Speech by Martin Ajdari, President of Arcom, at the 18th Assises du Journalisme in Tours, France

Only the pronouncement of March 13, 2025 is authentic,

Mr. Chairman, dear Jérôme Bouvier,

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the "Journalisme et Citoyenneté" association,

dear friends,

First of all, I'd like to thank you for inviting me to speak at this 18th Assises du Journalisme.

I won't venture into the subject of news stories, which would demand editorial or legal expertise that I don't have, but I would like to say a few words about audiovisual and digital regulation, its links with the production and circulation of information, and its role in our society.

Regulation and information: I know that the association of these two terms is not necessarily self-evident.

However, from Arcom's point of view, this association is fundamental, since our mission is to ensure that audiovisual services follow certain rules in terms of honesty, independence and plurality of information, rules whose purpose is to ensure that the general public benefits, on TV channels and radio, from professional and verified information; that all currents of thought can express themselves, so that everyone can form their opinion in a free and enlightened way.

Since 2019, Arcom's mission has also been to help fight the diffusion of false information likely to disrupt public order or undermine the sincerity of elections. This mission, which we carry out in conjunction with Viginum (the government body responsible for vigilance against external interference), has been taken up and extended at European level under the Digital Services Regulation (DSA). I'll come back to this later.

More recently, with the European regulation on media freedom, adopted last spring, Arcom, like its European counterparts, was entrusted with the task of contributing to the "integrity of the information space", i.e. all the schemes designed to protect the quality and reliability of the information made available to citizens.

Today, these two missions of regulation and information are faced with a dubbed threat.

The first threat, which has been well documented by the Etats Généraux de l'Information, is the weakening of traditional media, for economic, technological and societal reasons. The manifestations of this are varied: users' "information fatigue", mistrust of traditional media, competition from social networks. According to a study we published in 2024, 53% of French people get their daily information from social networks; and 61% "sometimes" or "often" avoid the news. Added to this are declining advertising revenues and budget constraints, which are undermining the economic model of traditional media, both private and public.

The second threat is more recent, and is aimed at regulation within our democracies, under the combined effect of two trends:

• on the one hand, a more or less illiberal orientation, within the continent itself, which is undermining the foundations of freedom of expression and communication ;
• and on the other, a new form of libertarianism, whose geographical origins I don't need to explain, which intends to free itself from any framework, and therefore from any protection for the weakest.

The 1st is based on propaganda and censorship, the 2nd on the freedom of the strongest, i.e. those with the greatest financial resources, controlled by algorithms.

Between these two approaches, there are European models and there is a French model, the one set out in the audiovisual law of September 30, 1986, which guarantees freedom of communication, while framing it in the service of essential general interest objectives: respect for human dignity, plurality, the protection of children and public order.

This is what distinguishes the responsibility of press publications, which is assessed by the courts alone, from audiovisual regulation, which for nearly 40 years has been entrusted to an independent authority. This distinction is historically justified by the allocation of frequencies to TV channels, which enable them to reach millions of households simultaneously, free of charge, and thus to have a massive impact on the debate on ideas and on cultural and democratic life.

Over the past 40 years, broadcasting methods have developed considerably. French and European law has strengthened and extended the role of the regulator in the digital field, drawing on our experience of content regulation and adapting it to the specificities of these new online players, to meet the challenges of massive diffusion via social networks and video platforms. After all, we can't regulate the infinite multitude of content circulating on these platforms, according to modalities dictated by powerful and opaque algorithms, in the same way as we regulate television programs.

Hence the choice of what is known as systemic European regulation, which focuses on the structural risks associated with very large platforms and search engines. These players, characterized by a number of users in excess of 45 million (10% of the population), are familiar to you: FB, Instagram, X, YouTube and Google in particular (there are around twenty of them in all). And the risks are just as obvious: online hatred, massive diffusion of false information dangerous to public health and electoral processes (Romania), endangerment of persons under 18, not to mention scams and infringement of intellectual property rights.

These very large platforms now have an obligation to better identify the risks associated with their use, and to take steps to mitigate them. For example, by being transparent about their algorithms, identifying sponsored content or deepfakes, and rapidly dealing with reports of unlawful content sent to them by "trusted flaggers". In this respect, Arcom is preparing to approve several new associations (in the fight against online hate, intellectual property and consumer protection, after having done so for the e-enfance association).

If platforms fail to comply with their obligations, they now face substantial legal sanctions, up to 6% of their worldwide sales; and we know that European Commission proceedings can result in legal sanctions running into hundreds of millions or even billions of euros.

The RSN has thus given the European Commission a central competence, which it has begun to make use of by opening several formal investigations concerning X, Meta, TikTok, on content moderation, the operation of algorithms, or the latest elections in Romania.

Arcom, which has been appointed national coordinator of the RSN, is taking part in this scheme by passing on to the Commission the evidence it gathers in France, in conjunction with civil society, the research community and, of course, the relevant authorities. For example, we have just launched a study on the X network to identify the existence of a notice bias in favor of content produced and posted by its famous owner.

This digital regulation architecture is both very recent (2024) and very ambitious. It's no coincidence that it's been criticized by the U.S. administration as liberticidal and protectionist. It must now be allowed to realize its potential, and Arcom will devote all its energy to this task.

The protection of persons under 18 is an emblematic example, with regard to age verification for access to pornographic sites. In 2024, Arcom was given the task of laying down the rules, and we have just set in motion proceedings that may go as far as blocking and delisting offending sites.

As you can see, after years of a status quo in which digital players were able to develop their services free from any real responsibility, a multifaceted regulation is being put in place to respond to the wide range of challenges and risks.

Today, this regulation is being challenged, and we must remember what is at stake: the fight against interference, the quality and honesty of information, the diversity of currents of thought, and respect for human dignity. In short, everything that underpins our democratic model. It's up to us to defend it, while knowing how to develop our rules.

*******

When it comes to information, these rules are summoned to development. The recent period has been marked by a great deal of work, whether in Brussels, with the adoption of the European regulation on media freedom, or with the Etats Généraux de l'Information, which resulted in a large number of proposals, some of them consensual.

All this work could feed into a future draft legislation, some of whose provisions could concern both the press and Arcom. Allow me to dwell on this for a moment.

A first series of measures could consist in strengthening current ethical and governance provisions to guarantee the editorial independence of both audiovisual media and press publishers, vis-à-vis the economic interests of shareholders and advertisers. These measures are long overdue, and I welcome them.

Another measure provided for in the European regulation is to demand that all media - audiovisual media and press publishers - publish the names of their direct or indirect owners whose shareholding is likely to influence decision-making. The aim is simple: to shed light on media ownership and inform the public, as Arcom already does for TV channels.

Finally, the European authorities have decided to strengthen controls on media mergers to better assess their impact on plurality and editorial independence. These effects can no longer be assessed in the same way as today, with television on one side, radio on the other, and the press further down the line, without taking platforms into account.

We'll need to make provision for a global, 360° analysis of these multi-media operations, to assess whether there is a risk of undermining plurality. This is a complex and sensitive project, and Arcom is ready to contribute to it, depending on the choices made by the government in the coming months.

I'd like to end with a final thought: if we are strengthening merger control in order to reinforce external pluralism, it's not out of place to ask what consequences this has for the control of internal pluralism, which is today essential for audiovisual players, especially in an environment marked by the existence of a plurality of supplies, and which no longer has anything to do with the one that prevailed in 1986.

This question has become all the more acute since the Conseil d'Etat extended the scope of Arcom's control of internal plurality in February 2024, at the request of RSF, to cover all news programmes and not just speaking time. We have, of course, begun to implement this new reading, within the framework of a deliberation adopted by the Arcom college in July, and we will shortly be meeting publishers to this end.

I remain convinced, however, that the reflection outlined by the Etats généraux de l'information on the question of internal plurality deserves to be taken further, almost 40 years after the passing of the 1986 law, in the knowledge that the solutions to be found are the responsibility of the legislator.

*******

So, I hope I've shared with you the importance that Arcom attaches to the role of information in its regulatory mission, whether it concerns historic broadcasting methods or new digital media.

This commitment stems from the central role of professional information as a raw material for freedom of expression and democratic debate. And it is as much about protecting it against the new threats it faces (deepfake, algorithmic manipulation), as it is about supporting its economic model: quality information has a cost and a price; and both private and public funding must be forthcoming. On this point too, you'll find us at your side.

I'd like to conclude with a word of tribute to Michèle Léridon, whom I had the good fortune to get to know when I was a member of AFP's Board of Directors, and then when she joined the French Superior Audiovisual Council. Like many of you, I was able to appreciate her great professionalism and her passion for her profession as a journalist, as well as her human qualities. Qualities that I'm delighted to see honored later today at the presentation of the Michèle Leridon journalism book prize.

Thank you all very much.