Speech by Martin Ajdari, President of Arcom, at the 8th edition of Médias en Seine.

What will plurality mean in 2026?

Only the spoken word is authentic,

Dear Sybile Veil, Dear Pierre Louette,

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Friends,

I'm delighted to be able to speak to you here, in this magnificent house of radio, music and information that I know (so) well.

There's a certain logic in continuing this morning with plurality, since it is one of the answers to the questions successively addressed this morning: plurality is one of the dimensions of freedom of expression, it strengthens confidence in the media, it contributes to the rigor and quality of information, and the public service is a major player in this.

By offering all currents of thought the opportunity to express themselves, and citizens the chance to inform themselves and form their convictions in a free and enlightened manner, plurality is " one of the conditions of democracy ", as the French Constitutional Council reminded us back in 1986.

40 years on, despite the permanence of this principle and its anchorage in our fundamental norms, its implementation has given rise to some turbulence. Some have gone so far as to question the very idea of regulation, in the name of unlimited freedom of expression, threatening to leave the field wide open to the most powerful - those with the loudest voices, or even those with the ability to control the voices of others, thanks to algorithms.

Without going to such extremes, and from the point of view of Arcom, the audiovisuel and digital regulator, what are the provisions of the debate on plurality in 2026?

First and foremost, plurality means respect for freedom of expression: that of journalists, presenters and guests, allowing all voices and currents of thought to express themselves. This is our compass at Arcom: every time we make a decision, we remind ourselves as much as necessary that the law is first and foremost the guarantor of freedom.

But plurality is also the concrete guarantee that the freedom of expression of some cannot be exercised in the public arena without ensuring that of others.

This requirement takes two complementary forms in regulation: external plurality and internal plurality.

External plurality, i.e. the diversity of information supplies, makes it possible to guarantee the diversity of sources, and to prevent the public's choice being limited to a single media outlet or group of media outlets controlled - it's a purely academic hypothesis - by an authoritarian state or by an eccentric techno-billionaire. For media with a structurally diverse supply - such as the print media - the only rules that apply are those relating to concentrations, designed to prevent one group from holding an excessive share of the audience (readership), to which can be added a guarantee of public access, along the lines of the Bichet law.

Internal plurality, i.e. the pluralist expression of currents of thought within each medium, essentially concerns television and radio, and is justified by the scarcity of terrestrial frequencies and the possibility they offer of reaching a very large audience, usually free of charge.

Since 1986, this managerial framework has been reflected in the precise monitoring of "speaking time given to men and women politicians", which must correspond to the representativeness of their respective parties. Even if this scheme gives editorial offices a headache, especially during election campaigns, when the "circo. by circo." balance has to be ensured, it is fairly well established and, I believe, accepted in principle.

But since 2024, very recently in fact, the Conseil d'Etat's case law has imposed a broader concept of internal plurality. Arcom must now take an interest in the expression of all points of view on air (those of columnists, guests, etc.) and, in addition to controlling the speaking time of politicians, it must ensure "the absence of a clear and lasting imbalance" in the expression of all opinions on channels or stations producing news.

Under the provisions of the resolution adopted by Arcom last year in response to this reading, the lasting nature of an imbalance is assessed over a long period, of at least one month for so-called all-news channels, and three months for other channels.

The manifest nature of the imbalance must be assessed on the basis of three criteria: (1) the diversity of guests, (2) the variety of topics covered on air, and (3) the plurality of opinions expressed.

When I took office less than a year ago, I initiated a dialogue with the channels concerned to find out how they were managing to adapt to the new rules. What emerged was that most of them felt they were in a position to meet these requirements in terms of guests and, for some of them, themes, sometimes thanks to the use of artificial intelligence.

However, at this stage, no channel has an automated tool for analyzing or measuring, over time, the opinions expressed on air. In fact, unlike party membership, which has a quantifiable and objectivise dimension, the qualification of the orientations and opinions expressed by each individual can prove very thorny.

These rules, especially the more recent ones, are the subject of intense debate.

For some, they are anachronistic. Internal plurality requirements were devised at a time when the few radio frequencies available gave their rights holders unrivalled firepower, justifying stringent control of internal plurality. Such control would be less legitimate today, when more than half of French people get their information from social networks, and there are 26 national channels, including 4 news channels.

For others, on the contrary, the preservation of spaces for the balanced confrontation of ideas, on each of the regulated media, is more essential than ever, in these times of polarization of public debate, accentuated on social networks.

This is a fundamental debate that falls within the full legitimacy of Parliament, as it concerns one of the foundations of freedom of expression. The examination of the next draft legislation on the right to information, which must adapt French law to the European regulation on media freedom and translate the États généraux de l'information, could be the occasion for the legislator to clarify his will, one way or the other.

For the time being, Arcom, on this subject as on all others, will continue to do its job and enforce a law as interpreted by the Conseil d'Etat. We will therefore diligently and methodically examine any submissions of a case before the court, such as the one RSF has just announced.

Beyond this, and with the aim of clarifying and objectivising the sometimes confusing debates that this extended approach to plurality gives rise to, in the coming weeks we will be sharing the measurement and analysis tools that Arcom has been working on and browsing since 2024.

Echoing this work on internal plurality, which concerns all channels, we must also say a word about public audiovisuel, which is subject to a specific requirement for impartiality.

Thanks to the diversity of its guests and the tremendous variety of topics it covers, public audiovisuel plays an indispensable role in ensuring effective plurality.

However, in France, as elsewhere in Europe, and like many public institutions, public audiovisuel is increasingly questioned about its impartiality - a requirement laid down by law, and guaranteed by Arcom.

In response, Arcom's objective is to work with public audiovisuel companies on processes, measures and indicators to define and guarantee impartiality, with the aim of reinforcing the confidence of our fellow citizens. This is the purpose of the mission I have entrusted to Bruno Lasserre, whose conclusions will be made public by the end of spring. The presidents of Radio France and France Télévisions have already taken some very useful initiatives, which I would like to commend, such as publishing the names of all on-air speakers.

The second major project announced for 2026 is the modernised rules governing external plurality:

Today, these rules are applied on a media-by-media basis, setting in particular a maximum of 7 national frequencies for each TV group, and a cumulative coverage of 160 million inhabitants for radio groups. But this does not take into account either the actual audience or the global, multi-media influence of these groups.

And it was in light of recent developments in the scope of certain private groups, present on all media (TV, radio, press, digital) that the idea emerged, during the États généraux de l'information, of designing a new merger control based on "global" share of attention, and no longer "media by media", to ensure external plurality.

This new form of control, which should be harmoniously coordinated with that exercised by the Competition Authority, will be one of the aims of the draft legislation on information to which I have listed. The aim, of course, is not to prevent all capital-intensive developments, which may be a condition for survival, but to measure their effects and, if necessary, make provision for appropriate requirements in terms of independence or internal plurality.

On these issues too, it will be up to the Government and then Parliament to decide.

For all that, and this is my final point, all these reflections on developments in the rules governing plurality run the risk of being in vain if we don't collectively find answers to the structural problems threatening our audiovisual media.

Today, we benefit from a high-quality and diverse news supply, both public and private. But this supply is suffering, and more than half of all news-producing media recorded losses in 2024.

One reason for this is the unbalanced competition from platforms, which have immense technological and financial resources at their disposal to capture attention, while operating in a much less constrained regulatory manager. Lidl's recent decision to transfer its TV advertising budget to digital is a clear demonstration of this disparity, which raises legitimate concerns and should serve as a warning signal.

Moreover, the situation is deteriorating even faster than we had made provision for in the benchmark study published in 2024 with the DGMIC, and the weakening of our media raises the threat of information deserts, which mean the death of plurality and the radicalization of opinions, as recent American history teaches us.

In this respect, our first objective is to support our historical media, both national and local TV and radio stations, which will be one of the major challenges for Arcom in 2026, and in particular for the DTT white paper we have launched. In this context, it is equally vital that public audiovisual services have predictable means that are adapted to their missions.

The second objective is to ensure the visibility of plural currents of expression in a world dominated by platforms.

The revision of the AVMS directive, announced for next year, should therefore be an opportunity to strengthen the visibility of services of general interest (at least national DTT channels) on all supplies and interfaces. At the same time, it's important to resist the temptation of some car manufacturers to abandon the presence of radio in vehicles.

Last but not least, we need to find safeguards against the risks of algorithmic confinement, whether intentional or not, on platforms, which expose us to information that is far from plural, sometimes distorted by AI, or even deliberately misinformed in line with the agenda of platform owners or foreign powers.

This is one of the challenges where the growing importance of the Digital Services Regulation (DSA) is essential, firstly to reveal these mechanisms, and secondly, where appropriate, to provide a strong, collective response. For it is here, too, that plurality is at stake, a prerequisite for both our democracy and our sovereignty.

Thank you all very much.