According to a survey conducted by Viavoice for the Assises du journalisme de Tours, published on Saturday; a majority of French (57%) rate journalists’ information during the presidential campaign as “good”. According to this survey, carried out in collaboration with France Télévisions, France Médias Monde, Le Journal du Dimanche and Radio France, only 11% of respondents consider the information provided “very bad” and 25% consider it “fairly bad”. , Of the French who are satisfied with the media coverage, 8% find the information provided “very good” and 49% “fairly good”.
Differences between Macron voters and Mélenchon voters
The differences are very clear according to the candidate praised by the respondents in the first round of the presidential elections. For example, 79% of the voters of the outgoing president, Emmanuel Macron, believe that the information was “good”, followed by 68% of the voters of the environmental candidate Yannick Jadot and 59% of those of Jean-Luc Mélenchon (Rubbing La France) .
At the other end of the spectrum, the voters of far-right polemicist Eric Zemmour show the greatest mistrust of the media: 62% of them rate the quality of information as “poor” during the presidential campaign. They are followed by the voters of RN candidate Marine Le Pen (53%) and those of LR candidate Valérie Pécresse (45%).
The split is also visible according to the age of the respondents: those aged 60 and over have the most confidence in the information provided: 65% of them think it is “good”, compared to only 48% among young people between 18 and 24 years old.
Television remains the channel most used to get information during the presidential campaign: 75% of respondents cite this medium first, followed by radio (38%) and the written press (37%).
Internet (online newspapers, news sites, blogs, influencers, YouTube channels) comes just next with 33%, according to this research where multiple answers were possible, so a total of more than 100%.
This 6th edition of the Viavoice / Les Assises barometer on the usefulness of journalism was conducted online just after the second round of the presidential elections, from 25 to 27 April, with a sample of 1,000 people, representative of the adult French population. , using the quota method.
It will be published ahead of the 15th Assises du journalisme, which will take place in Tours from 9 to 13 May. Their theme is journalism and politics, one month after the presidential elections and one month before the parliamentary elections.
The situation of journalism is “gloomy”
The situation for journalism is “bleak” in a world where the ubiquity of social networks gives way to a torrent of propaganda, alternative facts and the rewriting of history, this week Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa warned in a interview with AFP. The Filipino journalist, co-founder of news site Rappler, who shared the Nobel Prize with her Russian colleague Dmitri Mouratov, sees the situation in her own country as proof. Ferdinand Marcos Jr – the son of the dictator who ruled terror and corruption for two decades – has been named as the likely winner of next week’s presidential election, 36 years after his father’s fall.
“He seems to be on his way to victory and that is only possible because history has changed before our eyes,” the journalist explained, on the sidelines of a press freedom demonstration in Geneva.
Marcos Jr takes advantage of a deluge of misinformation on social networks aimed at younger generations who can’t remember the abuses his father committed.
Ms Ressa also points out that the candidate refuses to participate in debates and avoids questions from journalists, making her seem to be following the path of other politicians such as Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s controversial president.
“That’s the problem with social networks: It has allowed propaganda to flourish and literally allow public figures like Marcos or Bolsonaro to create their alternate reality by evading the media’s countervailing mechanisms,” she underlines, before reaching the point. made home: “It’s not a good thing”.
Faced with these challenges, “journalism’s mission is more important than ever today,” she explains.
For the journalist, social networks already made it possible in 2014 to spread two disparate stories about the annexation of Crimea by the Russian army around the world, and the phenomenon was exacerbated with the invasion of Ukraine in February.
In such an environment, access to reliable information is essential.
“I think we’ve come to a point where everything we (journalists) can do matters because we’re very close to the edge,” she says.
There are no guarantees for the Nobel Peace Prize winner and social networks expose journalists much more to threats and attacks.
“Any time you write an article holding power accountable, you have to be prepared to be personally attacked,” said Ms Ressa, who herself is facing 100 years in prison for denouncing President Rodrigo Duterte’s excesses.
But if the Nobel Prize was a “relief” because it showed that the committee had understood how much more difficult the task of journalists had become and that “risks have increased”, that does not mean that Ms. Ressa was protecting against legal action. Rather, “they accelerated,” she explained.
She believes it is unfair to “ask journalists to make all these sacrifices” and urges governments and the international community to take matters into their own hands and regulate these technologies that have changed our information society.
“We need guarantees to be able to do our job,” she said.
Meanwhile, journalists “have no choice” and must continue to defend democracy as best they can, notes Ms Ressa: “We try to turn the tide with our bare hands, in the hope that the rest of society will take over.