Pluralism, honesty, independence: what the law requires of broadcasters
From its very first article, Act No. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on freedom of communication lays down a principle: “Communication to the public by electronic means is free”. Television and radio service providers (the “channel(s)”) are nevertheless subject to specific obligations, since the Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique, Arcom (French audiovisual and digital regulator), must guarantee “the honesty, independence and pluralism of information and of the programmes that contribute to it” (Article 3-1).
According to the Conseil constitutionnel, “the pluralism of socio-cultural currents of expression is in itself an objective of constitutional value”. The public must therefore have access to programmes that guarantee the expression of differing tendencies, “in compliance with the requirement of honesty of information” (Decision No. 86-217 DC of 18 September 1986, recital 11). The Conseil d’État also links the requirement of pluralism to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (CE, 13 February 2024, No. 463162, Reporters sans frontières, paras 8 and 9).
In practical terms, within this framework, channels are subject to three obligations: pluralism (1.), honesty of information (2.) and independence of information (3.). Arcom ensures that they are complied with, subject to review by the courts (4.).
1. Pluralism: an obligation of diversity
Each channel must give airtime to different currents of thought and opinion (Article 13 of the 1986 Act). Arcom’s oversight covers two aspects: the speaking time of political figures and the balance of the channel’s output as a whole.
Speaking time of political figures
Each month, channels send Arcom the speaking times of political figures, which Arcom publishes as open data (Article 13 of the 1986 Act). Two rules apply (Deliberation No. 2017-62 of 22 November 2017, Article 1). The President of the Republic, when speaking in national political debate, together with his staff and the Government, must account for one third of total speaking time. Political parties, for their part, must receive fair airtime, assessed according to their representativeness (election results, elected representatives, opinion polls) and their contribution to national political debate.
Arcom checks compliance with these rules every quarter. During election periods, a specific deliberation applies (Deliberation No. 2011-1 of 4 January 2011).
Broadcast times matter. According to the Conseil d’État, these obligations “cannot be regarded as having been complied with without taking into account the times and conditions of broadcast” of programmes. It thus upheld the formal notice served on CNews which, between 1 October and 15 November 2021, had broadcast 82% of the executive’s appearances and 53% of those of La France insoumise between midnight and 5.59 am (CE, 13 January 2023, No. 462663, paras 9 and 10). Since then, Arcom’s board decided on 30 June 2026 to disregard political speaking time broadcast between midnight and 5.59 am, with effect from 1 October 2026 (board decision announced in a press release in July 2026).
Election periods call for particular vigilance. On 17 June 2026, Arcom served formal notice on CNews in respect of its programming on the evening of Friday 20 March 2026, ahead of the second round of the municipal elections in Paris. The channel had broadcast a report of around twenty-five minutes devoted to a single candidate, followed by a debate in which the other candidates were systematically criticised; a rival’s campaign rally was only shown at the end of the programme. Arcom found a lack of “restraint and honesty”, “irrespective of the rules applicable to speaking time” (Decision No. 2026-325 of 17 June 2026, paras 4 to 7).
Balance of the channel’s output as a whole
Since 2024, oversight is no longer limited to political figures. In a case brought by Reporters sans frontières (RSF), an association that defends freedom of information, the Conseil d’État held that Arcom must take into account the diversity of opinions expressed by “all participants in the programmes broadcast” (CE, 13 February 2024, cited above, para. 15), “including commentators, presenters and guests”, as its press release specifies. It also pointed out that Arcom enjoys a wide margin of discretion.
Arcom clarified its method in 2024. Channels remain solely responsible for choosing topics and speakers, and Arcom does not classify speakers according to their opinions. It checks that there is no “manifest and lasting imbalance” with regard to the variety of topics, the diversity of speakers and the plurality of views expressed, over at least a quarter, or a month for rolling news channels (Deliberation No. 2024-15 of 17 July 2024, Articles 1 and 2).
The Conseil d’État adopted the same approach in 2025. Several associations wanted each current of thought to have airtime proportional to its weight in French society, and asked Arcom to require certain channels to revise their line-up of presenters, commentators and guests accordingly. The Conseil d’État dismissed their applications: Arcom makes an overall assessment of the diversity of expression, without having to classify speakers according to their opinions (CE, 4 July 2025, No. 494597, paras 11 and 12).
In practice, Arcom does not label speakers: it examines the views expressed on the topics covered. Following a complaint from RSF, it reviewed a sample of 168 hours of CNews news programming broadcast in March 2025. It first identified the five dominant topics: security, the war between Ukraine and Russia, La France insoumise, Franco-Algerian relations and political life. It then found that, in more than three quarters of the segments devoted to these topics, speakers expressed essentially the same view, or that dissenting views remained isolated (decision of 12 June 2026, paras 13 and 14). It also took into account how programmes were organised: the role of opening editorials, the place of regular commentators and the weight of commentary compared with the presentation of facts (paras 19 to 21 and 24). Having found a manifest and lasting imbalance, it served formal notice on the channel on 12 June 2026.
An editorial line remains permissible. Arcom makes this clear: pluralism “does not preclude the existence of an editorial line” and does not require a balanced representation of all currents in every programme. It does, however, preclude the manifest overexposure of a single current of thought across the programming as a whole (Arcom decision of 12 June 2026, para. 23).
2. Honesty of information: verify, source, qualify
The rules on honesty are set out in a 2018 deliberation which channels undertake to comply with (Deliberation No. 2018-11 of 18 April 2018, Article 1). The channel must:
guarantee “the accuracy and the sources of each item of information”;
present uncertain information in conditional terms;
show rigour in the presentation and handling of information;
present controversial issues honestly, giving airtime to the different points of view.
These rules also apply to programmes that combine news and entertainment (CE, 21 December 2023, No. 470565, Société C8, paras 4 and 6). Moreover, while a channel may follow its editorial line, it must nonetheless distinguish facts from commentary on them (para. 10).
A lack of rigour may be sanctioned. CNews had presented on air a “ranking of the safest countries” without any reservation as to its methodology. It was in fact the result of an online survey fed solely by the users of a website, and none of the speakers had expressed any doubt as to its reliability. The 50,000-euro penalty imposed on the channel was upheld by the Conseil d’État (CE, 21 July 2025, No. 492834, paras 4, 5 and 7).
The European Court of Human Rights has endorsed this type of oversight. In 2022, Arcom served formal notice on CNews following remarks made on air about the public health situation. After its appeal was dismissed by the Conseil d’État (CE, 4 August 2023, No. 465757), the channel applied to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court held that the formal notice did not breach Article 10 of the Convention, which protects freedom of expression (ECtHR, 18 June 2026, No. 41355/23).
3. Independence of information: limiting the influence of shareholders and advertisers
First, the law requires Arcom to ensure that the economic interests of shareholders and advertisers do not undermine the honesty, independence and pluralism of information (Article 3-1 of the 1986 Act).
The same article requires it to ensure that channels’ agreements guarantee the rights of journalists set out in Article 2 bis of the Act of 29 July 1881. Every journalist thus has the right to refuse any pressure, to refuse to disclose their sources and to refuse to put their name to content that has been altered without their knowledge or against their will. Nor may a journalist be compelled to accept any act contrary to their professional convictions.
Providers of national general-interest radio stations and of television channels broadcasting political and general news programmes via digital terrestrial television must also have a committee of independent figures responsible for ensuring the honesty, independence and pluralism of information (Article 30-8 of the 1986 Act).
Changes of shareholder are regulated. Since Act No. 2016-1524 of 14 November 2016, the regulator may not approve a change in the direct or indirect control of a company holding a digital terrestrial television (DTT) broadcasting licence within five years of that licence being granted, except in the event of economic difficulties threatening its viability (Article 42-3 of the 1986 Act).
Independence is not assessed solely programme by programme. In the case mentioned above, RSF criticised CNews’s main shareholder for interfering in the channel’s programming. Arcom had replied that it could only rule on the basis of specific examples drawn from identified segments. The Conseil d’État held, on the contrary, that independence must also be assessed in the light of the channel’s overall operating conditions and the characteristics of its programming (CE, 13 February 2024, paras 18 and 19).
The independence of information therefore rests on several complementary safeguards: Arcom’s oversight, the rights granted to journalists, the committees provided for by law and the regulation of changes of shareholder.
4. From formal notice to sanction: Arcom’s powers
First, the formal notice. Arcom publicly calls on the channel, whether private or public, to comply with its obligations (Articles 42 and 48-1 of the 1986 Act). Certain organisations may ask it to act, including associations defending freedom of information that are recognised as being in the public interest. It was thus at RSF’s request that Arcom served formal notice on CNews on 12 June 2026 (see above).
Next, the sanction. If the channel fails to comply with the formal notice, Arcom may, depending on the seriousness of the breach, suspend a programme for up to one month, reduce the term of the licence, impose a financial penalty or withdraw the licence (Article 42-1 of the 1986 Act). Financial penalties are capped at 3% of turnover, and at 5% in the event of a further breach of the same obligation (Article 42-2 of the 1986 Act). The 50,000-euro penalty imposed on CNews over the “ranking of the safest countries” is one example (see above).
Where appropriate, judicial review. Arcom’s decisions, including a refusal to act, may be challenged before the Conseil d’État (CE, 13 February 2024, para. 10). For example, at RSF’s request, the Conseil d’État in 2024 annulled Arcom’s refusal to serve formal notice on CNews regarding pluralism and independence of information, and ordered it to re-examine the request within six months.
In practice
Channels retain their editorial freedom, but it is exercised within a framework that is monitored across their entire output and over time:
An editorial line is permitted, but a channel may not reduce its output, on a lasting basis, to a single current of thought.
All speakers count, not just political figures.
Night-time no longer counts towards political speaking time since 1 October 2026.
Facts must be verified, sourced and distinguished from commentary, including in entertainment programmes that cover current affairs.
Sources
Act of 29 July 1881 on the freedom of the press, Article 2 bis
Deliberation No. 2011-1 of 4 January 2011; Deliberation No. 2017-62 of 22 November 2017; Deliberation No. 2018-11 of 18 April 2018; Deliberation No. 2024-15 of 17 July 2024
Conseil constitutionnel, Decision No. 86-217 DC of 18 September 1986
CE, 13 February 2024, No. 463162, Association Reporters sans frontières and Conseil d’État press release
CE, 4 July 2025, No. 494597, Association Cercle droit et liberté and others
CE, 21 July 2025, No. 492834, Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information
ECtHR, 5th Section, 18 June 2026, Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information - CNews v. France, No. 41355/23, discussed in the Gazette du Palais, 2026, No. 22
To find out more, our firm advises audiovisual sector players on these issues.