QuotaClimat

Citizen mobilization

Alexis de Tocqueville considered the media, in a democracy, to be “a power without a counter-power.”

But what happens when the media abuse their power by underinforming, misinforming—whether unintentionally or deliberately?

This is precisely what is happening with environmental information: the shortcomings and failures in covering these issues are numerous and significantly slow down action.

Together, we can address this. We can show nuance by affirming our commitment to press freedom while maintaining high expectations of the media. A power without a counter-power cannot be exercised responsibly.

This is why we call on national media actors to improve their coverage of environmental issues, holding them accountable for their editorial responsibility. We identify breaches of the ethical and legal obligations that media outlets are required to uphold under Arcom regulations, including:

  • Honesty and independence of information and programming;
  • Pluralism in the expression of schools of thought and opinions;
  • Control over broadcasting content;
  • Protection of the environment and the fight against climate change.

The shortcomings we regularly identify fall into several categories:

1. Opinion and facts

Frequent confusion between facts and opinions, often placing them on the same level despite the current scientific consensus on environmental causes.

2. Expertise

Low representation of scientists and experts, in favor of interest group representatives and polemicists.

3. Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance between certain programs, between news content and the visuals used, or between editorial content and advertising.

4. Transversality

Lack of cross-cutting coverage of environmental issues, which are confined to specialized sections and programs instead of being integrated into health, education, politics, economy, and other areas.

5. Causality

Lack of causal links between the consequences of environmental crises (floods, heatwaves, wildfires, etc.), their causes, and the solutions needed to address them.

6. Solutions

Insufficient representation of solutions and their concrete impact on the transition, as well as their co-benefits for citizens.

We also highlight inspiring and innovative media content to promote this editorial diversity within the industry. Examples of these best practices include:

  • Dedicating protected time slots for environmental news during peak audience periods (morning radio shows, television news broadcasts);
  • Giving visibility to transition entrepreneurs (businesses, associations, elected officials) to encourage broader adoption;
  • Highlighting the co-benefits of the transition — such as improvements in health, purchasing power, and well-being;
  • Adopting new editorial angles, with specialized media often leading the way in this area;
  • Investing in investigative journalism focused on health and environmental issues, which often uncover new information later used by the judiciary;
  • Fact-checking and debunking misleading narratives that are highly visible in public debates.

Act with us

Joining forces: by following us on our social media and amplifying our calls to action. Because, thanks to the visibility you give them, they work!

  • Franceinfo published a correction following a climate-skeptical intervention in its programming.
  • Courrier International amended the title of a false article following our intervention.

Lever the existing legal levers: by referring cases to the Audiovisual Regulatory Authority when significant breaches are identified. This way, we can build and strengthen legal precedents!

On June 25, 2024, Arcom issued a warning to Sud Radio for climate disinformation that went unchallenged. Specifically, it pointed out that several statements contradicted or downplayed the existing scientific consensus on current climate change, lacking the necessary rigor and rebuttal.

On July 3, 2024, Arcom imposed a financial penalty of €20,000 on CNEWS for climate disinformation that went unchallenged. Specifically, the authority noted that the statements made by a guest on the absence of human influence on climate change did not provoke any reaction from other participants on the show. This failure to address the statement was deemed a breach of CNEWS‘s obligation to present controversial issues honestly, particularly by ensuring the expression of differing viewpoints.

On October 22, 2024, Arcom again warned Sud Radio for climate disinformation that went unchallenged. The authority noted that several statements contradicted or minimized the scientific consensus on climate change, lacking both rigor and sufficient rebuttal. This was seen as a breach of the publisher’s duty to provide honest and rigorous information, as well as its responsibility to control the airwaves.

These decisions set global precedents. Mass submissions to Arcom can speed up decision-making: we need your support!