Listeners wonder about the speaking time of politicians on the radio. To respond to them, Emmanuelle Daviet, Radio France antenna mediator, receives Erik Kervellec, general secretary of information at Radio France.
Emmanuelle Daviet: Some listeners would like to know what rules govern the speaking time of politicians outside of electoral campaign periods?
Érik Kervellec: So the principle is the following, and it is enshrined in the law, public and private radio and television stations, everyone is concerned, must guarantee pluralism. In other words, on the air, the fairest possible expression of the different political currents, according to their supposed weight in French society. So the rule is a third of the speaking time for the executive, i.e. the head of state, plus the government, and then the remaining two thirds for all political groups.
To be precise, in these two thirds, the most powerful parties in quotation marks, because it is very relative, those which have, in any case the most elected representatives, which won the last elections, which are favored by the polls, these parties are entitled to more time than the small ones, in quotes, again. And there is someone who watches over and controls all of this, ARCOM, the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication, to whom we must, Radio France like the others, transmit our accounts, channel by channel. chain, all year round. ARCOM, which has a full arsenal of sanctions to dissuade us from going above and beyond.
Listeners are also wondering when does the campaign for the European elections officially begin and what are the main rules to respect during this period?
We’ve known this since just this week, so it’s very good timing, it’s a relevant and topical question. It will start on April 14. From then on, for eight weeks, we, the audiovisual media, will have to keep very precise accounts of all the votes that will be expressed in this election. A basic citizen who says he will vote for Mr. So-and-so or Mrs. So-and-so counts as the words of a political tenor. And in the end, we must be able at any time to justify that we have given everyone fair access to our channels, and that all opinions have been expressed there.
Another topic of interest to listeners and they want to know who is responsible for establishing these rules regarding speaking time and election campaigns?
It is precisely ARCOM that does this in the name of the Republic. So it’s not nothing. And the rules vary depending on the type of vote, and the analysis made of it by the regulatory authority. It varies over the duration of the campaign, on the principle itself. Is it simple fairness between the parties or perfect equality at a certain moment, it exists, from time to time, in certain elections.
And even ARCOM decides on what should be taken into account. There is the speech of women and politicians on the one hand, therefore what we call, the speaking time. But ARCOM can also sometimes ask us, beyond that, to note all the comments of our journalists, our columnists for the prosecution or the defense, what we call air time. This is what happened, for example for the last two presidential elections, and it was over a very short period, and fortunately because frankly, I will not hide it from you, it is very complex, very complex to implement.
Do these rules apply equally to all media actors or are there exceptions or specificities?
Yes it doesn’t apply to everyone. Online media and social networks are absolutely not subject to these rules, like us in the audiovisual sector. So of course, there are plenty of people who say it’s not fair, because you have people on one side who are hyper-policed, and others who only do what they please.
According to ARCOM, the rules provided for by the legislator in terms of pluralism are simply inapplicable on the Internet. Because unlike antennas, everyone can have access to it, as they wish, and intervene as they wish, ultimately online. Between publications on social networks, uploading videos, organizing shows on Twitch for example, the spaces for speaking are infinite, explains ARCOM, while on television and radio, the perimeter is circumscribed. That makes all the difference.
For ARCOM, these two worlds have nothing to do with each other. We cannot duplicate pluralism in the digital space. So can we be satisfied with this analysis? Not sure, some say. If we look at the importance taken today by everything that is said on the Internet, which can be likely to tip over an electoral campaign, we have seen in the past, significant facts which meant that opinion changed at a certain point, but things still move a little on the matter.
On the occasion of this campaign for European women which we spoke about a moment ago, online platforms are called upon to follow recommendations, which are supposed to respond to this risk of manipulation, which could harm the smooth running of the election. And that’s really new.