Debate Democracy - Problems

I. Debate Democracy - Problems

« "When peoples can't change things, they change words.» Jean Jaurès^*

A. Media relays of economic liberalism but also of fascism.

Media are businesses and programs are commodities. It is owned by major players in the race for profits, initiated by a few billionaires. This fact influences the liberal economic orientation of information. In Western countries, we can see two main filters that will lead to a liberal economic orientation of information. The first is the property bond, with very rich people. Their toys are used to lower their taxes and our social rights. Some of these owners even find it amusing to promote fascism. This is the case of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. The directors, star hosts, the richest and the most liberal (economically), can change from one to another and maintain a unique media mindset. The second filter is advertising, i.e. companies that will ensure the smooth running of the business. We therefore have a media logic where the solutions to problems can only be solved within the liberal economic framework. Any challenge to this ideology is excluded or expressed in a marginal way. The debates that exist are framed and subject to this logic. We are thus witnessing aberrations. In 1944, the CNR (National Council of the Resistance) created a social and democratic program that was put in place at the liberation. Today, this program, such as social security, is being called into question, because "we no longer have the means". How can a rich country like France, in the year 2025, no longer afford what was done in 1944, in a country devastated by war?

The ownership of the media also allows a hold on politics, with more mercantile views. I will give French examples. An empire comprising transport, logistics and energy, like that of Vincent Bolloré, may depend on public commendation. From there to establishing control over elected officials, there is only one step. The Dassault media favor the purchase of Dassault armaments. TF1 and LCI are promoting the construction of Bouygues. It's the same group. We can think that the omerta on nuclear power has its origin here (Bouygues Constructions has a speciality in the construction of nuclear power plants). We can go further in denouncing this business information. Large companies play the role of customers over the media (advertising). However, these media can refrain from denouncing, or spare facts that damage the image of their clients. In a way, the information is little interested to large companies, except in notable cases. The media are not at all tempted to designate a large company, in the face of its competitors, for its anti-social or anti-ecological policies. Except when an oil spill or relocations occur. These cases seem rare and punctual.

The vision of the world that the media propose to us is that of a submission of the peoples, of their democracy, to economic interests, to economic liberalism, and to the oligarchy that is behind it. Opposing this logic is irrational, irresponsible, they tell us. However, this economic liberalism is a political construction. Millions of euros can travel at speeds that no one can dream of ever reaching. Numerous treaties come to gag the peoples and organize their competition. Europe, whose lack of democracy I regret, is crushing the people with a liberal economic technocracy, and reinforces this logic. In France, unions and social movements are denigrated and belittled without really giving them the opportunity to defend themselves and explain themselves publicly. They give them little speaking time. These partisan and ideological accusations are often simplistic and caricatured. The media reproach them for refusing change, reform as such. Change for change's sake, reform for reform's sake, it's ridiculous. Since these unions cannot express themselves easily, they are also reduced to irrational behaviour of fear or anger, simple grunts.

A concrete example of the way in which the media is driving for economic liberalism in France is that of pensions. On the one hand, we must be frank, there are two schools of economists who propose a reform of these pensions. One is a well-known liberal who wants to raise the retirement age. And the other social, which wants to maintain the retirement age at 60 and wants, for example, to make finance contribute. It is a school that seeks to redistribute wealth to the middle and poor classes. In the media, only the liberal school expresses itself and expresses itself in a hegemonic way. The social school is excluded from the mainstream media.

One of the themes of the media is the insecurity and stigmatization of Muslims. The goal seems obvious, to favor the right and the far right. What other point is there in making new laws on the veil and secularism again and again? Or to make new security laws again and again, such as high-security prisons in French Guiana. The question of effectiveness is no longer even asked. Suffice to say that the more it scratches human rights, and provokes scandal, the better. They can also be completely counterproductive, it doesn't matter. Didn't Nicholas Sarkozy admit: "I'm in action, not in reflection"? It is a policy of a brute, caught in a spiral of one-upmanship. In the long term, the fascists' discourse is legitimized and they are strengthened electorally.

Today's media is at the service of billionaires, who are very wealthy oligarchs, serving this "commodity" to serve their interests. They want to pay less tax on pensions, health insurance, social services in general. This is expensive for them and they have the means to meet their needs through a pure market logic. Some people find that paying taxes to the rest of society is unbearable. Societies that have allowed them to enrich themselves and from which they have profited a lot. Among these billionaires, some find this so unbearable that they militate for fascist regimes. This commodification of the media is their privilege, and not a tool for the proper functioning of democracy. They have as much power as these media are superficial. Who forget to talk about the real issues.

B. Simple, superficial and emotional media.

Generally speaking, the media bombards us with a host of details, but the essential is sometimes omitted, or remains unclear. A willingness to play with emotions, such as fear or disgust, is obvious. This is not without political consequences.

A historical example, the consequences of which were dramatic, is the Iraq war in 2003. By concealing the real reasons for this war, the media allowed it. Today our media are no better than they were then. We all knew the color of American tanks in 2003. But very few journalists have dwelt on the real reasons. With a multitude of details, American citizens believed in an Iraqi threat, were afraid of Saddam Hussein. He has been wrongly associated with Ben Laden. He was supposed to have "weapons of mass destruction". His cruelty was a reality, but "liberating" a people, to go and torture these people, makes no sense. By discussing small details, such as Ben Laden and Saddam Hussein, did they meet? What day? Where? And thus create the illusion that he had "weapons of mass destruction"? All this was false. Journalists could seriously doubt it. First of all, Ben Laden and Saddam Hussein are not at all of the same political tendency. And then the paradox is that if Saddam Hussein really had "weapons of mass destruction", the Americans would not have attacked. Then the Iraqi regime was financially drained and it was doubtful that it would have the means to build them. Discussing details, with a strong emotional charge, the most important question simply forgot, even in Europe: "why this war?" The answer seems to be control of Iraqi oil. This superficiality and emotionality of the American media, which also exists in our country, has really made this war possible! Today our media in our countries are not better.

Let us ask ourselves the question: "why this superficiality and emotionality?" Obviously, it is not to manipulate us that the media have chosen such language. No, the reason is to prepare ourselves to swallow their ads. How do you expect their customers, the advertisers, to sell us products that are not always useful, to stimulate our desire for change, with products that can still last, if we really think? This is a problem for advertisers, ads become less effective. The media, it is well known, sells "available brain time".

One of the aberrations that the media is capable of is dissertations on images, on different communication strategies. The thing is analyzed, dissected in an intellectual, scientific way and can take up a good part of the airtime. This makes me say that the spectators are not hostile or impervious to intellectual interventions. They are not morons, even with mind-numbing media. And let's note that the level of education is not bad in Europe. On the other hand, what is distressing is the subject of these "documentaries". The subject of these dissertations are of a disconcerting superficiality.

Another example of this superficiality is the media treatment of Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the Insoumis. All it takes is for one of them to play football, with a picture of a minister on the ball, and all the media cry foul. It's insensitive, but still not as serious as demonstrators who have their eyes blinded or mutilated, because of the disproportionate use of public force! The type of information that the media forgets. If Jean-Luc Mélenchon expresses his hostility against the Israeli government, he is accused of anti-Semitism. Since when, does criticizing a government, which is still suspected of genocide, legitimize such fatwas? What is the link with democratic values? Is the fact that he leads the LFI in a sectarian way more serious than legislating with laws, such as the retirement law, which are totally unpopular? We see here how a media treatment, focused on details, can lead to two different treatments depending on the sympathy or antipathy experienced by the media and their hierarchy.

In conclusion, I offer you this nice Chinese proverb which says: "The wise man points to the moon, the idiot sees the finger". The finger is the superficial but most visible aspect. Our media are obsessed with the finger, they are the specialists of it!

C. Elections and a failing counter-power.

I would like to give a little history of the last presidential elections in France. For the past twenty years, politicians have been wanting to be for change, declaring themselves anti-system. It is a communication strategy, marketing, which hides a certain reality. When 80% of workers are opposed to the pension reform, and it is actually voted on, there is a problem. Would the destruction of the providential state be completely unpopular? The very word "(economic) liberalism" is in fact completely rejected. And yet it is these elected officials who win the elections. Leading to disappointment and a feeling of being betrayed. This leads to a worrying vote for the far right. What for? Where does this paradox come from? Are we really being governed against our will and manipulated to elect and re-elect these politicians? Isn't there a social will in France, which is contradicted from election to election? Generating a discontent that is causing the far right to rise, another scam.

The media candidate in 2007 was Nicholas Sarkozy. His show was about the security issue. A subject where the media avoided any critical spirit. This is how the "super cop" turned out to be in reality, the last of the crooks and subsequently convicted in many cases! No less! However, don't the shocking, brutal proposals, the scandals around human rights, reveal problems of efficiency and a security escalation? A demagogic policy, which are moral swindles! Didn't he confess: "I'm in action, not in reflection"? His security proposals became an important theme of the 2007 campaign. A theme that is in opposition to social issues, precisely.

In 2012, the highlight was that Nicholas Sarkozy was very unpopular. The most right-wing candidate of the other party, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, had fallen, giving way to François Hollande. He was not the only candidate on the left. A certain placid, soft image stuck to him. However, at the crucial moment, the socialist primaries of October 9 and 16, 2011, he benefited from the support of the media. This is probably the only moment in his career that he benefited from a dynamic image, the best candidate to be able to beat Nicholas Sarkozy! It looks like a construction of circumstance. In the end, at the time of the election, he didn't score that great.

The next president is Emmanuel Macron, who won the elections in 2017 and 2022. His main argument was a vote in opposition to Marine Le Pen. Suffice to say that the social question was obscured. And despite this, his human rights record is not good. He is accused of disproportionately using public force during demonstrations. An unhealthy climate is felt with systemic racism and discrimination. France has again delivered weapons to Israel. The dissolution of the National Assembly in 2025 is suspected of having been done to support the RN (far right).

I have the impression that for many years, we have made choices without really knowing their scope. I am not even talking about the concealment of France-Africa. It is our responsibility and we hear very little about it. Through the media, it is as if we were dispossessed of our vote. And I'm not even talking about the blackmail of the financial community and the billionaires, about a policy that they would disapprove of. And in the end, let's ask the question, who do politicians obey: the people or money?

D. Conclusion.

Reflecting the interests and values of the billionaires to whom they belong, the media promote economic liberalism and sometimes even fascism. These are commodities that must be profitable as if freedom of the press could be bought on the stock market. Their real customers, those who buy ads, want simple, superficial and emotional information. A citizen-consumer who thinks about it is less sensitive to it. This method allows you to discuss a lot about details, while obscuring the real issues. This leads to a paradox, the French, who want social policies, end up electing those who destroy them. Hence the feeling that for many years, in France, citizens have been dispossessed of their vote.

Democracy, as we maintain it today, is based on a simple principle. It is the possibility of printing, from character stamps, by soaking them in ink, a sheet. It was Gutenberg's printing press, which gave rise to the written press. But the world has evolved, radio, television, the Internet, democracy has not. We still live in an XVIII^th century. Let's create the democracy of the XXI^th century. And I am not even mentioning the problem of media concentration, around a few large press groups.

• Debate
  Democracy
  Problems
• Debate
  Democracy
  Solutions
• Debate
  Democracy
  Exemples 1
• Debate
  Democracy
  Exemples 2

Last modified on Thursday 01^th of January 2026 at 11:51 am