Reporters Without Borders (RSF) claims that approximately 500 journalists have signed confidentiality clauses that "impose silence" upon them after leaving media outlets acquired by French billionaire Vincent Bolloré. In a report published on March 18, 2025, RSF advocates for the limitation of these clauses, which they deem "disproportionate" and restrictive to journalists' freedom of expression.
According to RSF, these clauses have been in place since 2016 following Bolloré's acquisition of several significant media entities, including the Canal+ group and its news channel iTélé, now known as CNews. The group also took over Europe 1 radio, Paris Match magazine, which has since been sold, and the Journal du dimanche (JDD). Journalists wishing to leave these media companies have often been required to adhere to confidentiality agreements to receive their severance pay, making it difficult for them to speak out about their experiences or the content developed under the Bolloré brand.
RSF asserts that such clauses constrain the ability of journalists to comment critically on their former employers or to investigate issues pertinent to their previous work. As highlighted by Thibaut Bruttin, the General Director of RSF, "Their character of unlimited is highly questionable in journalism, where they constitute a threat to the right to information." This position underscores a broader concern regarding the balance between corporate interests and the essential role of press freedom in democratic societies.
In late February 2024, one poignant example of the consequences of these clauses emerged when investigative journalist Jean-Baptiste Rivoire was ordered to pay over 150,000 euros to Canal+ for violating a confidentiality clause. This decision stemmed from statements made in a 2021 documentary produced by RSF, addressing the "Bolloré system." Rivoire's case has drawn considerable attention, highlighting the legal risks journalists face when challenging employers, particularly in an industry where larger corporate forces can exert considerable influence.
Despite these challenges, Rivoire criticized the existence of these "clauses of silence" after his sentencing, voicing concerns over how they inhibit critical dialogue in media. In response, we heard from Maxime Saada, President of Canal+, who suggested that Rivoire's case did not solely revolve around the clause itself but involved a request for a severance package beyond what the company had offered, relating to non-disparagement agreements intended to prevent negative remarks about the company.
While traditional confidentiality agreements might seem commonplace in various industries, RSF argues they become especially problematic in journalism. The nonprofit watchdog insists that journalists must not only be free to report on their previous employers without fear of retribution but also be able to hold them accountable for their practices.
Prisma Media, part of the conglomerate owned by Bolloré, responded to these allegations by stating through an AFP report, "There is no correlation between the evolution of the clauses and the acquisition of Prisma Media by Vivendi (Bolloré's group) in 2021." This statement aims to clarify any misconstrued connections between their acquisition and the controversial clauses being enforced.
The incidences surrounding confidentiality agreements have sparked a heated debate among former and current journalists, media experts, and freedom of speech advocates. A collective fear is emerging that these restrictions could stifle journalistic inquiry or muffle voices that challenge prevailing narratives, diluting critical perspectives in the media landscape.
As the discourse evolves, it becomes evident that protecting journalistic freedom and upholding the right to inform the public is vital to ensuring a robust democracy. Allowing clauses that limit the speech of journalists could foreseeably result in unchallenged misinformation and a decline in public trust toward media organizations.
The implications of RSF's findings resonate broadly across the media landscape in France and beyond. As the challenge of reconciling corporate interests with journalistic integrity continues, both journalists and media organizations must consider the lasting impact such clauses have not just on their practices, but also on their role in society.
As this complex web of contracts and obligations unfolds, journalists, media practitioners, and the general public must remain vigilant. The free flow of information is paramount, and any encroachment upon it invites the risk of fostering an environment where truths are buried, and dissenting opinions are silenced.
