17 Oct 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, France, News and features
It is understandable that we have been distracted by events in the Middle East over the past week. The release of the Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners ahead of a ceasefire in the deadly two-year-long war in Gaza is a potentially epoch-making event – even if not quite the most significant for 3,000 years, as Donald Trump has suggested. But the peace deal has overshadowed events much closer to home.
France has been in a state of political deadlock for months. At the beginning of this month, on 6 October Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu resigned and then found himself reappointed within the week. He is now attempting to avoid votes of no confidence introduced by the far-right National Rally and hard-left France Unbowed by suspending President Macron’s plans for pension reform.
This may all sound very technical and “continental”, but France matters. An unstable France means an unstable Europe. Macron may yet avoid the collapse of his presidency, and with it the Fifth Republic, but he will struggle to stop the slide towards a creeping populism of the right and left.
We ignore what is happening in France at our peril. We have watched the drift towards populism and authoritarianism across Europe. But our nearest neighbour could yet become the latest example of a “hybrid democracy” on the lines of Hungary. Some would say it is already halfway there. This is due, in part, to a phenomenon that has received scant coverage in the UK, possibly because it is such a mouthful in English: the so-called “Bollorisation” of the French media.
The term is named after Vincent Bolloré, sometimes known as “the French Murdoch”, a billionaire whose family-controlled Vivendi group dominates the media on the other side of the Channel. The parallels with Murdoch provide a useful shorthand but Bolloré really is a quite distinct figure whose media organisations directly support the ideology of the French far right. Although he has officially retired, Bolloré’s influence remains significant, and his organisations have been credited with propelling Marine Le Pen’s National Rally into the mainstream.
The beginnings of Bollorisation can be traced back at least ten years to the purchase of the broadcaster Canal+, France’s main pay-to-view channel. The emergence of CNews, a 24-hour right-wing news channel modelled on Fox News smashed the dominance of public broadcaster France TV (which owns France 2 – formerly Antenne 2 – and France 3). Bolloré then began his march through the French media world. His acquisition of Prism Media in 2021 gave him a dominant position in print and digital magazines including business, lifestyle, travel titles and even TV guides. Two years later, after a long battle with the European regulatory authorities, Vivendi purchased the giant French publishing house Hachette, which also owns the publishing group Little, Brown in the USA and the UK. But Bollorisation doesn’t stop there. The far-right billionaire now also owns the radio channel Europe 1, the iconic French celebrity and news magazine Paris Match and France’s only Sunday newspaper, Le Journal de Dimanche, which has shifted its editorial line from the political centre to the far right. Meanwhile, Bolloré also owns the Havas Group, a giant international advertising and PR agency, which helps manage the reputation of the empire.
Investigative journalists and media freedom organisations in Europe have been warning about Bollorisation for years. Mediapart, the independent French investigative publication, has compiled a huge ongoing dossier on the subject. After the French elections last year almost delivered power to the National Rally, Mediapart’s Antton Rouget wrote: “The work of media outlets controlled by the Bolloré Group during those elections set a new precedent: while major corporations have always thrown their weight behind campaigns in a bid to influence public debate, never before had one done so as openly and unapologetically, with the clear aim of helping the far-right into power.”
There are many theories about why France was so vulnerable to Bollorisation. But there is general agreement that the French media was already in the hands of too few people. And when traditional media owners looked at declining advertising revenue they were all too happy to sell. A weak regulatory landscape and Bolloré’s tightly-focused right-wing mission made for a perfect storm.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) which is based in Paris has consistently expressed its concern about Bolloré’s tactics, including the use of the courts to silence investigations into his empire. Earlier this year RSF published a report into the billionaire’s use of non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses to protect him from criticism. The report was commissioned after Jean-Baptiste Rivoire, a former journalist at Canal+, was fined 150,000 euros for questioning Bolloré’s methods in an RSF documentary, Le Système B.
The Heinrich Böll Stiftung which is aligned to Germany’s Green party, has also raised concerns about the crisis of media freedom in France concluding baldly: “France is an outlier among other major European democracies for the mediocrity of its media system and the strong position of the far right within mass media”.
An Atlanticist tendency in the British media and among the political classes means Europe is too often a blind spot. Shamefully few British politicians or journalists speak a European language, and many are focused on Washington politics to the point of obsession. This partly explains why the coverage of France is so poor beyond the heroic efforts of the Paris correspondents and a handful of French commentators based in the UK.
But there really is no excuse. There is a cultural and political crisis in France that deserves our attention. Bollorisation may be a mouthful, but we need to start talking about it, to avoid a different version of the phenomenon happening here.
You may also want to read our recent article on the controversy over Spitting Image’s parody of Paddington. StudioCanal, which is controlled by the Bolloré Group, is pursuing legal action against the comedy programme over its portrayal of the beloved bear.
17 Oct 2025 | News and features
Rebooted British spoof series Spitting Image came under fire recently from the rights owners of Paddington Bear after the character was featured in a video posted to YouTube in July titled “Spitting Image Presents: The rest is Bulls*!t”.
In the video, a parody of the popular The Rest Is… podcast series, Spitting Image’s Paddington drops his soft-spoken upper-class English accent for something more akin to his native South America whilst swapping the marmalade jam for a pile of suspicious white powder.
Dr Alberto Godionli from the University of Groningen puts forward the question, does the parody actually take aim at the idealised Britishness that Paddington represents?
The mockery looks through the facade of Paddington, described as being the “embodiment of a good immigrant archetype” by James Greig in an article for GQ following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, who famously sat down for tea with the Peruvian immigrant in a YouTube video posted by the royal family in 2022 to mark her Platinum Jubilee. Greig comments on this meeting, writing: “It’s a form of soft monarchism for people who want to buy into a cosy, benign and progressive vision of Britishness”.
Speaking to the Radio Times, Al Murray, one of the comedians behind the latest iteration of Paddington on Spitting Image, slated the legal action as “an attack on comedy” going on to say: “In my experience people find you funny taking the piss out of things, until you take the piss out of something they like. Then they don’t find you funny anymore.”
Spitting Image’s version of Paddington Bear, Photo from Spitting Image/Facebook
This legal attack on English satire that uses the image of a beloved bear harks back to the 1971 obscenity trial against counter-culture magazine OZ involving the character Rupert Bear.
Rupert Bear first appeared in Daily Express comic strips in 1920, depicted as a young bear living in the fictional countryside town of Nutwood which served as an idyllic depiction of an old-fashioned British living.
The case started after the release of OZ’s Schoolkids issue in May 1970, which was the result of an invitation to people under 18 to contribute to, and edit, an issue of the magazine.
Among the offending pieces was one submitted by 15-year-old schoolboy Vivian Berger who had modified a comic strip by American artist Robert Crumb to include Rupert Bear as the main character engaging in an explicit sexual act.
The comic drew attention from the British Obscene Publications Squad, later known for its own corruption, with OZ editors Richard Neville, Felix Dennis and Jim Anderson facing charges including “conspiracy to corrupt public morals” in what became the longest obscenity trial in British history.
Jonathan Dimbleby, reporting from the trial wrote: “It was certainly revealing; not least for the fact that the prosecution conspicuously ignored the bulk of the magazine – some 21 pages of the youthful anti-authoritarian political writing. According to the Crown, neither ‘politics’, nor what the kids thought of ‘the pigs’, were relevant in what was merely a criminal trial.”
Neville, Dennis and Anderson were found guilty and sentenced to up to 15 months’ imprisonment, however the verdict was overturned on appeal.
Rupert, like Paddington, represented a sense of Britishness that amounts to little more than a nostalgic look at a Britain still stuck between the wars, before the end of the British Empire, and before the start of the welfare state and the decline in raw global power which would mark the next 100 years.
Other examples of famous bear characters being used for political satire prove however that this is not a uniquely British phenomenon.
Yogi Bear was the subject of a 2020 Onion headline that read: Heavily Armed Fans Guard Statue Of Yogi Bear In Case It Turns Out He Supported Confederacy, mocking the reaction to the removal of a number of Confederate statues that had occurred across the United States that same year.
And again from the USA, the often-mocked Smokey Bear, with his slogan “Only YOU can prevent forest fires” was depicted in a 2022 Seattle Times cartoon saying “I hate to say it but climate change has beat me”, as part of a comment piece on that year’s wildfires.
In China images of Winnie the Pooh have been used to mock President Xi Jinping and they emerged as a symbol of dissent during protests in Hong Kong. This has led to the removal of images of the bear across Chinese social media, where users had been claiming a visual resemblance between Xi and the bear. The mockery at times included other members of government such as former Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam being compared to the character Piglet after appearing in an image with Xi.
Political artist Badiucao has used Winnie the Pooh in a series of images mocking Xi’s efforts to censor the character, with the piece “‘Xi’s going on a bear hunt” showing the President holding a rifle over the bear’s corpse.
In Russia the bear has been used to represent the country for centuries and demonstrate Russian strength, even when the bear is seen as tamed. With its sharp teeth and knife-like claws aimed towards Ukraine the bear has reared up again. Not that Russian nationalists mind – and mock-ups of Russian President Vladimir Putin riding a bear are are still shared to bolster his strong man image.
17 Oct 2025 | Afghanistan, Americas, Asia and Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, India, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Palestine, Peru, Russia, United States
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at Trump’s assault on the free press and Russian criminal investigations into dissenting voices.
America: Press freedom under threat
US President Donald Trump’s attacks on the free press continue with the introduction of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s newest rules for journalists.
Under his new directive journalists are being required to sign a pledge promising not to gather or report any information that has not been vetted and approved by the Pentagon. Journalists who don’t follow the rules have been told they will be stripped of their credentials.
Outlets across the US have fought back against these demands by refusing to sign, with only the Trump-affiliated One America News (OAN) agreeing to bend the knee. OAN has made past headlines for its spreading of conspiracy theories relating to fraud in the 2020 presidential election and the Covid-19 pandemic.
This comes during an unprecedented attack on the press from the current administration, with Trump’s dismantling of the Voice of America, and the installation of Trump loyalists at CBS under new owner David Ellison, son of billionaire Trump friend Larry Ellison. This marks a considerable shift to the right for the news outlet.
Russia: Investigations brought against exiled opposition
Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) announced on 14 October that it would be targeting exiled opposition figures with criminal investigations in a clear example of trans-national repression.
The charges relate to criticism of Russia’s war in Ukraine, with accusations of a plot to overthrow the Russian government. Former richest man in Russia and critic of Vladimir Putin Mikhail Khodorkovsky faces these charges, as well as journalist and former political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza.
Kara-Murza was sentenced in 2022 to 25 years in prison after speaking out against the invasion of Ukraine, but released as part of a prisoner swap in 2024.
Evgenia Kara-Murza, Vladimir’s wife, won Index’s Freedom of Expression Trustee Award last year for campaigning against the imprisonment of her husband and eventually securing his release.
Kara-Murza is being targeted now because of his involvement in the Russian Anti-War Committee alongside a number of prominent members of the exiled Russian opposition including former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and activist Anastasia Shevchenko.
India: Afghan embassy changes tack on women journalists
Female journalists were given front-row seats to a press conference held by Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi in Delhi, India on 13 October – after being excluded from a media event there only two days before.
The exclusion of women journalists had been met with anger across India, with opposition politicians decrying the Taliban-led Afghan government’s decision to invite men only.
Women journalists attending the second press conference took advantage of the opportunity to question Muttaqi on the Taliban’s gender discrimination, with journalist Smita Sharma asking: “Why are you doing this in Afghanistan? When will they be allowed to go back and get the right to education?”
A Taliban source told the BBC that female journalists had been excluded “due to lack of proper coordination”.
Peru: Gen Z uprising
A state of emergency has been declared in Peru after a popular 32-year-old hip hop artist Eduardo Ruiz was killed by police during Gen Z protests in Peru this week.
The protests began in September, and culminated in the removal of the then President Dina Boluarte from office on 10 October over accusations of corruption. But demonstrations continued after the appointment of an interim president Jose Jeri who is now refusing to resign over Ruiz’s death.
Boluarte’s government drew criticism earlier this year for its enactment of a law that threatened the work of civil society organisations and NGOs. Boluarte said the new law would: “place under comprehensive review a minority of NGOs that act against the interests of our country, sowing hatred and attacking our system”.
The protest movement in Peru follows a growing trend of global youth-led revolts that have caused the fall of governments in Nepal and Madagascar.
Palestine: Three journalists released but more still imprisoned
Following the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, international press are still being denied entry into the embattled Gaza strip.
Fighting has not stopped since the agreement was reached, with clashes between Hamas and rival militias happening across Gaza. The violence on the ground has already led to the death of another Palestinian journalist Saleh Aljafarawi who was killed by an armed faction last weekend. He was a video reporter covering the war with a huge social media following, but was accused by Israel of being a Hamas propagandist.
As part of the ceasefire agreement, Israeli forces have begun to release Palestinian prisoners but have been slow to let journalists go. Out of 19 media workers detained over the last two years only three have been released.
So far 197 journalists have been killed since the start of the war in Gaza according to reporting by the Campaign to Protect Journalists.
16 Oct 2025 | News and features, SLAPPs
This is a newsletter sent out by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which Index co-founded, from the SLAPP target, survivor and coalition member Nina Cresswell. This was due to be read at the Houses of Parliament at the launch event for a new report. Nina explains why she was unable to attend in person
I’m not supposed to be writing this. Last night I was supposed to be in Parliament with Index on Censorship, helping present its new report – From Survivor to Defendant: How the law is being weaponised to silence victims of sexual violence – and sharing my own story of being sued by the man who sexually assaulted me.
The trains were booked. The hotel was sorted. Plans penned in.
But I couldn’t do it.
Last week, my family noticed I wasn’t myself. I was jittery, easily overwhelmed, and having unexplained flare-ups. It wasn’t until they pointed it out that I realised: the closer we approached the Parliament date, the worse my mood and health became. I knew I had to start planning my talk – and to do that, I was slowly and reluctantly prising open the file in my brain marked “The Time You Nearly Died.”
In 2023, after publicly sharing my story at a SLAPPs event, I developed shingles from the stress. I spent weeks alone, feeling as though scalding electricity was running down one side of my face. It left physical scars for life.
So I took almost two years away from public campaigning to heal – to stop reopening my wounds for others to see. But the painful truth is that people need to see the ugly reality to understand why stronger protections are so urgent. They need to see what happens when people with power and money use the law to intimidate survivors into silence.
Now I’m talking about it again. I can reach into that file, but I can’t stay there for long. Each time I tell my story, I catch myself sanding down the rough edges – making it easier to hear, and maybe, for me, easier to bear. More often than not, I’ll throw in a Carry On Courtroom anecdote. I’ll try to make it funny.
Only, it really wasn’t funny. None of it was funny.
Losing almost three years of your life to litigation abuse isn’t funny. Being publicly called a liar for telling the truth isn’t funny. Watching your business collapse so you can act as your own lawyer isn’t funny. Moving house because your abuser found out where you live isn’t funny. Desperately filming pleas for legal funding, mid-trauma, isn’t funny. Having your personal journals read out in a public courtroom isn’t funny. Four hours of cross-examination isn’t funny. Panic attacks in court aren’t funny. Seeing your mother have a panic attack in court isn’t funny. And that night in 2010 – being violently assaulted by the man who would later sue me for naming what he did – that definitely wasn’t funny.
The most shocking part of all this? I’m considered a ‘winner’. I successfully defended the truth and public interest nature of speaking out to protect others. I set a legal precedent for survivors of sexual abuse. But sometimes it doesn’t feel like a victory as most survivors who are sued can’t make it that far. Public judgments are rare because most SLAPP cases settle before trial. For many, silence is the only way to survive.
Across the UK and Ireland, laws against sexual violence remain inconsistent, insufficient, and poorly enforced. When justice fails and harm is buried, it can burn you from the inside – allowing cycles of abuse, shame, and stigma to continue. If we can’t speak about it without facing legal bullying, the violence will never end.
This is what the law is allowing to happen to those failed by the system who dare to speak out.
My story could have happened to anyone. It could happen to you.
If the Government continues to lean on limited anti-SLAPP protections in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, it won’t protect people in the position I was in. Without a universal anti-SLAPP law, what happened to me will happen again. And next time, the target might not make it out alive.
That’s why I keep going. It’s why I’m so grateful to our coalition members – especially Lucy and Verity Nevitt – for this urgently needed report, and for their tireless work to end the use of civil lawsuits by abusers to silence survivors.
