These are two logics of the communication

It is thirty years that you look at the media and television. What perspective do you wear on this great upheaval "PAF" raised by the public broadcasting reform announced by Nicolas Sarkozy

The shock wave is at least comparable to what one has lived in 1986-1987 with the privatisation of TF1 and the deregulation of the "PAF". Until this year, almost everyone was in agreement on the fact that we had a public television that is was not so wrong with joint funding. After two decades of crisis of identity in the private channels, public television began to regain its place with the public that has never dropped it.

According to you, the suppression of advertising on public channels is therefore an error

Yes. It is an unjustified decision. Two weights, two measures. On one side, cut advertising on public channels, on the other, it promotes the transfer of this manna to the private channels. For upgrading public television, it helps the private sector!

Public television without advertising, but it was an idea instead of left to the original...

In the 1990s, there was discussion on the theme "public money public television, money private television private." But the idea of removing the advertising on public channels was quickly dropped. First because that advertising is part of the lives of viewers, and that it is not advertising programs are bad: it is on the contrary an element of competitiveness. Then, because he had to ensure the financing of France television. Because the right as the left never assumed the fact that for a public television of quality, must be an increase in the levy. A competitive public sector efficient and present international requires ways self-contained, independent of political trips.

For you, so should be to go through an increase in the fee

This is not popular, and yet... but it is the best solution to provide sustainable funding of public broadcasting. The charge in France is the lowest of all major countries. A catch-up and advertising revenues should be 20 of the funding. Unfortunately, the policies do not include little to the economy of the audiovisual and underestimate the complexity. It is the reign of the small consulting and pressure groups. Audiovisual is not respected as an economic and cultural sector.

But this reform is not an opportunity for the public television to reinvent itself

Copé commission on the future of public television has not led to much. Poorly composed, she worked on command. This crisis is an opportunity for those who are public television to rest questions about his identity, its programs, its public service missions. Need to enter the air, the youth, new ideas! One or two generations are into the culture of the image, video games, the Internet. This must renew the talents, the concepts, the Scriptures, styles. Television, as in life, there is the young and the young.

What do you think of the will of Nicolas Sarkozy to promote powerful private media groups

In international competition, it needs powerful communication groups, it is undeniable. But it also now respect for cultural diversity. The anglo-saxon model of large groups of media such as Time Warner or News Corp. will be challenged. Need to invent something else. Why would the Europeans, who fought for this diversity only model the concentration From the point of view of creation, it is counterproductive. It is a major political issue before us.

This therefore is a flawed political vision...

This is too long, alas, elites including intellectuals have abandoned the field of reflection on the TV, because they do not like mass culture. Where the fascination with Internet and media segmented. This lack of culture and legitimacy for everything concerning television, the media and, more generally, communication is harmful, especially to escape the ubiquitous technical ideology. Moreover, contrary to what you think in Europe, left-right differences on audiovisual are less strong as we think. So much the better. There is a right which has not fully deregulated, a leftist who, under François Mitterrand, opened the deregulation did not much. The dream of all political powers is to keep the media, and this serves no purpose, because there is no awareness. At this game, you win six months or a year. No more. As soon as talking television, policies are still in the shit.

Nicolas Sarkozy makes today with the reform of the audiovisual

Yes. Nicolas Sarkozy should say: "I am the first President of right which reinforces public broadcasting" by increasing its finances and strengthening its political independence. Audiovisual outside also, one might

hope a strong act to hear the multicultural France and la francophonie in a more anglo-saxon world. The France and Europe lost the battle of the communication is central to the era of globalization. Euronews should be global, TV5 strengthened and audiovisual outside French a priority site. It has 20 national champions in the automotive, energy, industry,... that export everywhere in the world, why could we not do the same with the culture and the media

The model of the large generalist public or private channels there still the future with Internet

In 1980, during my first mission to the United States on television, it said that the mass media were dead. Let us not confuse rate of technical change, evolution of behaviour and structural changes. Especially communication, where everything is complicated. My substantive argument has not changed for 30 years: there are more individualized interactive media, the more it mass media. There will be a settlement of the hearing of the mainstream media, it is clear. What will compel them to a renaissance. But people need a social link. More middle-class differentiates, more will have to group. Not to mention the risk of exclusion of the poor or immigrants and other social groups who camped next to the official company. If you want a mass democracy, must be mass media that reflect the social and cultural heterogeneity.

How do you explain the fact that TF1 has lost 10 points to hearing in ten years

The collapse of TF1 is interesting because it shows the fragility of things. You have large media thought that they keep the society. And one realizes one day that they do nothing, they are in phase with it at a given time, and then they drop out because society changes. The one is still a "mass media" and it has the means to bounce. See France television, who was on the defensive in the 1990s and which today can be traced back the slope.

But the TV is not becoming ringarde

It is a classic war of generations! The old feel marginalized young people who use the Internet against TV for... Must await the evils of individualized communication to find the benefits of mass communication. The two are complementary. These are two logics of the communication. The offer for the written press, radio and television. The application for the Internet and the rest. It is much more difficult to supply demand media. Much easier and profitable to the thematic and specialized to the GP.

The television was unifying. Internet does is not a factor in disintegration of the social link

This is not to be for or against Internet, but whether incorporates it in an array. Internet is involved in the movement of individualization, but he has not created it. It also creates social links and the values. The risk of Internet is communitarianism, while well done television is a mirror of society as a whole.

Orange promises a television personalized to each of its subscribers. That is that it inspires you

The dreams of engineers often face the complexity of the individual and society. The most simple in the communication, are techniques; the most complicated, men and society. Being a Telecom Engineering, this is not to be a genius of the content. The content is craftsmanship. Each trade, control of pipe and the integration of computing and telecoms are not any. In any event, there is a time- and all budgets. The financial crisis will recall, as it will remind the fragility of the companies and their units.

You don't think so not generalization of a television at the request, individualized

This is not because you have a technological convergence which allows you to have the same screen of the sound, images, data to the application that its use will be generalized and substitute for other media. We are not going to spend his life in a single screen, especially the size of a mobile phone. Attention to technique, if powerful ideology for fifty years. It will continue to go to the movies, reading, listening to radio, watch TV, go to the theatre or see the painting in museums. Our societies are both individualistic and mass, each is individualistic, but without the collective, there is more of society or of individualization. The social link, it is something other than the sum of the individuals and communities. For thirty years, techniques and tastes are towards individualisation. Why not But it should also maintain the collective media, precisely to overcome differences and inequalities.