Seized by the Reporters Without Borders association, which criticized CNews for not respecting pluralism on its channel and for lacking independence vis-à-vis its shareholder Vincent Bolloré, the Council of State ordered Arcom to to respect the diversity of currents of thought and opinions on the channel, but also to count the speaking times of columnists, hosts and guests in the same way as those of political figures.
The Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication (Arcom) now has six months to enforce the law. Alexis Lévrier, media historian and lecturer at the University of Reims, analyzes the situation and deciphers the difficulties that Arcom could encounter and its avenues for implementing new rules.
franceinfo: Is this decision by the Council of State, as RSF says, historic?
Alexis Lévrier: I think yes. There is a law from 1986, which left certain points unclear and which is above all very dated. This was before the emergence of news channels and before these news channels tended to evolve into opinion media. Where instead of investigative reporting, we had people on set talking, commenting on the news with the same term, the word “editorialist” which is used for people who often have nothing to do with the press. There is therefore a porosity between: Are these policies? Are they journalists? You never really know. What the Council of State reminds Arcom is that it does not play its role in the name of respect for freedom of expression. She refused to count the speaking time of personalities who were not political. However, there are people who are in between. I will take an example, Philippe de Villiers, who has been in politics all his life and who again campaigned for Éric Zemmour in 2022, has a weekly show on CNews. CNews does not count him as a political figure and Arcom found nothing wrong with it.
“What the Council of State reminds Arcom is that it has a role to play beyond people who are in a political campaign or who are affiliated with a party at any given time.”
Alexis Lévrier, historianat franceinfo
You have to take into account a journey and commitments that are often completely real.
We must take into account the hosts, the columnists, the guests. But what does this famous 1986 law say? Should the calculation only concern policies since that is what Arcom said?
It is not precise on this and what the Council of State has just recalled is that this framework must be clarified.
So it was an interpretation of Arcom?
Yes and this is the interpretation of Roch-Olivier Maistre, who is the president of the CSA and now of Arcom, who has always been to say, it was in an interview with Figaro at the beginning of 2021, that the CSA is not the court of opinion and therefore we do not have to count the speaking time of journalists who could be hired. He was already thinking of Éric Zemmour and we can clearly see the contradictions in which Arcom itself found itself since a few months later, the CSA, at the time, decided that Éric Zemmour was ultimately political.
Before he was a candidate.
Yes and that’s what launched his campaign. So there is an in-between, an ambiguity that it is time to clarify. It’s going to be complicated, especially since the Council of State only gives Arcom six months to put in place rules. It doesn’t have to be an incomprehensible gas plant. We will need clear rules. The good thing is that they accepted the journalists.
“Journalists have a specific role in the production of information and opinion and we will finally reserve the term ‘editorialist’, perhaps for those who deserve it, that is to say journalists.”
Alexis Lévrier, media historianat franceinfo
Are these rules going to be applied to all audiovisual media?
We must not be fooled by the far-right’s arguments. I listened to CNews Tuesday evening. I had the impression that it was like after the Marchandeau decree in 1939 which was one of the first anti-racist laws and which targeted the far-right press and all the far-right newspapers said that it was the end of freedom of expression. I’m everywhere had titled: “I am everywhere reminds its readers that the press is no longer free”. We had this on CNews Tuesday evening. The strategy of the extreme right when it is at the gates of power is always to say that there is no longer freedom of expression and once it is truly in power, there is no longer any of freedom of expression at all. So you shouldn’t be fooled by that. The decision of the Council of State will apply to everyone, including public media. However, CNews’ entire argument for years has been to say that they are an oasis of pluralism in the middle of an ocean of wokism and leftism. If indeed the public media only invite people from the left, we will see it, so CNews should be happy.
We already have difficulty scrupulously respecting politicians’ speaking time. You should know, for example, that when a local elected official, a mayor, speaks on news that is not national, that only concerns his municipality, it is counted in favor of his party. I’m making a small digression, but shouldn’t that be changed in the law?
This I do not know. Perhaps certain things should be clarified. For the moment, outside the campaign, it is one third for the executive and two thirds for the other parties depending on respect for fairness. So it’s already a complex calculation. I’m not saying it’s going to be easy.
How exactly will Arcom do it?
They have six months to put this in place. I am not in their place. They are not inactive. It is still necessary to qualify. There are reprimands, financial sanctions for C8, for CNews and above all at the moment, there is a re-examination of the convention. It must be remembered that the frequency does not belong to these private owners. Theoretically, Vincent Bolloré cannot do what he wants on CNews. The frequency belongs to the State, therefore it belongs to the French and it is only granted for a given period, in exchange for scrupulous respect for a certain number of obligations which are in particular pluralism, the independence of the information, which was also recalled by the Council of State. Concerning the independence of information, we know what the internal independence is within its editorial staff. We know what happened at iTélé, on Europe 1, at JDDthis is never respected in the Bolloré media and elsewhere, the Society of Journalists of JDD and of Paris Match, self-scuttled last week. So, there is no internal pluralism, there is no independence of the editorial staff. The Council of State reminds Arcom that it must ensure this pluralism and this independence. This is an excellent thing.
Is it the Arcom that will decide that such a columnist is from the left, such and such a guest is from the right?
So already, we will not take journalists into account. It’s very simple, it’s been fixed since 1935, if you have a press card, you are a journalist.
There are journalists who don’t have one!
Yes, it is sometimes by choice, but we must defend the uniqueness of this profession. I also see it as an invitation to defend the autonomy and singularity of the profession of journalist. There is a press card. Some do not ask for it because it is the evolution of this profession, but this status comes with rights, with specific obligations and the Council of State had the intelligence not to make journalists concerned by this. On the other hand, there are people who are in between. On CNews, we don’t know if they have a press card or not.
“Everyone will have to clarify their role on these channels and put an end to this term “editorialist” which is one of the most beautiful words in the history of the press that we now use for anyone.”
Alexis Lévrier, media historianat franceinfo
Clarifying things means that when we want to invite someone, for example here at franceinfo, we invite specialists, experts all day long, we will have to ask them who they are voting for?
No, but we don’t ask journalists to vote and still be happy. If you invite academics, you don’t ask an academic what they’re going to vote for.
But he can make comments that tend towards a party.
I don’t think at all that this is the wish of the Council of State, but if there is a political commitment, for example, if we have a political background and sometimes I see some of my colleagues who have a political background and who do not say it on the air, I believe that we ourselves must assume it. It goes without saying, it should be a democratic obligation.
So it’s a transparency operation for everyone?
Exactly. And it also applies to us, to academics.
Watch this interview on video: