Information, misinformation, and controlling the narrative: Emmanuel Macron’s communication put to the test by media labeling
Emmanuel Macron’s support, during a public meeting with readers of the EBRA group’s regional daily newspapers, for a certification system, carried out by professionals, for websites and networks that disseminate information, caused a media and political uproar. Presented by some as an initiative to combat disinformation but by others as a tool for censorship, it highlights a fundamental issue: who can define what constitutes “reliable information” in a landscape saturated with content, algorithms, emerging websites, and financial considerations? This has always been an extremely sensitive subject in a democracy, but one that is becoming increasingly important.
The project and the intention: restoring confidence or redefining the rules of the game
The idea of introducing a label, not a state-run one but a professional one, is based on the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), launched by the NGO Reporters Without Borders. In this context, it is not individual articles that are labeled, but editorial processes, including independence, transparency, journalistic rigor, and respect for sources. The stated intention is clear: to restore trust in the media. The aim is therefore not to control information, but to promote ethical journalism. Many media outlets in France, including those belonging to the EBRA group and the radio and television public channels, as well as foreign media outlets, already support the JTI.
Hostile reactions: Fear of a drift toward the suppression of freedom and appropriation of the narrative
As soon as E Macron’s position was released, politicians, media outlets, and editorialists, particularly those affiliated with Vincent Bolloré’s group, denounced the project as a form of implicit censorship or political control of information by the state. In the words of editorialist Pascal Praud on CNews: “The Ministry of Truth is born.” For them, the idea of a label, even a non-state one, carries with it the seeds of a hierarchy of good and bad media. For these opponents, the risk lies less in the label itself than in what it symbolizes: the questioning of the idea that all media, even critical, marginal, or committed, are legitimate in principle in the name of freedom of expression.
The Élysée’s response: reframing, reassurance, and control of storytelling
The executive responded quickly to these accusations. At the Council of Ministers meeting on December 2, Emmanuel Macron formally denied any intention of introducing a “state label” or a “Ministry of Truth” with Orwellian connotations. A video released in response by the presidency explicitly aims to denounce what the Elysée considers to be a distortion of the President’s words, using irony and contrast to reinforce the idea that the accusation of censorship is more a matter of polemical rhetoric than substance. Through this strategy, the President is seeking to regain control of the narrative: emphasizing the voluntary, professional, and independent nature of the label, and the genuine desire to promote responsible journalism, independent of the state.
What this debate reveals about communication, the media, and our democracy
In this age of “augmented truth,” and now that the engineers of chaos have proven their effectiveness, offering a credible label could provide a point of reference for audiences who are lost and overwhelmed by misinformation. This labeling approach is, in fact, a profound trend in our societies in all areas: for compliance with CSR rules, for food quality, for donations to NGO. But information is a subject of a special nature, a prerequisite for democracy as much as a tool for tyrannical regimes. How can the credibility of its labeling be guaranteed?
Several conditions are necessary: total transparency of the process (public criteria, independent auditing, and pluralistic governance); the involvement of various actors in journalism, including independent, alternative, and grassroots media, to ensure diversity of voices; educational communication aimed at the public to explain the role of the label, its limitations, what it does not do, judge articles or guarantee the absence of errors, and what it does not replace; critical thinking; and, finally, the parallel maintenance of complementary measures (media literacy, access to diverse sources, protection of media pluralism and investigative journalism, etc.).
The balance between regulation and freedom, between quality and plurality, between narration and opinion, will not be easy to find. But one thing is certain: the less political power interferes, the more it leaves the initiative to the media themselves and to journalists, and relies on citizens’ freedom of choice, the more likely it is that authentic and recognized labeling will make it possible to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Eric Giuily, President of CLAI
Elissa Bezaz, Account Manager
Alice Pilliod, Consultant