HASVocalists of different sensibilities, we are very demanding in terms of public freedoms, by profession as well as by citizenship. It is in the light of these principles that we support the approach of the NGO Reporters Without Borders (RSF) aimed at obtaining from the entire audiovisual sector the application of the law on the independence and pluralism of the ‘information. Unfortunately, despite its skills, the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication (Arcom) did not in fact enforce these principles.
The judgment rendered by the Council of State February 13, in the procedure between RSF and Arcom, is a crucial decision for democracy and the rule of law. However, we have heard all kinds of nonsense on this subject that has nothing to do with the truth.
Even beyond the reactions on the CNews channel, many commentators, who clearly did not read the decision, or did not understand it, suggested that it could limit freedom of expression, that it aimed to put the media under surveillance. An aberration. On the contrary, the law invoked by RSF aims to guarantee the diversity of points of view on television and radio broadcasts.
The audiovisual policeman reminded of his responsibilities
That the media of the group which is the subject of the referral to Arcom indulge in excesses, to the point of distorting the facts, while their company was a party to the procedure, is no small matter. That editorialists distort the meaning of a decision is even more serious. It is the very principle of justice that is contested; as if respect for the law was not the way to ensure the common good.
In a France dominated by polarization, where the political prism too often disrupts the honest reading of reality, it is important to recall a few points of law. Pluralism is an objective with constitutional value. Article 34 of the Constitution provides that “the law establishes the rules concerning freedom, pluralism and independence of the media”. The decision focused on these last two points.
Have we really examined this essential judgment, rendered in the general interest, which is the subject of the controversy? Did we dwell on the words chosen by the judge to guide Arcom in its work? Often, no. RSF, however, has only requested the application of the law, in accordance with its mandate to promote and defend the freedom, independence and pluralism of journalism. The Council of State therefore reminded the audiovisual and digital policeman of his responsibilities, namely the exercise of effective control of the independence and pluralism of information.
You have 38.2% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.