The recent racist terrorist attack has reignited an essential debate about the impact of media concentration and the role and responsibility of editorialists, journalists, and political figures given a platform in the media in fueling social tensions, deepening divisions, and contributing to the normalization of racism and Islamophobia.

On October 23, 2026, a 39-year-old French man opened fire in Trappes and La Verrière, deliberately targeting, as he himself stated, “Blacks and Arabs” because he had “had enough of them.” He also claimed he wanted to avenge shopkeepers whose businesses had been looted during the protests and riots of October 17. The attack left one person dead and five injured, including a 12-year-old girl who was shot eight times. While many political figures condemned the attack, others went further, linking it to the growing normalization of racist discourse and the media visibility given to figures who openly spread hatred against immigrants, Arabs, Black people, and French Muslims.

When racist discourse becomes mainstream

After the attack, the mayor of Trappes, Ali Rabeh, accused 24-hour news channels of contributing to the normalization of racist discourse by stigmatizing Trappes and regularly giving far-right figures a platform to express their views. According to him, such discourse fuels a climate of hatred that can encourage the escalation from words to violence. He argued that television studios have become places where ideological narratives are manufactured, leading individuals like the assailant to believe they are fighting a war against an internal enemy. These accusations raise questions about how the media contribute to the spread of hatred through three interconnected mechanisms: stigmatization, normalization, and legitimization.

In February 2022, Jordan Bardella, president of the far-right Rassemblement National (National Rally) party, described the town of Trappes on the French television channel C8 as “a miniature Islamic republic” and “the European capital of jihad,” claiming that the town was “plagued by Islamism.” A year earlier, in February 2021, an editorialist on CNews, a television channel owned by the same media group as C8, described Trappes as “Trapistan”, claiming that it was a place of radicalization where “Sharia law applies in certain parts of the territory.” Beyond stigmatizing the town and its inhabitants, these statements illustrate how media framing works, presenting Trappes mainly through the lens of Islamism, radicalization, and insecurity, while leaving aside other aspects of the town and the everyday lives of its residents.

The normalization of such discourse becomes even more apparent when looking at the media debates following the October 17 demonstrations. Several editorialists, journalists, and political figures repeatedly attributed the looting to people of immigrant backgrounds, with some even claiming that their origins were obvious from their physical appearance. Beyond the discriminatory nature of these statements, what is particularly troubling is how such generalizations can become part of everyday television debates, gradually blurring the line between political commentary and racial prejudice. For instance, Charles Consigny, an editorialist and political commentator on BFMTV, claimed on television following the October 17 demonstrations and the looting of several stores that the identity of the looters was obvious from the images, asserting that they were children of immigrants. Similarly, on October 18, following the demonstrations and subsequent looting, Éric Zemmour, a far-right politician and founder of the Reconquête party, described the looters as a group of “Maghrebi and African barbarians.”

The third mechanism, legitimization, goes a step further. It is not simply about repeating racist discourse, but about giving it credibility and a place in mainstream political debate. The same Éric Zemmour, who has been tried and convicted several times under French law for offenses related to hate speech, has repeatedly been invited onto France’s major 24-hour news channels, including BFMTV, CNews, and LCI. According to Mediapart, a French investigative news outlet, he appeared a total of seven times across these three channels, during which he was given the opportunity to openly promote his racist “Great Replacement” theory, a conspiracy theory that also inspired the perpetrator of the deadly Christchurch Mosque attacks in New Zealand. What is particularly troubling is that presenters rarely challenged his statements, if at all. By repeatedly giving such figures a platform, especially without seriously questioning their claims, media outlets risk turning extremist narratives into seemingly legitimate political opinions.

Behind these three mechanisms lies a broader system in which polarizing discourse attracts audiences, generates engagement, and ultimately brings financial benefits to media owners, who may also have their own political and economic interests. This is where the concentration of media ownership in France becomes particularly important, raising questions about who controls the media, whose interests are served, and how these interests may influence public debate.

Media concentration: The power to set the agenda and shape public debate

In France, a handful of billionaires control a large share of the country's major private media outlets, including some of its most influential 24-hour news channels. According to a 2026 report by the French National Assembly, four major private media groups account for nearly 60% of television audiences in France. Such concentration raises important questions about media pluralism, editorial independence, and the influence of economic and political interests on public debate. The three major 24-hour news channels mentioned in this article are owned by different powerful businessmen. CNews, which has faced several court rulings and sanctions from France’s media regulator, Arcom, is controlled by billionaire Vincent Bolloré. Known for his far-right political orientation, Bolloré has used his media empire to promote a conservative, nationalist, and identity-driven agenda. His media strategy has been widely criticized for contributing to the mainstreaming of far-right ideas and the normalization of racist and anti-immigration narratives in French public debate. According to the French National Audiovisual Institute (INA), the word “Islam” was mentioned 30,933 times on CNews between 2020 and 2024, significantly more often than on competing news channels. Another striking figure concerns immigration: during the same period, the word “immigration” was mentioned 69,353 times on CNews, nearly three times as often as on its competitors. These numbers are particularly revealing when examined through the lens of agenda-setting theory, which suggests that the media may not tell us what to think, but they can influence what we think about. By saturating the media space with recurring topics such as Islam, immigration, or the Islamic veil, news channels can push these issues to the center of public debate, shaping what audiences perceive as the country's most pressing concerns. Although the word “Islam” was mentioned roughly half as often on BFMTV and LCI as on CNews, these two channels are not entirely exempt from criticism. BFMTV, owned by French-Lebanese billionaire Rodolphe Saadé, and LCI, controlled by the Bouygues group, have less openly far-right editorial lines than CNews. Nevertheless, both have faced criticism for giving a platform to controversial political figures and anti-immigration rhetoric, particularly during debates surrounding security, Islam, and French identity, raising questions about their contribution to the polarization of public debate.

But the issue is not only how often Islam and immigration are discussed. It is also how they are presented. This is where agenda-setting and framing come together. As illustrated earlier by the coverage of Trappes, when Muslims and immigrants are repeatedly associated with insecurity, radicalization, or threats to French identity, the media are not simply drawing attention to these subjects. They are also promoting a particular way of understanding them.

Beyond political and ideological interests, another important factor helps explain the growing prominence of divisive debates: the economic logic of the media. Polarizing debates attract attention, generate audiences, and ultimately increase the commercial value of advertising space. In this profit-driven system, news channels risk becoming platforms for opinion, confrontation, and polarization rather than spaces primarily dedicated to informing the public.

Finally, the problem does not stop at television studios. Social media platforms and their algorithms can further amplify these divisive narratives, giving them greater visibility and allowing hatred to spread far beyond traditional media. Breaking this cycle of manufactured hate requires responsible and ethical journalism, independent media watchdogs, effective regulation, and greater media literacy among audiences. Above all, it requires challenging the normalization of racism and Islamophobia in public debate, rather than allowing such discourse to reinforce the institutionalized racism that already exists in French society.