Is the French press really free?

Is the French press really free?

Is the French press really free?

Pierre Bergé, chairman of the World Supervisory Board, severely criticized the newspaper’s literary supplement in an interview with the political review “Charles”, drawing a detailed response from the Society of Daily Editors on Thursday.
“I most often disapprove of the literary supplement of the World. Because there is no talk about books, “said Mr. Bergé, accusing some columnists of not liking literature or books.

“It is extremely rare that in the supplement we talk about books, real books,” added the businessman, who says he prefers the Figaro books.

The board of managers of the Society of the Editors of the World

(SRM), in an internal press release, regretted that Mr. Bergé “  tries to intervene in the editorial line of the newspaper by hurtful remarks against the + World of Books + and all of its employees ”.
SRM “would like to remind the chairman of the supervisory board Pierre Bergé that he signed on November 2, 2010, with the two other shareholders Matthieu Pigasse and Xavier Niel, the Le Monde group’s charter of ethics and professional conduct”.
The Charter, which defines the relationship between the newspaper’s owner and journalists, stipulates that “The shareholders of the Le Monde group guarantee the economic independence of its titles (…) but are careful not to intervene in their editorial choices and their treatment of information ”.
“We invite Mr. Bergé to reread the charter which he himself signed three years ago. We have a copy at their disposal, ”concludes SRM.

The SRM is one of the components of the “Pole of independence”, the group’s minority shareholder, while the trio formed by Pierre Bergé, Xavier Niel and Matthieu Pigasse control the majority of the capital.

Does being a shareholder of a newspaper give rights to the editorial line of a newspaper?

Edwy Plenel clarified in the March 2012 broadcast presented by Frédéric Taddei of “Tonight or never” that the line of a newspaper is decided by the editor, who believes.
On the other hand, the raw information, that on which any journalist relies to motivate his columns is that of AFP. AFP which also has a political line.
Obviously, a journalist is responsible for his pen and the subjects covered, if these are not censored by the editorial staff. Often, becoming a shareholder in a press group, suggests to some readers, that the payer becomes the editor . It is a mistake.
Investing in the press ensures continuous advertising visibility, but also protects your own interests. The influence of the payer plays on the balance in the event of bad press from the latter.

For example, information on the Nazi past of Bertelsmann 

, the leading European media group, was only disclosed in the competing press, never in the media groups it finances. Who owns what -> (2008)
http: //
How far can the requirements of the financier go?
The financial requirements can only be done drop by drop knowing that the majority of journalists are vigilant and would quickly block as part of a censorship of “capitalists” as explained by Robert Ménard in 2007:
Who is the big boss then?
The big boss is the State for internal affairs in the country and the Quai d’Orsay for information from abroad. AFP has always been the media arm of political action.
In 2009, the state officially got hold of AFP. Before that, the State placed conciliatory men at the helm of AFP, such as Jean Marin, elected to the direction of the Agency from 1957 to 1975.
Men like Claude Roussel, Roger Bouzinac or Henri Pigeat have always had their hand hand, a direct line with Matignon. This is obviously still the case today.

The editorial line of the main source of information in France is mainly determined by the AFP CEOs who are linked to the State.

Public opinion the sinews of war “Public opinion” this generalizing concept supposed to summarize the emotional state of the public on such or such question, is in fact particularly studied, oriented because dreaded.
Thus the Press directs its ones towards themes and eludes others. The case of the coverage of the French action in Cote d’Ivoire “Operation Licorne” is almost that of a dictatorship. No image, no testimony, big headlines without explanation – the French government wanted to protect its economic interests. On the other hand, at the same period, the BBC did not hesitate to club its front pages of French military action in Cote d’Ivoire. It was then possible to lift the veil and discover the post-colonial actions of France in Africa.