Brussels – A “media cordon sanitaire” against the unchecked spread of far-right ideas. This is what exists in Wallonia, the southern, French-speaking part of Belgium, where media organisations first addressed the issue as far back as 1991. And now, at a historic moment when the Old Continent is witnessing the rise of far-right forces, this case offers a model worth reflecting upon. “No French-language media outlet—be it television, radio or print—wants to break the media cordon sanitaire,” the journalist from La Libre Belgique, Antoine Clevers, who has been covering Belgian domestic politics for more than ten years, explains to Eunews. In his view, the Walloon media’s refusal to provide promotional space or host far-right figures on talk shows to prevent their ideas from being legitimised is easily achievable in that part of the country. It becomes far more complex, however, in contexts such as Flanders or other European countries.
The “media cordon sanitaire” in force in Wallonia is designed to prevent far-right parties or representatives from having free access to live television or radio broadcasts, thereby excluding them from studio programmes and live debates. This is to prevent any statements they might make that are inaccurate or contrary to democratic values from being broadcast without scrutiny. However, the media are encouraged to cover these parties and are permitted to interview their representatives, provided that their political programme and statements are put into context.
Eunews: The “media cordon sanitaire” has been around since the 1990s, but it’s being talked about more and more these days—why is that?
Antoine Clevers: “The ‘media cordon sanitaire’ exists only in the French-speaking part of Belgium; therefore, it applies only to French-language media. We began discussing it again in 2022 when the leader of the Reformist Movement party (Mouvement Réformateur, MR), Georges-Louis Bouchez, took part in a debate on Flemish television with the leader of the Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang, Tom Van Grieken. Van Grieken subsequently complained that the same had not happened on French-language television and accused Bouchez of having agreed with the other French-speaking parties not to debate with his far-right party. Later, in 2024, when Donald Trump was elected President of the United States and delivered his victory speech, the RTBF – Radio-Télévision Belge de la Communauté Française, the public broadcaster for Belgium’s French-speaking community, decided to broadcast the speech with a two-minute delay. The decision was justified on the grounds of the ‘media cordon sanitaire’. As the broadcaster regarded Trump as a far-right politician, his speech was not to be broadcast live, in accordance with the cordon’s rules. The two-minute delay would have made it possible to check, almost in real time, whether the newly elected president was spreading fake news or, worse still, making racist or discriminatory remarks. In such a case, RTBF could have interrupted the broadcast.”
E.: Is there a link between the “cordon”, De Wever’s current right-wing government and the rise of the far right in Europe?
A.C.: “The cordon was established before De Wever’s current government, and what is happening today is not the reason for the cordon sanitaire’s creation. It is true that the rise of the far right across much of Europe raises many questions, especially following Trump’s election. In my view, we must ask ourselves whether a measure such as the cordon is relevant, given that it is not currently being explicitly called into question in Wallonia. No French-speaking media outlet—be it television, radio or print—has stated that it wishes to lift it, so for the time being it is not a topic of debate. It must be acknowledged that it is easy to maintain this policy in Wallonia because there are no far-right political figures here. Consequently, it is easier for French-speaking journalists to uphold such a “cordon sanitaire” as, in practice, it applies to virtually no one.”
E.: Is the absence of a far-right party in Wallonia entirely due to the media cordon saniteire?
A.C.: “That is one of the reasons, but not the only one. Benjamin Biard, a political scientist and director of the Centre for Socio-Political Research and Information (CRISP), has written a paper entitled ‘The fight against the far right in Belgium – Media cordon sanitaire, civil society and the intelligence services‘ in which he analyses the various causes. These include a fairly active anti-fascist movement in Wallonia, particularly in the Liège area, alongside what we in Belgium call the ‘intermediate bodies’, that is, trade unions, mutual aid societies, and grassroots organisations that firmly oppose the far right. These organisations are in very direct contact with the public, managing to dilute the far-right message to some extent or, at the very least, to prevent it from gaining a foothold in French-speaking Belgium, in Wallonia. A further reason is the absence in Wallonia of a charismatic and politically strong far-right leader. A few very small parties have managed to elect just a couple of members to the Walloon Parliament, but they were not as strong as those in power in Flanders or in other European countries, including France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Austria. For example, some members of the National Front (FN), a Belgian far-right political party active mainly in the French-speaking community between 1985 and 2012, were even involved in legal proceedings. As a result, their message failed to reach its intended audience. This does not mean that there will never be a far-right party in Wallonia. For example, there is also an electorate here that is receptive to the most hardline anti-immigration messages or is generally hostile towards foreigners. So the emergence of a far-right party in Wallonia remains entirely possible; it is just that, so far, the conditions have never been favourable.”
E.: As a journalist, how do you view the issue of the “media cordon sanitaire”?
A.C.: “I believe the structure of the ‘media cordon sanitaire’ is too restrictive. It strikes me as a measure that suits us, one that does not force us to tackle the arguments of the far right head-on and spares us from having to deal with them. I find it reassuring to know that there is no far right in the French-speaking part of the country and that, for this reason, the question of how to apply the cordon rarely arises. However, for colleagues who deal with European or international issues, the issue of providing a platform for far-right ideas can arise more easily. In French-speaking Belgium, we do not deal with this topic very often, but in the Flemish-speaking Belgium the right is stronger. Here, there is the right party New Flemish Alliance—in Dutch, Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA)—, the Prime Minister’s party, and the far-right one Vlaams Belang, the second in the country after the N-VA. I think we should discuss it in the interests of our readers, to help them understand certain dynamics. We need to understand what the Flemish far right is, what it wants, and to dismantle its arguments. I would apply this to other European countries as well.”
E: So do you think that this isn’t the only solution to counter the rise of the far right?
A.C.: “If we were to decide today to impose a ‘media cordon sanitaire’ in countries where the far right is already present, it would serve no purpose, it wouldn’t work, and the media would lose credibility. Take France, for example: today, it would be very difficult not to cover Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella. A media cordon sanitaire would have to be put in place before the far right arrived, to prevent it from emerging altogether. Once the far right is firmly entrenched on the political and media scene, it is no longer of any use. It is too late.”
E: Is the cordon regarded as an anti-democratic measure that promotes censorship? Are there criticisms of this kind?
A.C.: “In Belgium, censorship is prohibited by law. And not giving someone a platform is not censorship. I do not believe that the editorial line is undemocratic. I believe that every newspaper should be free to determine its own editorial line. If a newspaper, as part of its editorial policy, decides not to give space to the far right, that is its choice and must be respected. It would be undemocratic if political or judicial authorities were to impose an editorial line on a media outlet. That is undemocratic. Democracy means respecting the editorial line of every media outlet.”
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
