Lfrance has not always, far from it, been endowed with public media independent of political power. “State” radio and television have long been considered by the executive power as intended to relay its discourse in public opinion. A long process, the emancipation of public broadcasting from its state supervision is a relatively recent conquest, never quite completed. Because it threatens this democratic achievement, Emmanuel Macron’s project aimed at suppressing the contribution to public broadcasting, better known as the “royalty”, is worrying.
Not that the “fee” can be kept as it is: backed by the housing tax, itself being abolished, linked to the possession of a television, which is no longer the only means of watching emissions, the annual contribution of 138 euros per household must be reformed. It could, for example, be replaced by a universal contribution to take account of the digital revolution, and modulated according to income.
But to present its abolition, according to the terms of the text which must be submitted to the deputies Thursday, July 21, as a simple measure of defense of purchasing power, while promising the maintenance of sustainable financing, is demagoguery and deception. One of two things: either the 3.85 billion euros paid each year to public broadcasting (3.2 billion through royalties and 650 million through the State budget) are guaranteed and the taxpayer will continue to pay them, or this budget will melt away and the promise of sustainability is only a decoy.
Random funding
Suspicion is all the stronger as President Macron maintains conflicting relations with public broadcasting, which he described as “Shame of the Republic” in 2017, and that a savings plan was applied, mainly to France Télévisions, during the first five-year term. In addition, no serious measure to guarantee long-term funding, a guarantee of quality and independence for public radio and television, is included in the bill. Just the creation of a commission guaranteeing their independence is “considered” by the government, but neither its composition nor its role are clearly defined.
The risks of haphazard financing by the State budget instead of an earmarked tax are obvious and serious: pressure on the content of information, premium for servility, increased recourse to commercial advertising, race at the hearing, general weakening in the face of the private sector, loss of international credibility. In addition, the text could contravene the Constitution, which guarantees the independence of public broadcasting, as indicated by a report by the general inspectorates of finance and cultural affairs.
Defending the principle of long-term guaranteed funding does not mean giving a blank check to public radio and television stations as they are. Radio France must diversify its audience while France Télévisions is far from offering a clear alternative to commercial channels.
But, at a time when false information and hate campaigns are flourishing on social networks and when discount “all news” invades screens, the existence of a strong sector aiming for quality, a balance of opinions and openness to all audiences is a key democratic issue. Jeopardizing the laboriously won independence of this building would pose a real risk of democratic regression.