1This great political journalist, well-known and recognized for her integrity and the quality of her analyses and her books, still can’t believe it. After her notorious tweet over which so much ink was spilled, [1] Valérie Trierweiler was interviewed by a (male) journalist and asked whether “female journalists, to avoid this kind of situation, should stop sleeping with male politicians.” Our eminent colleague took him by surprise, countering adroitly with an angry, evasive response: “Would you ask a man the same question?”

2This anecdote illustrates yet again the awkwardness of the way in which professional journalism approaches questions about itself…and fails to answer them in substance. It is often through a microscope—should one or not sleep with (sic) a male or female politician?—even though the question of conflicts of interest in the profession is much larger and is becoming ever more urgent.

3It goes to the very heart of the legitimacy and power of the press, namely, the contract of trust between the media and its readers. This contract presumes that journalists who transmit information are totally disinterested correspondents, reporters, and intermediaries. Their sole desire is to serve their readers, listeners, and viewers. They cannot have hidden agendas, let alone interests, in this relationship. Often, as a famous bicycle racer put it, conflicts of interest are hidden “unbeknownst to the will” of the journalists themselves, who do not have bad intentions but prefer not to ask too many questions.

4The artistic gray area in which many journalists take refuge has regularly been denounced over the last few years by conscientious organizations concerned about the credibility of their profession. Doesn’t journalism claim to perform a function in the general interest, a form of public service or at least service in public? And the Commission for the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest in Public Life, presided over by Jean-Marc Sauvé, states that “the principles underlying its mission are intended to apply to the entire public sphere.” Journalists are not exempt from this mission.

5The two reference documents for the profession—the Declaration of Journalists’ Professional Duties, composed in 1918 by the journalists’ union, which the journalists’ unions of the European Economic Community supplemented in 1971 with the Charter of Journalists’ Duties and Rights, known as the Munich Charter—do not use the expression “conflict of interest” and are basically concerned with guaranteeing readers accurate, honest, pluralistic, and independent information. Two clauses in these charters implicitly address conflicts of interest:

6

A journalist worthy of the name […] does not take money from a public agency or private company where his status as a journalist, influences, and relationships might be exploited. […] Journalists’ responsibility to the public trumps all other responsibilities, particularly with respect to his employers and public authorities.

7If we take up the definition of conflicts of interest as given by the Sauvé Commission, we can find there a basis for rules applicable to journalists. It suffices to replace “public official” with “journalist” and to assert that, for a journalist just as for a public official, “no personal interest should influence one’s behavior or judgment.” The definition of the OECD comes even closer to journalists’ work. This international organization situates itself in an extra-legal domain to address individual behavior and conflicts of interest not on the basis of law but rather through individual or professional ethics, that is, a code of ethics. This is undoubtedly the case with journalists.

8Journalists might also refer to the definition given in 2004 by the Central Agency for the Prevention of Corruption:

9

A conflict of interest arises from a situation in which a person employed by a public or private organization has interests in a private capacity that might influence or appear to influence the way that person performs the duties and responsibilities entrusted to him or her by that organization.

10The question here is clearly addressed to journalists. Does a journalist have, in a private capacity, “an interest of such a nature as to compromise his independence”? The phrase “of such a nature as to compromise” and not “that compromises” is an important distinction. The entire debate arises from the fact that most journalists involved in conflicts of interest swear that they remain totally independent. They ask to be judged by their actions and writings, stress their professionalism, their incorruptible character, and their honor. The fact remains that irreproachable behavior still does not dispel whatever suspicion a reader may harbor. And indeed the Sauvé Commission has specified that “personal interests” can be “material” (proprietary, financial, commercial) or “moral” (philosophical, political, religious, union-related).

11No professional code regulates conflicts of interest. Yet they are legion in number. Let us now survey the most common such conflicts in journalism.

12The first pertains not to journalists but to newspapers. The fact that the mainstream media outlets for general and political information are owned by manufacturers whose business sometimes depends on government orders immediately raises the question of conflicts of interest. The journalists at Le Figaro cannot allow themselves the least criticism of Dassault airplanes and, more seriously, they are sometimes asked to refrain from writing about countries with which the airplane manufacturer is in negotiations.

13The number of examples can be multiplied when one realizes that Les Échos belongs to the Arnault Group; that Lagardère owns Europe 1, Le Journal du Dimanche, and Paris-Match; that Bouygues made off with TF1 when the network was privatized; that the Bolloré Group owns the Direct8 network; and that the weekly newspaper Le Point belongs to François Pinault. “It is not unusual for a manufacturer who has invested money in a news organization to hope that it says nice things about what he is doing,” observes Nadine Toussaint-Desmoulins. [2] This was confirmed in May 1998 by the managing editor of La Tribune, at the time owned by Bernard Arnault: “The shareholder’s interest should not be questioned by a newspaper that he controls. He has the right to intervene in how information is treated, even to the reader’s detriment.”

14Serge Marti, [3] former head economics and finance editor at Le Monde adds,

15

It is likely that a manufacturer seeks an “interest” when he invests in the press, but we should remember that this is a French exception in Europe; it is unhealthy for democracy, and at the very least the reader should be informed clearly and regularly that the newspaper that he is reading is owned by this or that manufacturer.

16And it is probably to protect themselves from any unpleasant surprises that the journalists of Le Monde held a vote—including the new owners—on a charter that is very explicit on this point. It states that

17

the shareholders, their representatives, and members of the supervisory boards are not involved in editorial decisions. They are forbidden to request an article or to give orders to modify an article or prevent its publication. The shareholders pledge not to impose commercial partnerships on the group with corporations of which they are members or to which they have commercial ties. Similarly, they pledge not to prevent or obstruct partnerships with corporations that are competitors of their own.

18This is a clear and healthy position.

19In what situations can journalists themselves become involved in conflicts of interest? To start, we might note cases of “casual employment” [ménages]. This consists of PR consulting, composing press dossiers, training exercises for interviews, and very often hosting shareholders’ debates, colloquia, and general meetings. Journalists play the part of ringmaster, ask questions, improvise a summary, draw conclusions, and…receive a handsome paycheck. The more well-known the journalist, the more attention he attracts, and the more the company, bank, pharmaceutical lab, or organization (business, charitable, or humanitarian) will be pleased. Fees for such services vary with the notoriety of the journalist. From one to two thousand euros for a print journalist, five to six thousand for a somewhat well-known national radio “voice,” and eight to ten thousand euros for a television personality.

20Most journalists’ unions disapprove of this practice. That is not so much opposition to the principle of being paid for services rendered—hosting a general meeting of the League Against Cancer, a seminar on decentralization, or a colloquium on the future of transportation requires significant preparatory work and knowledge of the subjects concerned—but because it risks leading to conflicts of interest. The pharmaceutical lab that releases a new medication will tend to solicit a medical journalist who will discuss it in his newspaper. If a sports journalist hosts a colloquium for Doctors Without Borders and is compensated for it, that is not scandalous because it has nothing to do with the area he covers. But if he is commissioned to write articles in the bulletin of a soccer or fencing federation or is involved in PR consulting for a sports federation—which is sometimes the case—then he is in a conflict of interest.

21Until recently, news organizations claimed to have confidence in the professionalism of their employees or looked the other way. The charter of France Télévisions marks a turning point. It is not opposed to casual employment by journalists but is more restrictive.

22Professionals at France Télévisions may not use the notoriety they gain from their profession to promote a product, company, or brand outside their profession. They may not cite their involvement in France Télévisions in the context of external collaboration. All external collaboration is by special dispensation and thus is exceptional in nature. Activities for which the principle is authorized (instruction, community life, hosting debates, etc.) should be declared in writing in advance to the employer, who may refuse permission giving written justification.

23Another situation of conflicts of interest, raised at the beginning of this article with the question put to our female colleague: personal relationships—marital or extramarital, romantic or very familiar, as well as family relationships—between journalists and figures in public life. We immediately think of men and women in politics—can someone be an independent journalist and have a personal page on the official website of the President of the Republic?—but there are also other situations of family ties. We might take as an illustration the model case of the editor of the local news site Grand-Rouen.com. When the mayor of Rouen became Minister of Sports, the new head city councilor, Socialist Yvon Robert, was the brother-in-law of the editor of this Internet site, Sébastien Bailly. Bailly quickly realized that he might find himself caught up in a conflict of interest. To avoid all such suspicion he created an independent committee presided over by the sociologist Jean-Marie Charon, two journalists, and two political personalities—one from the Right and the other from the Greens. Appeal could be made to this committee “by anyone who believed that Grand-Rouen had acted with partiality in its handling of information.”

24Not all journalists have had the same response. In May 2012, after the Left came to power, four partners or spouses of the President of the Republic and of ministers were journalists. Three of them asked their editors to be, and were, discharged from the news area corresponding to their partners, whether a minister or the president. The fourth, Audrey Pulvar, wanted to be judged on the spot. Considering herself—initially—not the partner of Arnaud Montebourg but a professional journalist, she refused to leave political journalism. Her arguments and attitude were not without panache and sound reasons. But she forgot that conflicts of interest concern more than actions, or in this case, articles. They can also be a potential and raise mistrust or even suspicion. The simple fact that she constantly felt compelled to defend herself and reassure her readers, listeners, and viewers clearly shows that there was a crisis of confidence. Her situation was cruel and to some extent unfair. It doesn’t matter that she practices her trade with perfect independence if her readers have doubts, if the suspicion of a conflict of interest persists: she was unable to remain a political journalist; the contract of trust was broken. In spite of her. It is both a limitation and a strength of the profession that it must rely on something other than legislation.

25Christine Ockrent’s position was even more precarious when, while partner of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, she was appointed deputy chief executive of Audiovisuel Extérieur de la France. Directly dependant on her partner the minister, she found herself in a conflict of interest but fought back, arguing that her professionalism was at stake and that to doubt her independence was to “attack [her] sense of honor.” She forgot to add that it was not simply a moral problem before the public but also a professional one vis-à-vis her colleagues. Journalists should—theoretically—stand on equal ground to obtain their information. Yet it is obvious that the partner of a minister and a journalist doing contract work for a company will be better informed and more quickly informed than an ordinary journalist. It boils down to a question of access to information.

26This relationship between journalists and the political world, as well as the economic and labor worlds, has always been difficult to approach. That is because it is hard to say where the line is drawn between a professional and a marital, friendly, or familial relationship. How far should someone’s family circle be taken into consideration? Only brothers and sisters, in-laws, cousins? And where should the red line between relationships that are indispensable for obtaining information and those that risk creating a conflict of interests be drawn? Should a journalist avoid membership in an association, a circle of friends, a Masonic Lodge, a Church? No one demands that unless the movement in question forbids one to think and write freely. But there are more complicated situations. Does attending a dinner at a club like Le Siècle, which is frequented by journalists, politicians, and business leaders, cause a conflict of interests? A priori, no, unless the journalist at Le Siècle shows favoritism toward a member of the same club. Who could imagine that! And the Legion of Honor so coveted in circles of power? Active journalists should at least refrain from asking for it and receiving it from…the Minister of Information.

27Politics journalists are in agreement on at least one point: they cannot belong to a political party. The charter of L’Express is clear and exemplary: “The editorial board considers the performance of partisan and electoral political duties at the national, regional, or departmental level and status as a journalist for L’Express to be incompatible. Maintaining independence requires extreme caution against any contact that could create a relationship of submission or gratitude between a journalist and his sources (gifts, invitations, trips as gratuities).”

28The question of press trips just mentioned has been the subject of long debate among editorial boards. All of them would prefer to dispense with press trips but many accept them for lack…of resources. Le Monde specifies that “recourse to press trips should remain the exception and be justified by professional reasons. It may not be considered a pledge by the journalist or his editor to publish an article as a result.” Le Point goes further and states in its charter that “taking a press trip is always a delicate affair: it puts a journalist under an obligation to the inviting power. The journalist then is sorely tempted to ‘repay them’ with a positive article. The reader has nothing to gain from this. The rule is to refuse press trips, at least provided they do not give unique access to information. In such cases, the newspaper covers the main expenses (transportation and accommodations).”

29The Association for a Press Council (L’Association de Préfiguration d’un Conseil de Presse) has exposed other conflicts of interest. When François Busnel, host of the literary program “La Grande Librairie,” invited the writer Delphine de Vigan on stage—and not for the first time—he simply neglected to state on the air that she was his partner. He had forgotten the rule established by the National Collective Convention of Journalists: “Under no circumstances may a professional journalist praise a product or company in the success of which he has a material interest.”

30Another question: isn’t a journalist who publishes books in a conflict of interest when he reviews a book by his editor? Won’t readers suspect him of favoritism? The editorial board of Le Nouvel Observateur clearly perceived this risk, and the newspaper’s charter specifies that “in the selection of topics and the editing of articles, those in charge and journalists should avoid all conflicts of interest. They should especially avoid covering the actions and books of persons to whom they have close personal or institutional ties in other respects. Books by collaborators are covered by the newspaper in a normalized framework in a concise and informative form, mentioning the author’s connection to the editors.” The charter of Le Point is even more specific: “Every journalist connected permanently as an employee, author, or reader to a publishing house will not review books, broadcasts, films, discs, etc., edited and produced by the company in question. This basic principle also applies to freelance journalists. Their precarious status makes them especially vulnerable to pressure.

31Yielding to pressure, accepting gifts—upon entering general meetings of Dassault, journalists used to be given an envelope with a bank note inside—taking a press trip to the Seychelles to test…a new perfume, journalists are regularly confronted with delicate situations. That includes the regional press, when a journalist is invited by the mayor or the president of the general council to accompany him to cover a sister city or departmental cooperation with an exotic location. The journalist then joins the delegation and would have to have a great deal of courage to write a critical article, knowing he will never be invited again…

32These at least ambiguous situations are common, but the press says little about them. That is perhaps because it is difficult to draw boundaries between what is allowed and what would be reprehensible. Bertrand Verfaillie, an independent journalist, writes in an excellent pamphlet: “Everything comes down to keeping that famous ‘safe distance.’” [4] But what would take whole pages for other professions gets at best no more than a few ironic lines of information. Perhaps that is also because the behavior of the vast majority of journalists is above reproach and highlighting a handful of exceptions might risk defaming the entire profession.

33Denouncing these practices remains the province of specialized sites and associations like Acrimed (Action critique médias; Critical Media Action). The film Les Nouveaux Chiens de Garde (The New Watchdogs; 2011) is the exception that confirms the rule of journalists’ conformism before the indiscretions of their profession. “The phenomenon is undoubtedly a little more secret than in other areas of public life,” observes Bertrand Verfaillie. [5] While certainly secret, it also is regularly denounced by some journalists who believe their profession is headed for trouble, and that their colleagues are not sufficiently aware of it. For several years, these journalists have been calling for an ethics authority that could—among other things—adjudicate conflicts of interest. For this purpose, Jérôme Bouvier, president of Journalism and Citizenship (Journalisme et Citoyenneté) and founder of the International Congress for Journalism (Assises Internationales du Journalisme), Yves Agnès, president of the Association for a Press Council in France, and Loïc Hervouet and Jean-Marie Charon, the heads of Information Talks (Entretiens de l’Information), organized a colloquium titled “For the Creation of an Ethics Authority” on June 13, 2013.

34Every profession in France except journalism has rules of ethics. Some news organizations have drafted internal commitments—we have quoted some of them above—, while others refer to the Charter of 1918 and the Munich Charter, but these are not binding on anyone, whether journalist or the owners of media companies. Even the declaration of the rights and duties of the free press drafted in 1945 stated that “the press is free; it depends neither on any public constraint nor on money, but solely on the conscience of its journalists and readers.” This desire for a totally independent press is deeply rooted in France: no authority, no rules. Journalists have even often thought that journalism cannot be learned. They want to escape the rules and learning the ropes, and journalism schools took root quite late because it was—and still is—possible to improvise as a journalist. Hence both owners and journalists are attached to their freedom and do not want any constraints.

35It is true that after the War, France experienced thirty glorious years of economic prosperity; this was also the case on the moral level. The profession of journalism thrived on the achievements of the National Council of the Resistance and this period of the moralization of public life. Figures like Camus, Beuve-Méry, Mauriac, and Lazareff were the masters. From Communists to Christian Democrats, there existed a public journalistic morality shared by the entire profession. Public morality began to break down in the 1970s, the Communist Party and religious authority gradually disappeared, and the media were left without a shared moral compass. Hence the need for a code of ethics. Its advocates are counting on the Socialists’ power to lend a helping hand.

36It once was thought that ombudsmen would play the part of defenders of a professional code of ethics. That is less and less the case. There are only eight ombudsmen in the French press. There were fifteen a few years ago. At TF1, France 2, France 3, the programs of France Télévisions, as well as Radio France, Audiovisuel Extérieur de la France, Le Monde, and Sud-Ouest, the ombudsmen are exclusively concerned with criticism and conflicts with their readers, listeners, and viewers, not with a code of ethics.

37This means that without an instance for complaints, without a recognized ethics authority, journalists ply their trade without a safety net and without binding ethical constraints. They know that to reconquer the readers and to slow the erosion of listeners and viewers, they should be above reproach and do nothing that is not dictated by their readers’ interest and information. And that will be the best way not to yield to conflicts of interest.