The Same Battle, New Stage: France and Finland’s Public Media Wars
On 5 May, the French National Assembly (lower house of Parliament) published a report so eagerly awaited that it crashed the Assembly’s website: the final report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Neutrality, Functioning and Financing of Public Broadcasting. The report and debates surrounding it represent another example of a cultural battle that has taken place in very similar circumstances in Finland and elsewhere.
The context is familiar: an economic situation where public finances need painful savings; upcoming elections (in this case, the 2027 presidential elections); a political climate increasingly adversarial and radicalised; the rise of far-right parties bringing about repeated criticisms of a perceived left-wing orientation of discourse in public media. And ultimately, the creation of a parliamentary commission to explore the neutrality, functioning and financing of public broadcasting organisations.
The commission was a massive endeavour: it operated for six months, starting in November 2025, and conducted no less than 200 interviews, including many famous TV personalities, public figures, and industry captains. It was also widely considered to be an unmitigated chaos: insults, threats, cancellations, aggressive questioning and responses, breaks to restore order, all followed throughout the months by the public like a soap opera. Most critics focused on the behaviour of the Commission’s initiator and rapporteur, far-right deputy Charles-Henri Alloncle. Before the commission even started its work, he made online and on-air personal attacks and accusations against public personalities, denounced supposed scandals, and was accused of fomenting hate campaigns. His questioning methods were qualified as “McCarthyism”, he was accused of presenting his personal opinions in the media while debates were ongoing, and the interviews he conducted were so riddled with incidents that the president of the commission suspended its work to prepare and impose new operational rules. In addition, it appears that deputy members of the commission received a list of hostile questions for interviewees from a private media group; a complaint has been lodged for illegal influence peddling.
In the end, the report prepared by deputy Alloncle was so controversial that it was almost denied publication, a very rare occurrence; it was eventually narrowly adopted by the commission thanks to last-minute votes of representatives who openly declared that they only reluctantly voted in favour of publication to prevent future conspiracy theories.
This is the document that broke the French National Assembly’s website, a 551-page report containing 69 recommendations. Some will once again sound familiar: a cut of 25% in the public broadcaster’s budget, the biggest cut in the organisation’s history; cuts to public funding such as those supporting movie production that ultimately bring financial returns superior to their costs; and recommendations to remedy supposed issues with public media impartiality. Some other measures recommended would lead to a politicisation of public broadcasting services.
Most commentators consider that a discussion on reorganizing the public audiovisual services for better efficiency and identifying potential dysfunctions was a worthy goal. However, it was clear from the beginning that this commission was conducted as a political tool for far-right representatives to weaken confidence in public services as part of a “culture war”. Even the French Prime Minister publicly regretted the “missed opportunity” of a report that “missed the point”.
It remains to be seen what effects the report will have on the future of French public broadcasting. In the best-case scenario, the clumsiness with which debates were conducted will prevent the most damaging measures from being taken seriously or implemented. However, it is also possible that the authority of a report sanctioned by the National Assembly will fuel far-right arguments towards a privatisation of public services, a move very damaging for democracy, as was seen, for example, in the United States.
Such risk might be higher in France than it was in Finland, as financially powerful private media organisations with political agendas are already waiting in the wings. On the other hand, the French tradition of revolt when freedom is threatened is always ready to spring. A parallel debate is ongoing at the moment in the field of book publishing, where several major publishing houses were acquired by large media conglomerates which imposed new politically oriented editorial lines. Recently, however, most authors of one of the most prestigious publishing houses, Grasset, announced they would leave it after the firing of the director by the new owner for refusing to relinquish editorial independence.
The movement has since spread to the movie industry as well. On 11 May, six hundred film professionals released a statement warning about the risks to democracy and cultural pluralism resulting from mergers in the industry, through which a single audiovisual group will soon be able to control a larger share of film financing and distribution than ever before. The billionaire owner of the group, Vincent Bolloré, is known for his publicly stated ideological goals and is supported by far-right parties. Publication of the statement was followed by threats of financial retaliation against the professionals involved, and the Cannes Film Festival has now become the scene of intense debate about the future of the French movie industry.
In the end, these examples, and many others, illustrate how media and other cultural fields are at the forefront of the battle for independent media and, ultimately, for democracy.
