Vincent Bolloré is known for business takeovers. Now 63, he has built an empire in energy, agriculture, transport and logistics.
The billionaire is also a media mogul with expanding interests. His investment group Bolloré, named for its president and CEO, has a majority share in Havas, a leading French advertising and PR group. It owns the cable television channel D8 and the daily newspaper Direct Matin.
Bolloré was appointed as president of Vivendi, the French mass media company, in June 2014. Vivendi owns Canal Plus, a French subscription-based television channel known for its irreverent tone, where Bolloré became chairman last September.
A common theme is emerging in Bolloré’s professional life. As he attains more media companies, there are increasing attacks on editorial content he disapproves of. Last June, Le Canard Enchaîné revealed that Havas, a French multinational advertising and public relations company, which is controlled by the Bolloré group, had cut the advertising budget in Le Monde by €3.2 million in 2014 and €4 million in 2015. This followed the publication of two articles that Bolloré disliked — a personal profile and a report on the activities of the Bolloré group in the Ivory Coast.
“It can be hard to understand whether a media owner is doing something to improve the health of his business or whether he is meddling with editorial content,” says Virginie Marquet, a lawyer who specialises in freedom of the press and co-founder of the collective Informer N’est Pas Un Délit (To Inform Is Not A Crime). “What’s new with Bolloré is the brutality of what is taking place.”
Pierre Siankowski is the former culture editor for Le Grand Journal, a primetime talk show which was broadcast on Canal Plus every weekday and produced by independent production company KM. On 3 July, he found himself out of a job when Bolloré personally decided KM would stop producing the talk show. “The reason given is that the show was too expensive and that Bolloré wanted it to be produced internally,” Siankowski says. “But there’s actually an article in Le Parisien that claims the current cost of production is roughly the same.”
For Siankowski, there may be another reason. He says Renaud Le Van Kim, producer of Le Grand Journal, who is believed to have been made to leave the company he created at Bolloré’s demand, and Rodolphe Belmer, former director of Canal Plus who was fired in July, had both expressed support for Les Guignols De L’info — a satirical news bulletin broadcast on Canal Plus where politicians are played by latex puppets — amid rumours the show was under threat.
The puppets are currently in the closet, having been temporarily taken off the air. The show is due to return in November, but on Bolloré’s orders, it will have more of an international focus, and therefore less coverage of French politics. It may also lose its prime-time slot.
Does Siankowski think the attack against Les Guignols might be politically motivated? Is it a gift from Bolloré to Nicolas Sarkozy, who was a frequent target of the show? “Here is what we know: after he got elected, Sarkozy went on holiday on Bolloré’s yacht,” he says. “We also know Sarkozy hated Les Guignols, and that in a few months’ time the political campaign for the presidential election will start.”
Meanwhile at Canal Plus, there were other worrying signs. In July, it was revealed that a documentary on tax evasion at the Crédit Mutuel bank — one of the main financial partners of the Bolloré group — which was scheduled to be broadcast on Canal Plus in May, had been removed from the programme before it was supposed to air. Geoffrey Livolsi, co-director of the documentary, said Belmer had received a phone call from Bolloré, who requested it be axed following a conversation with Michel Lucas, CEO of Crédit Mutuel.
The documentary was finally shown on France 3 in October.
In September,another documentary, this time on the rivalry between Sarkozy and French President Francois Hollande, was taken off Canal Plus grid without explanation, before reappearing a month later.
“What this shows is that we don’t have the tools that are needed to protect press freedom,” Marquet says. “This is why we felt we need to mobilise.”
“What we would like to see are sanctions,” Marquet adds, reminding us of the existence of a resolution voted in 2013 by the European Parliament. It states: “Governments have the primary responsibility of guaranteeing and protecting freedom of the press and the media” and considers “the trend of concentrated media ownership in large conglomerates to be a threat to media freedom and pluralism”.
Bolloré’s attack on the media isn’t confined to those organisations in which he has an influence. He has taken legal action against journalists and publications to defend his business interests. His group has sued, among others, rue89, France Inter, Libération and Bastamag. It also took journalist Benoît Collombat to court over an investigation he had done on the group’s activities in Cameroon.
Asked what he thought of “the Canal Plus spirit” on 12 February on France Inter, Bolloré replied: “It’s a spirit of discovery, of openness, sometimes of excessive derision.” On that same evening, Les Guignols featured Bolloré’s puppet, who was asked to define what “acceptable derision” means. It seems the real life billionaire’s answer to that question has been clear.
French ministers denied Tunisia was a dictatorship and offered Ben Ali’s regime police support to deal with the recent protests. Myriam Francois-Cerrah explains how France found itself on the backfoot (more…)
During a recent trip to Istanbul for an international conference a colleague introduced me as the woman who got verbally attacked in Oxford for swimming in the burkini. It goes without saying that I would have preferred to be acknowledged for some of my more notable professional accomplishments. I did not choose to eclipse all my other achievements with an article I wrote two years ago for the Guardian about a Sunday swim in the pool.
I was forced to. Because silence for women is no longer an option. There is a responsibility to speak out against any violation of my human rights.
After swimming in my five-piece burkini in Oxford, a male visitor to the pool made a complaint (loudly and publicly) to the manager about my swim wear. After I remonstrated with both the manager and the visitor, the Oxford Mail covered the story (misreporting it and failing to contact me for comment). Its website then carried hate speech from readers for at least two weeks.
My article inspired endless debate that objectified me and my swimsuit. The debates discussed the issue in depth and were posted on everything from feminist websites to Islamic blogs. A vast majority of the comments posted attacked every part of my identity — as a Muslim, as an American, as a woman. That is not something someone chooses to do. It is not glorious. It forces you to become vulnerable in order to have your voice heard. In fact, I decided to do only one article for the Guardian on the subject and turned down all media requests from western and Arabic satellite channels that followed.
And now I am writing another. This time in solidarity with a Frenchwoman, who was banned from swimming in her burkini, because I know the decision to go public was not an easy one. I can imagine the sense of frustration and alienation that the international media attention is creating. I can bet on the fact that did not want to become known as the French burkini woman.
The incident has sparked wide debate in the western and Muslim world. The debates have centered on everything from the clash of civilisation to Muslim integration and immigration in the West to the hygiene habits of French pools.
Remarkably absent from the debate is women’s rights.
The main argument, and my personal favorite, is that the burkini is somehow unhygienic. Zeena Al Talib, founder and owner of Primomoda.com explains that this is only true if the swimsuit is worn all day and made of non-swimsuit material. The modest Islamic swimsuit designed by Primomoda and made in Brazil is 100 per cent swimsuit material with quick drying properties and ultraviolet protection from the sun. Also, as much as I love my Islamic swimsuit — and I love my swimsuit — I don’t eat, shop, or drive in it. I am definably not going to be parading around all day in it (unless it’s a lazy day at the pool).
Of course I could also enter into a debate of whether a remarkably hairy Frenchman swimming in a tight trunks is more unhygienic than a high tech swimsuit. But the whole unhygienic point is moot. Sameera Fazili, an adjunct clinical lecturer at Yale Law School, points out that it’s not the first time that pseudo science has been used to assert social control over the female body. As a side note: Fazili has gone swimming in the Yale pool wearing her Islamic swimsuit without any intention of overthrowing her dean or threatening Yale’s academic institution. She just wanted to swim.
I am tired of the politicisation of women’s bodies. Despite what French politicians would like us to believe, Muslim women who plan a morning at the local pool are not scoping out the fastest route to the police station or media channels. They are most likely planning a day at the pool with their kids. A large percentage of modern Muslim women don’t want to be forced into segregated pools (if that’s even an option) where they swim without their families. The Islamic swimsuit provided a swimsuit for this modern wave of Muslim women.
Another shocking discovery for many Europeans is that Muslim women do not have a monopoly on modesty. A simple google search reveals several online companies specialising in modest swimwear for women of different faiths. One devout Christian woman designed the Simply Modest swimwear which provides Christian women with the opportunity to swim in a modest and feminine design. I bought one for my niece, who does not cover in full hijab but also does not want to swim in the traditional western-designed swimsuit. Throw into the debate the Christian version of the swimsuit and we began to shift towards a question of what is too much clothing. We are back to the age-old dispute of patriarchal societies trying to tell women what to wear. Too little or too much clothing is not at the center of the debate. It’s women’s right to choose — and that is a right every advocate of women’s rights needs to be prepared to defend.