Opening remarks by Martin Ajdari, President of Arcom, to the Commission of Inquiry into the neutrality, functioning and financing of public audiovisuel, April 7, 2026
Check against delivery
Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Rapporteur,
Ladies and Gentlemen
I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you once again, in addition to the written information I sent you in response to the questions you put to me on November 25. There are more to come, as we received a new questionnaire a few days ago to complete these answers. We'll be happy to do so.
- First of all, I'd like to remind you that Arcom's mission is to guarantee freedom of communication in the audiovisual and digital spheres, which of course includes monitoring public audiovisuel - and other channels - but also many other areas of intervention:
- management of the entire regulated TV and radio supply (planning model and allocation of thousands of frequencies);
- the protection of the creative financing ecosystem, with the integration of Netflix, Disney and Amazon, and the fight against piracy;
- the supervision of digital services (and social networks in particular), in terms of youth protection, online hate and disinformation, or the implementation of digital majority voting if passed;
- access for people with disabilities, through audiovisual means, to the major events in our democratic life, and more recently to public service websites.
This reminder seems to me to be important, as it may seem, when observing the public debate, that the issues of interest to your committee are the only ones for which Arcom is responsible, whereas they represent only a part of it, albeit an important one.
- Since my hearing in November, many of the people I interviewed, and in particular the heads of public audiovisuel, have been able to provide useful insights and explanations, and to dispel certain preconceived ideas. Let me remind you
- that public broadcasting is the leading contributor to news production, particularly local news, at an estimated cost of nearly €1 billion per year.
- it is the leading financer of audiovisual creation, with a budget of €500m/year.
- its funding is significantly lower than that of its equivalents in the UK and Germany, and is down by more than 15% over 10 years if inflation is taken into account.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the heads of the major free-to-air private channels have themselves emphasized the complementary nature of private and public broadcasting groups, in the service of plurality in the information supply and the dynamism of the audiovisuel creative ecosystem, which lies at the heart of our cultural sovereignty.
I would add that in our role of overseeing political plurality, particularly during the recent municipal election campaign, we were able to measure the contribution made by the audiovisuel public service, particularly local radio stations and television channels, in animating and covering the campaign.
There are, of course, grounds for concern - which your committee has also helped to highlight - about France Télévisions' financial situation, for example. On the points that are more specifically the subject of your work, I note that the public audiovisuel companies have already implemented measures aimed at strengthening the confidence of our fellow citizens, such as the "Pluralisme" pages on the Radio France website and the "Transparence" page on the France Télévisions website.
Further progress is possible and desirable. I would like to thank Bruno Lasserre, honorary vice-president of the Conseil d'État, for having accepted the mission entrusted to him by Arcom in the autumn. This mission aims to define the conditions under which public audiovisuel could better measure, implement and report on the requirement for impartiality laid down by law, and for which Arcom is the guarantor. The conclusions of this mission are expected by the end of May.
We wanted Bruno Lasserre to carry out his work in complete independence, while providing him with the necessary support. So I'll let him answer all your questions about his mission.
- Before giving him the floor, I would like to come back to two aspects of Arcom's work which, although they go beyond the scope of public audiovisuel, have been raised during the work of your Commission, and have sometimes led to our work being called into question: on the one hand, the way in which we deal with the sequences shown on the air and which are reported to us; and on the other, our own impartiality.
i) With regard to our procedures for handling submissions of cases before the court, I must remind you that our primary mission, dictated by article 1 of the 1986 law, is to ensure the freedom of audiovisual communication, a founding principle which is subject to restrictions only in cases provided for by law.
These cases, which apply to both public and private channels, include honesty and accuracy of information, offences against human dignity, incitement to hatred, and the protection of persons under 18.
How do we proceed when sequences are shown on the channels we regulate?
1/ As a general rule, we act on submission of a case before the court (and not on self-referral), a point which is sometimes misunderstood, for two related reasons. Firstly, because acting on self-referral would mean monitoring everything (tens of thousands of hours of programming), which is neither desirable nor possible; secondly, to avoid any impression that we choose our targets. This choice has a very important corollary: we are very open to submissions of a case before the court, much more so than the courts, for example, when dealing with press offenses. And I can assure you that all sequences that give rise to debate or public emotion are investigated: between 2023 and 2025, we received 140,000 submissions of a case before the court, covering 900 sequences, which gave rise to 20% of interventions.
2/ We then examine the sequences from the point of view of the publisher's responsibility - and not that of the authors of the on-air comments. In order for us to intervene with the publisher, to call it to order or sanction it, there must be both a breach and a lack of on-air control, for example the rectification of manifestly false information.
3/ We enforce a law that takes into account the jurisprudence of the highest courts (in particular the final court of appeal and the European Court of Human Rights), which impose, for example, a particular tolerance for humor or criticism of political figures.
On the other hand, we expect publishers to take a particularly measured approach to current court cases and international conflicts.
4/ Each submission of a case before the court is rigorously investigated by our departments, in accordance with the principle of adversarial proceedings and in dialogue with the channels, before leading to a collegial decision. This implies a timeframe of around a few months, which remains short compared with that observed in judicial matters, and allows decisions to be taken in a calm context.
5/ Lastly, the law makes provision for legal sanctions (which are just one of the many ways in which we can intervene - there have been 10 in the last 3 years) to be imposed only after investigation by an independent rapporteur, who is called in by Arcom's Managing Director when he suspects that a publisher is in breach of the law, for a reason for which the publisher has already been given formal notice.
During this investigation, the Arcom board cannot be informed, nor especially can it express an opinion, in the same way that a judge cannot express an opinion during investigations by the public prosecutor / prosecution. This is why we cannot comment on the sequences that have caused such a stir in recent days, and which were referred to the independent rapporteur last week.
For the same reason, I will not be able to comment today on the footage currently being investigated by Arcom.
To conclude on this point, to all those who dislike our decisions because of their severity, or on the contrary because of their weakness or absence, I would like to remind you that our interventions - like our decisions not to intervene or not to impose sanctions - can be challenged before the Conseil d'Etat, which is often the case. Since 2023, however, the Conseil has only ruled against us once.
- Lastly, to conclude my introductory remarks, I would like to make a strong statement against the attacks on the impartiality of Arcom, its board and its staff, to which the hearings of this commission of inquiry may have given rise.
- As far as Arcom's board is concerned, I would remind you that its impartiality is ensured by its composition: nine members appointed for their competence and experience by five different authorities, by the strictest ethical incompatibilities to which they are subject, and by the non-renewable nature of their mandate. All decisions are taken on a collegial basis, and where there is a grievance, the parties are heard.
Having spent many hours each week on these committees, I can testify to the richness of the debates, fuelled by men and women whose sole concern is to use their expertise to strike the best possible balance between the protection of freedom of communication and the protection of the public.
- As for Arcom's staff, who are sometimes personally and publicly questioned or subjected to external pressure, I have been able to observe for over a year that they carry out their duties with professionalism, independence and loyalty.
I would therefore like to pay tribute to them and assure you of their full commitment, with complete impartiality, to the missions entrusted to us by law.
Thank you all very much.
Opening remarks by Martin Ajdari
- 134.84 KB
- in french