In January, Claire Sécail (researcher at the CNRS) had published a study on “the 2022 presidential election as seen by Cyril Hanouna”. These were intermediate results for the period from September to December, showing an imbalance in favor of the Reconquest candidate!, Eric Zemmour.
The rest of the study has just been made public, this time concerning the official period of the presidential campaign. Here’s what to remember.
1 Airtime imbalance
The researcher was able to establish that the far right represented approximately 49% of TPMP’s political airtime from March 8 to 27 (a period that requires broadcasters to be fair in speaking time). The presidential majority occupies 25%, when the left reaches 20%. Claire Sécail sees in it “a bipolarization of the debate which favors the expression of the far right”.
But the period of equality (from March 28 to April 8) supposed to allow strict equality of speaking and airtime, will not restore things: “on the contrary, notes the study, the domination of the extreme right and the persistent extreme right/majority bipolarization are all the stronger as the political families of the left and the right have continued to ebb during the last fortnight which constitutes the period of the “official campaign” of the first round. »
2 An imbalance in treatment
After the candidates’ exposure time, Claire Sécail conducted a qualitative study on the way candidates are approached. It highlights “differentiated narrative registers” depending on the profiles. As far as Éric Zemmour is concerned, it would be a question of “victimization”: the way in which his campaign was handled would tend to attract him sympathy (because he would be the victim of “censorship” on the part of the CSA, “relentlessness” of the press…).
Other candidates (in particular Anne Hidalgo or Valérie Pécresse) are mentioned in terms that would constitute “disparagement”. Thus, despite debates on several candidates, the way in which they are approached would lead to “a distorted representation of pluralism”.
3 Harsh conclusions
In the end, Claire Sécail concludes that “Cyril Hanouna will only have presented a narrow vision of the campaign themes and a distorted report of the electoral competition. He made the political agenda of certain candidates – Emmanuel Macron and Éric Zemmour – and ensured the promotion and trivialization of far-right speeches at prime time. Under the guise of entertainment, he will above all have cultivated a laugh of disqualification and marginalization towards other candidates and their ideas. »