ANALYSIS

The challenge with parliamentary inquiries

24 April 2026
Are such inquiries democracy and accountability in action, or an opportunity to put public media on trial?
The front of the National Assembly in Paris. The triangular facade with a French flag hanging above.
Facade of the French National Assembly in Paris. Credit: ToninT / Shutterstock.com

Nearly five months on and 67 hearings later, the parliamentary inquiry into the “neutrality, functioning, and financing” of public media in France has now ended. Launched at the end of 2025 by the right-wing UDR party, the inquiry has been an extreme test of public media’s resolve and stamina.

Throughout, the inquiry has been characterised by bitter and angry exchanges between those summoned to be questioned, and those doing the questioning. The inquiry is nothing more than a “political trial”, wrote Le Monde columnist Stéphane Forecourt, “clumsily disguised as parliamentary work”.

The rapporteur, Charles Alloncle (UDR), has faced much criticism for his dogmatic approach. In December, less than a month into the inquiry, he was cautioned by the president of the National Assembly after live-posting the inquiry on X. He was urged to “respect our rules and customs, so that the credibility of the commission of inquiry is not called into question.”

It’s possibly too late for that.

In April, the billionaire businessman, Xavier Niel, who co-owns the production company, Mediawan – which produces content for France Télévisions – said Alloncle had turned the “committee into a circus”. Nagui, a high-profile television presenter, accused Alloncle of coordinating a “hate campaign” against him. Even members of the inquiry, on opposing sides to Alloncle, have squirmed at the tone and line of questioning, describing it as a “witch hunt”, and urging the National Assembly president to further intervene.

Yet for conservative media, Alloncle has been heralded for “his tenacity, his resilience in the face of attacks from the Left, and his determination not to waver from the public interest mission he had set himself.”

The purpose of the inquiry

The inquiry was launched after a conservative magazine published a video showing two public media journalists speaking with two members of the socialist party. At one point, one journalist, Thomas Legrand, said, “We’re doing what’s necessary for Dati, Patrick, and me.” To some, this indicated a coordinated effort to undermine the then-culture minister, Rachida Dati, but to others, was “taken out of context”. Legrand was subsequently suspended by Radio France.

The resulting commission was nothing if not thorough. Tens of thousands of documents were provided by the public broadcasters. CEOs, presenters, journalists and other public media employees were interrogated by the committee. There were side avenues of investigation into the independent production companies that are commissioned by the public broadcasters. The aforementioned Mediawan faced criticism for securing France Télévisions contracts, when one of its owners has been outspoken in his criticism of the far-right National Rally (RN).

"France.tv" sign on the facade of the headquarters of France Télévisions, the national program company which manages the activities of public television in France. Credit: HJBC / Shutterstock.com

Even civil society organisations, such as RSF which appeared in January, were questioned, but not necessarily along the lines of the inquiry. “The hearing on our recommendations was much more focused on RSF than on public service broadcasting and RSF is concerned about the overall deterioration of parliamentary debate,” RSF’s director general, Thibaut Bruttin, said.

The sessions concluded on 8 April, with the head of France Télévisions, Delphine Ernotte Cunci, once more invited to participate, and it finished in typical fashion. “Excuse me for being so direct, Mr. Rapporteur, but what you’re saying is absolutely false,” Cunci said.

Alloncle has two weeks to write a report, which the committee will vote on whether to make public. Given the general tone and line of inquiry by Alloncle, it’s predicted to be an excoriating view of public service media.

“[An inquiry] resembles an attempt to exert control over the Corporation’s professionals and could have a chilling effect on the practice of journalism.” – RTVE, in its response to the proposal to launch an inquiry in Spain

Contagion

Regardless of the roots of the inquiry and the manner in which it was run by the rapporteur, there is a broader question to be asked about the principle of holding such an inquiry.

There are reports that personal vendettas are at play, and right-wing forces in France have long favoured privatising public media. There are accusations that the highly influential and partisan CNews (often likened to a French-style Fox News) and its billionaire owner, Vincent Bolloré, helped advance that mission by attacking public media at every opportunity. “Vincent Bolloré’s media empire wants to destroy public broadcasting,” said Cunci in Le Monde. Bolloré denied this when he spoke to the inquiry.

Yet Bolloré’s media has undoubtedly helped amplify the profile of the inquiry,  benefitting from Alloncle’s natural disposition to a viral moment of conflict, as well as his savvy use of social media, which hasn’t done his own personal brand any harm.

This contributes to the wider momentum and greater public awareness of the discussion around the value of public broadcasting, where before, it was limited.

Unsettlingly for public media executives worldwide, other similarly-disposed politicians are taking note. In Belgium, the president of the right-wing MR party (in the ruling Walloon coalition government), Georges-Louis Bouchez called for an inquiry into RTBF, arguing that the public broadcaster is too large, and stifles commercial competition.

In Spain, the conservative People’s Party, which controls the Senate, launched their own commission of inquiry into RTVE, which will investigate the broadcaster’s finances, management, and the fulfilment of public service obligations. Their basis is more overtly political: accusing the Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, of imposing “a model of absolute control” over RTVE. The public broadcaster, for its part, has criticised the motive behind the inquiry, saying it “resembles an attempt to exert control over the Corporation’s professionals and could have a chilling effect on the practice of journalism.”

“Parliament and the government already have precise mechanisms, framed by law, to fully exercise their role of control and evaluation.” – Walloon coalition partners, Les Engagés

A control room with RTVE branding.
RTVE control room. Credit: RTVE
An unnecessary exercise

Any response to such inquiries has to balance two competing ideas.

The first is respecting democracy, and the sovereignty of parliaments. “The Corporation expresses, first of all, its total institutional respect for the Upper House,” RTVE said in a statement – while also recognising the responsibility for public service media to be held accountable, as publicly funded bodies. “The cost of Radio France is a legitimate question for citizens,” said its CEO, Sibyle Veil, in her appearance before the inquiry. Both Radio France and France Télévisions have used the inquiry as an opportunity to demonstrate transparency.

But the second is to point out that accountability for public media already exists in the form of parliamentary committees, governance bodies, complaints procedures, financial account reports, and mandate reviews. An additional inquiry, therefore, is regarded as unnecessary when ample opportunities already exist for parliaments to have oversight over public media.

Indeed, this was the reason given by the other half of the Walloon coalition, Les Engagés, in rejecting Bouchez’s call for an inquiry: “Parliament and the government already have precise mechanisms, framed by law, to fully exercise their role of control and evaluation.” There will be a statutory review of RTBF for the next management contract period, 2028-32. It was similarly an argument deployed by RTVE: “Public broadcasting in Spain already has specific control and regulatory mechanisms (such as the Joint Control Commission for RTVE, which is now being stripped of its powers, or the CNMC). Replacing these instruments with parliamentary investigations into news coverage could represent a fundamental shift in the nature of oversight, bringing it closer to a form of political trial.”

What changes are such inquiries seeking to bring about? Can they truly be considered a fair attempt to hold public media to account? Is it the mission to improve public media, or instead, to bring it down?

The issue that many have with parliamentary inquiries is how they seek to override the existing mechanisms that are tried and tested, and hold public media to account without interfering. Instead, these processes are supplanted by a public inquiry that, as evidence demonstrates in France, can be highly partisan and for which the veneer of independence appears paper thin. Ulterior motives and political agendas can severely undermine the credibility and possibility of positive outcomes.

More Analysis
Related Posts