Abstract: On March 14, 2025, information pollution, exacerbated by the biased narratives of traditional media and generative AIs, threatens democracy and public health. The traditional media in France and other countries, dependent on subsidies (hundreds of millions of euros in 2022 in France) and industrialists close to the French government (Bouygues, Niel), relay official agendas, as Céline Pigalle (ex-BFMTV) admits.
Cases such as the error on Martin Bouygues (2015) or Covid (narratives about vaccines and their origin) illustrate this lack of rigor. The Conspiracy Watch “hit-checkers”, run by Reichstadt, amplifies this pollution by targeting dissidents under the guise of fact-checking. The consequences: increased mistrust and reduced decision-making autonomy.
Solutions: reforming subsidies, diversifying media ownership, sanctioning bias through a citizen body, and supporting initiatives such as BonSens.org.
Only citizen mobilization for transparency can restore healthy information, essential to an enlightened society.
ANALYSIS
« Never confuse the profession of journalist with that of advertiser or propagandist; not to accept any instructions, direct or indirect, from advertisers » : this is one of the ten duties of journalists set out in the Munich Charter (1971).
With the digitization of our social relationships and the horizontalization of these by applications (APP) and online platforms, this duty is gradually drowned in informational pollution. In recent years, lobbies have created a new place for themselves in the media ecosystem. An opportunity has thus been created for propagandists to offer services to disseminate propaganda and influence laundering under the guise of allegedly journalistic activity. The “Conspiracy Watch” lobby and the lobbyist Reichstadt have become an emblematic symbol of this phenomenon in France. The traditional media and lobbies finally come together to mix propaganda, influence peddling, bias and information.
“Fact-checking” can be an attempt to generate profit by presenting biased information as verified – a phenomenon that evokes how Pfizer sought to pass off an experimental gene therapy as a conventional vaccine. A more pictorial vision would be to say that “fact-checking” is trying to make a profit by passing off horse meat as beef.”
This recent practice has caused inconveniences for journalists and the information we consume comparable to those caused by the fraudulent insertion of horse meat in prepared meals in the agri-food industry in 2013.
It is, in short, the role of entities, which some call agencies, such as Conspiracy Watch: to take media content produced by a journalist, mix it with its own propaganda, and then present/label this fraudulent mixture as an authentic journalistic production. The problem is that horse meat is not beef, and when the products we consume are polluted, trust is lost, leading to a drop in consumption.
By dint of no longer being a stickler for the duties of journalists, many Europeans have effectively lost confidence in the lasagna of information produced industrially by the mainstream media. Thus, the title of this article could have been “When the media and self-proclaimed fact-checkers put horse meat in the lasagna of information”!
The revisited concept of information pollution
Information pollution is not limited to social networks or sites declared conspiracy theories. The traditional media, often perceived as guarantors of the truth, also participate in it through their lack of rigor, their systemic biases and their dependence on official narratives. This phenomenon can be explained by mechanisms such as confirmation bias, economic pressures and close ties to power, which compromise their role as a counter-power, as defined by the Munich Charter of 1971. The charter requires journalists to seek the truth, verify their sources and avoid collusion with political or economic powers – obligations that are frequently ignored.
A striking example is the erroneous announcement of the death of Martin Bouygues in February 2015. Several media outlets, including Le Point and BFMTV, picked up an AFP dispatch announcing the death of the industrialist without verifying the accuracy of the information. This case reveals an obvious confirmation bias: under pressure from the race for an audience and confident in AFP’s alleged reliability, the editorial staff did not try to confirm whether Bouygues was still alive. This haste polluted the media space with false information, corrected belatedly, highlighting a flaw in AFP’s journalistic standards, largely financed by public funds.
The traditional media and their insidious links with power
The information pollution within the traditional media is aggravated by their symbiotic relationships with the political and economic spheres. In France, the major media groups (TF1, France Télévisions, Le Monde, etc.) often belong to industrialists close to the government (Bouygues, Arnault, Niel) or depend on public subsidies. In 2022, according to the Ministry of Culture, direct aid to the press reached several hundred million euros, to which were added tax exemptions. Although intended to guarantee plurality, these subsidies create a financial dependence that compromises editorial independence.
“ We must not go too far against the official word,
at the risk of weakening a social consensus ,” said Cécile Pigalle during the covid crisis.
Céline Pigalle, former director of BFMTV and director of news at Radio France, acknowledged in a 2021 interview with Le Monde that the media practice a “return of the elevator” towards the authorities: » When you need exclusive information, you know that sometimes you have to relay the official narrative without questioning it too much. This mechanism of implicit obedience alters information by aligning content with political agendas rather than the search for truth. The coverage of the Yellow Vest crisis (2018-2019), often reduced to a violent movement without an analysis of its social causes, illustrates this submission to the government’s discourse.
The Munich Charter imposes a strict separation between journalism and power. However, subsidies and personal ties – such as dinners between press bosses and ministers – produce a pollution effect: the media are transformed into relays of discreet propaganda, favoring official versions to the detriment of independent investigation.
The origin of Covid: a biased narrative by non-independent experts
The debate over the origin of SARS-CoV-2 illustrates how information pollution can result from an artificial consensus imposed by experts with special interests. Initially, the zoonotic thesis (transmission by an animal) was defended by the WHO and virologists such as Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance. However, Daszak had funded research on coronaviruses in Wuhan, a conflict of interest that he did not reveal during his involvement in the WHO investigation in 2021. This opacity has distorted the official narrative, rejecting the hypothesis of a lab leak without an open scientific debate.
Jean-Jacques Laffont, an economist specializing in incentive theory, could have analyzed this phenomenon as a problem of information asymmetry : encouraged by funding or institutional pressure, experts standardize their discourse to protect their interests. This homogenization was accompanied by measures against dissidents.
Researchers such as Luc Montagnier, who suggested an artificial origin, have been marginalized, while scientific articles, such as the one in The Lancet in February 2020, have called any alternative hypothesis conspiracy theory without conclusive evidence. On X, the suspension of skeptical accounts has accentuated pollution by omission, the absence of pluralism giving way to a dogma. However, answers were accessible, and France-Soir is one of the few media outlets not to have succumbed to the lack of verification of information.
Lies at the heart of mandatory vaccination
The decision to impose vaccine mandates, such as the covid health pass in France (July 2021), is based in part on biased, polluted, exaggerated or scientifically fragile information. The mainstream media amplified partial data to legitimize this measure. For example, in July 2021, BFMTV headlined: “96% of Covid deaths are unvaccinated”, quoting Olivier Véran. This statistic, from a period when vaccination was not widespread, omitted contextual elements (age, comorbidities) and ignored cases of vaccine breakthroughs (infections despite vaccination). This biased presentation (“framing” in English) has created an illusion of absolute efficiency, polluting the public debate.
However, studies, such as the one published in The Lancet in November 2021, showed that vaccinated people could transmit the virus, contradicting the narrative » vaccinate yourself to protect others “. Despite this, the media have taken up the official statements without nuance, following the » return of the elevator » evoked by Céline Pigalle.
This pollution influenced political choices : under media pressure, the government imposed an obligation that was perceived as inevitable, while other options (targeted campaigns, transparency on vaccine limits) could have been considered. Lying by omission – silencing uncertainties – has thus justified a coercive measure, to the detriment of informed consent. This situation has been accompanied by the instrumentalization of science into ideology, as evidenced by the recurrence of the formula » I believe in science “, a reflection of an ambient dogma.
Institutional lies around vaccine contracts
A major scandal illustrating information pollution is linked to the opacity of the institutions on vaccine contracts, orchestrated in particular by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. In 2021, the European Union struck deals with Pfizer and Moderna for billions of doses, but the details — costs, liability clauses, side effect data — remained confidential.
Several articles by France-Soir, one of the few media outlets to have investigated, revealed that key passages were redacted under the pretext of trade secrets. Von der Leyen has played a murky role, exploiting this opacity as a lever of power at the expense of the public interest. Her text message exchanges with Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, revealed by the New York Times in April 2021, weighed in these negotiations, but she refused to make them public despite requests for transparency from journalists, MEPs such as Michèle Rivasi and Frédéric Baldan.
This withholding of information – including clauses exempting Pfizer from liability for serious effects and early data on myocarditis (reported by Israel in May 2021) – has prevented citizens and health professionals from honestly assessing the risks, distorting decision-making and exposing people to accountable.
Lessons from France-Soir: How the traditional media and checkers disguise opinions as facts
A concrete example of information pollution can be found in the analyses published in France-Soir, such as » Let’s point the finger at the polluters of information » (June 15, 2023) and » The momentum of information and the making of trends “. The first proposes to apply the » polluter pays » principle to the media, accusing the mainstream of disseminating toxic information that » pollutes the lives of the French “. The second argues that public opinion is a by-product of primary information, often manipulated by imposed narratives.
These articles claim that opinions are fabricated and presented as fact, and then » whitewashed » in other media such as Wikipedia to give them an appearance of legitimacy. France-Soir rightly criticizes the biases of subsidized media and its own articles contribute to the depollution by favoring a factual approach to the detriment of an agreed narrative.
However, the challenge for France-Soir is that its criticism is not itself perceived as pollution! This is what the media are trying to make us believe, which unfoundedly criticize the analytical approach and the collaborative journalism practiced by France-Soir.
How did Wikipedia become a platform for laundering false information?
Wikipedia, often falsely considered a neutral source, contributes to information pollution through a process of » laundering » false information. His articles are regularly reviewed by contributors aligned with dominant narratives, incorporating data from biased traditional media or institutions with little transparency. For example, the Covid vaccines page has long downplayed rare side effects, such as myocarditis, based on official statements rather than divergent primary studies.
This mechanism, described in France-Soir’s “La fabrique des tendances”, converts biased opinions or interpretations into encyclopedic “facts,” altering the publicly available knowledge base. This standardization, reinforced by moderators who are often ideologically oriented, limits the diversity of points of view and imposes a preconceived truth on readers.
The manufacture of crowd consent with the lies surrounding public decisions
On the theoretical level, lying in public decisions generates informational biases that distort collective perception and subjugate populations. According to Hannah Arendt, political lies thrive when truth becomes a power issue: by manipulating information, decision-makers impose choices that are beyond democratic control.
In concrete terms, this manifests itself in simplistic or falsified narratives, justifying oppressive policies that instrumentalize science as a tool of coercion. During the Covid crisis, the lie about the absolute effectiveness of vaccines – presented as a miracle solution with no notable side effects – biased the debate, masking data on rare but real risks (for example, myocarditis in young people, reported by the EMA in 2021).
This pollution has deprived the population of its decision-making autonomy, subjecting it to coercion hidden under health or pseudoscientific arguments. Paradoxically, this lie, which is supposed to protect, has fueled mistrust of institutions, further weakening social cohesion.
How do you get disinformation about Robert Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump to swallow?
Information pollution also affects figures like Robert Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump, generating negative media coverage and denigrating their actions in the mainstream media.
For Kennedy, the media has often reduced his speech to caricatured anti-vaccine positions, obscuring his advocacy for scientific transparency and the regulation of pharmaceutical industries. In 2023, his bid for the US presidency was presented as a “conspiracy threat”, without any in-depth analysis of his environmental or economic proposals. France-Soir stands out as the only French media outlet to have interviewed him directly, offering readers access to his own words rather than biased interpretations.
As for Trump, media coverage has oscillated between demonization (highlighting his controversial statements) and downplaying of his successes (e.g., the Abraham Accords in the Middle East). This polarization creates a biased perception, far from reality: Kennedy is not limited to an » anti-vaxxer » and Trump is not just an » uncontrollable populist ,” as illustrated by his determination to promote peace in Ukraine.
This pollution, fueled by anti-dissent or anti-conservative ideological biases, prevents an objective assessment and harms public debate.
We consume information, so a well-informed population is healthier
A population free from information pollution would enjoy better health, both physical and mental. Access to reliable data supports informed choices: for example, knowing the limitations of vaccines could have encouraged harm reduction, mitigating social tensions and preventable side effects. Conversely, ideological biases compromise this » information health “.
The pro-pharmacy bias, exemplified by the unilateral promotion of vaccines to the detriment of alternatives such as vitamin D (underexplored despite promising studies published in Nutrients in 2020), favors economic interests over scientific bases. A notable peak in 2024 was the publication of the fraudulent Pradelle Lega study, which falsely claimed that 17,000 people had died from hydroxychloroquine against Covid. Subsequently retracted, this study had already caused damage: the media, which had rushed to talk about it in January 2024, remained silent when it was retracted, leaving readers in the dark.
The statist bias, visible in the systematic defense of lockdowns without debate on their psychological costs (27% increase in depression in 2021, according to Santé publique France), favors control to the detriment of well-being. Sound, pluralistic and transparent information would strengthen collective resilience in the face of crises.
The paradox of politics: lying and exempting oneself
Political lies are all the more harmful because their authors free themselves from the rules they impose. In France, during the lockdowns, ministers such as Christophe Castaner were seen in clandestine restaurants (Mediapart revealed in 2021), while the population was fined for non-compliance with the curfew.
This double standard, reinforced by often complacent media coverage, reflects an authority bias: elites excuse their transgressions by their status, eroding public trust. This paradox, which Michel Foucault analyzed as a « governmentality » based on inequality, shows how institutional lies enslave by weakening the idea of an equitable social contract.
The democratic crisis in Romania: pollution and interference
Romania is experiencing a democratic crisis aggravated by information pollution, as evidenced by the exclusion of Călin Georgescu from the 2024 presidential race. Without a trial proving his guilt, Georgescu was sidelined on unsubstantiated charges of right-wing extremism and pro-Russian sympathies — labels frequently used to discredit dissidents.
An article in Le Parisien dated March 12, 2025 was headlined: » Romania: a pro-Putin ultranationalist threatens democracy “, conflating without evidence rumors and facts, which biased the perception of the French. In reality, Georgescu, a former UN official, defended economic sovereignty, a nuance drowned in a disinformation campaign.
French and European actors, notably through the visit of the France ambassador to Bucharest in March 2025, seem to have influenced this electoral process, fueling suspicions of interference. Emmanuel Macron’s silence in the face of these allegations accentuates the opacity. If these facts are confirmed, France could be the target of a complaint for interference in the Romanian elections, a serious act that would further erode trust in the European institutions.
Information pollution: the plague of 2025
On March 14, 2025, information pollution reaches its peak. The proliferation of generative AIs, such as deepfakes, accelerates the spread of falsified content: in January 2025, a faked video of Emmanuel Macron announcing a fictitious war against Germany circulated on X, deceiving thousands of users before being denied.
Under economic pressure, the mainstream media favor sensationalism – for example, alarmist headlines about non-existent Covid variants – at the expense of rigor. Le Parisien, notably via Nicolas Berrod, has become a propagandist organ during the Covid crisis, biasing readers’ opinions on health issues through disinformation methods. Most of the major media outlets have relayed state narratives in unison, particularly during the European elections or the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, presenting only one side of the coin: the one in favour of the government.
This scourge, fuelled by political polarisation and post-Covid mistrust, threatens democratic stability, making it imperative to clean up the information space. Yet the population, now lucid, recognizes the information pollution, the labels used to discredit opponents of the official narrative, and the use of censorship to maintain control over it.
Solutions to clean up or decontaminate information
To counter this mainstream pollution, it is necessary to:
- Reform or abolish subsidies : for example, by making them conditional on verifiable editorial independence, with public and citizen audits – or simply by abolishing them if it is decided that the state should not interfere in the press.
- Diversify media ownership : limit media concentration in the hands of a few tycoons.
- Sanction systemic bias and information pollution : create an independent and citizen-based body to assess compliance with the Munich Charter, with dissuasive fines – as for drunk driving or doping: several months of ban from practising or even a lifetime ban.
- Encourage whistleblowers : protect journalists who expose internal collusion.
- Support citizen initiatives : associations like BonSens.org play a key role in depollution by publishing accessible scientific articles (e.g., study on hydroxychloroquine in Antiviral Research, 2025) and by challenging official narratives with verified data. Founded in 2020 by scientists, doctors and lawyers, this organization promotes transparency and debate, countering the censorship of dissenting voices on topics such as early treatments or vaccine effects and takes the necessary steps to act in defense of fundamental rights – for example, on the potential violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
When the Press Becomes Propaganda: The Case of Conspiracy Watch and Reichstadt (or Newsguard in the US)
Take the example of Conspiracy Watch, a controversial and often propagandized organization that has a strong presence in many forums.
A questionable journalistic façade : Rudy Reichstadt, its director, poses as a defender of the truth in the face of conspiracy theories. However, its practices are more akin to those of an unofficial lobby than to journalism in accordance with the Munich Charter. This charter requires to » publish only information whose origin is known » and to » not omit essential information “. However, Reichstadt deviates from this, using propagandistic methods to manipulate information and discredit any opposition.
Propaganda under the guise of the press – Conspiracy Watch is licensed as an online news service, but its practices contravene ethical standards:
- Biased selection of targets : Reichstadt focuses his criticism on dissident figures (for example, Étienne Chouard, accused of conspiracy theory for his support of the RIC), while ignoring questionable official narratives. His silence on Russiagate, debunked by the 2019 Mueller report, reveals an obvious bias.
- Systematic pathologization : by qualifying all skepticism as » mental illness » or » radicalism ,” he stigmatizes legitimate doubt. During the Covid crisis, he equated criticism of lockdowns with negationism, without examining their arguments.
- Deliberate omission : in his analyses of 9/11, he ignores inconsistencies in the official report (such as the collapse of WTC 7) to focus on extreme theories, distorting the debate with a binary approach.
A lobby for power : Reichstadt is not an impartial observer, but an actor who defends a pro-establishment ideology:
- Opaque funding : with a budget of €203,000 in 2023, 50% of which comes from public funds (Marianne Fund, DILCRAH), Conspiracy Watch depends on the state, a link it minimizes. These subsidies, comparable to those of traditional media, align it with the government agenda.
- Influential networks : member of the Jean-Jaurès Foundation (close to the Socialist Party), columnist for France Info and Franc-Tireur, he relies on the media and political elites. His interventions for the Government Information Service (SIG) or the Ministry of Education (anti-conspiracy workshops) make him an official relay.
- Control tools : he resorts to massive reports on X, partnerships with institutional fact-checkers and smear campaigns to silence his opponents, such as the blogger François Asselineau, accused without tangible evidence of anti-Semitism.
Reichstadt uses tactics of systematic discreditation: ad hominem (personal) attacks, guilt-by-association (association with extremists) and cherry-picking (biased selection of facts that serve his thesis).
For example, in his approach to climate skepticism, he equates any criticism of ecological policies with climate denial, without distinction. This simplism contravenes the duty of journalistic nuance and constitutes an inverted form of informational pollution:
impose a single truth under the pretext of combating false information.
Conclusion
Information pollution, whether it emanates from traditional media, institutions, or platforms such as Wikipedia, represents a systemic threat to democracy and the well-being of societies.
In 2025, as crises – health, political, technological – multiply, this saturation of truncated truths and biased narratives compromises our ability to act together. Yet there are signs of hope: initiatives like BonSens.org and alternative media such as France-Soir, despite their limitations, underscore the importance of direct access to raw information and facts.
Cleaning up will require citizen mobilization, an increased demand for transparency from the public authorities and a critical reappropriation of digital tools. Only an enlightened, lucid and united society will be able to overcome this scourge and build a future anchored in truth rather than in lies.