Géraldine Woessner, editor-in-chief at “Le Point”, was invited to speak at a round table on scientific information in public broadcasting.
On Thursday, March 26, the parliamentary inquiry commission on neutrality, operation, and financing of public broadcasting organized a round table on scientific information. Géraldine Woessner, editor-in-chief of the social service at Le Point and expert in scientific issues (agriculture, environment, energy, etc), was invited to speak. We reproduce here the entirety of her intervention.
“I thank you for this invitation to speak on a topic that is fundamental to me. Two fundamental themes, in reality. Both the public service, to which I am extremely attached – I started my career as a journalist in local Radio France stations. And scientific subjects, which I have been particularly interested in for about ten years – science, health, energy, agriculture, environment.
I myself had a fact-checking column on these subjects on Europe 1 radio a few years ago, before joining Le Point where I lead the Social Service. I am also the author of scientific popularization books: one on nuclear power, the other, Les Illusionnistes, which explores in detail the impacts of this scientific misinformation on society, especially on the climate.
You have sent me a list of questions that surprised me, because they focus on an exclusive theme: climate and climate misinformation. It is true that this is an important topic, but the problem of scientific misinformation extends beyond that.
A few elements from our recent history shed light on the situation we face today. Scientific misinformation became a frequent problem on public airwaves from the years 2005-2010, when TNT channels were born. They came to compete with six national channels, which were until then in a near-monopoly situation. Suddenly, we shifted to a hyper-competitive environment, which pushed channels – not only public, but also private – to change their approach to be a bit more sensationalist, a bit more provocative, to retain their audiences.
Since that time, we have seen a shift in information. They no longer promise just deciphering, investigative reports – as was done in major shows like Envoyé spécial. They promise scandals, revelations. It was on this promise that Cash Investigation was born in 2012.
But we are in France. And while the country is not perfect, it remains a great democracy where there is not a scandal every week. Scandals exist – but there is not one every week, that’s not true. So, to produce a show promising a scandal every week, you have to inflate them a bit, and push them.
So you have media seeking scandals – it’s in their job description, in their charter. And in response, a whole activist ecosystem organizes to supply them.
The first anti-vaccine reports were broadcast on France 5 in December 2008: Silence, on vaccine! The defended thesis was that the hepatitis B vaccine causes autism. Then a series of reports focused on aluminum used as an adjuvant in vaccines – Aluminum, our daily poison, broadcast on France in January 2012, was then picked up on all public channels. Many more reports on this theme followed, and this fake news ingrained itself for years.
I mention this for four reasons. First, because it was real misinformation: it was easy, at the time, to verify that the work of the “whistleblower” presented to us, Professor Gherardi, was not serious. He had invented a new disease (macrophagic myofasciitis) to support his conclusions. All serious journalists quickly realized that it was unlikely that there were “less than” 500 cases of this disease (with extremely vague, uncharacterized symptoms) in the world, almost all around his hospital, while 160 million doses of vaccines with the same adjuvant had been administered over the same period. So, it was real misinformation.
Second reason: this massive misinformation had real public health consequences by fueling vaccine mistrust.
Third reason: it had heavy democratic consequences, which we still feel today. Conspiracy theories take root in these types of reports, where you are told that the state and “Big Pharma” are conspiring to poison the common people.
Finally – the last reason – because it was the beginning of a pattern.
Since those first cases, the same manipulation pattern has repeated. You have a victim, a sick child or a grieving mother, who brings about emotions. You have a whistleblower – an isolated person, the only one who sees a truth hidden from everyone. You have a bogus study, inconclusive or fabricated for the occasion, providing a scientific veneer. And you have a culprit, of course – a product, an industry, the state. Production companies buy this “scandal package” almost ready-made.
Some NGOs, like Générations Futures for example, which is funded by the organic industry, become almost official scandal suppliers for public channels. For example, Générations Futures constructed the Cash Investigation episode on February 2, 2016, presented by Élise Lucet, titled “Pesticides, our children in danger” – which was a stack of falsehoods. The organization boasted about this without any shame, congratulating itself on its website for having entirely co-written it, working “for almost a year with the journalist” for a result that “will be very useful to advance [its] cases.” Générations Futures, more broadly, is behind all scandals based on traces of certain molecules found in food. The same NGO designed glyphotests that supported a model Envoyé spécial misinformation in 2019.
Again, this is not insignificant: the collapse of our agricultural production owes a lot to these false broadcasts, not just on public but also private channels, which caused a real panic in the population, scared to consume fruits and vegetables not labeled as organic.
And we could name many more. There were reports of misinformation on GMOs, cholesterol – presented not as a real risk factor for cardiovascular accidents, but as a plot by “Big Pharma” to sell a drug – statins – to patients (“Cholesterol, the great hoax,” Arte, 2016). On endocrine disruptors that would lower IQ (“Tomorrow, all brainless,” Arte, 2017), on 5G waves causing cancers…
This investigative Complément d’enquête, broadcast in 2020, developed the thesis of a hidden health scandal, of regulatory standards that don’t protect us, and authorities influenced by mobile telephony industry lobbies. The responsibility for electromagnetic waves emitted by relay antennas was unquestionably put in doubt – a thesis established by the “expertise” of a “géobiologue” wave hunter…
We could also mention reports on Linky meters, emitting dangerous waves. On PFAS (with the same pattern of self-declared victims, false whistleblowers, and manufactured studies, without scientific expertise or context), on trees, agriculture, water, nuclear power… Whenever a subject lies at the intersection of science and politics, the political view promoted by an influencer or a scandal-bringer lobby tends to prevail.
In general, this false information exists in all media, that’s true. But with public media, we expect them not to be subject to audience demands.
Because playing on fears has consequences. Health consequences – fruit and vegetable consumption collapses. Political consequences – we were on the verge of closing half of our nuclear power plants, in part due to this media misinformation.
In Limoges, on March 21, people were sentenced for setting fire to 5G antennas installed by Enedis. And of course, democratic consequences: the increasingly present conspiracy theories, populism feeds on this ground. But I remain convinced – and this is probably what we will explore – that there are solutions. ”
