidation of Little Pigs on one side; investigation into the other’s pork butcher. Hence my correspondent’s suspicion: “I cannot believe that the connection of this news is fortuitous. »
What does that mean? Would La Croix, through this surprising response, have wanted to surreptitiously imply that the liquidation of Petits Cochons was not unrelated to the Competition Authority’s investigation into the pork butchery sector? Could the Little Pigs be a collateral victim of this investigation? Would the Cross know things that it cannot write, in black and white, but that it would strongly suggest, through layout tricks? I hesitated to contact the editorial management to clarify this matter. Then I told myself that with everything going on, maybe she had other fish to fry. And that the pork could wait. So I leave my correspondent with his questions. And his suspicions. Hoping it won’t keep him from sleeping.