By Marco Hugo Barsotti MHB 
You are listening to a new special from am1575news, France24 and Radio Centrale Milano, in podcasting and on the medium waves.
Announcement of the cancellation
On September 19, Charles Sapin, deputy director of the editorial team of Valeurs actuelles, announced on X the decision to interrupt his Sunday editorial on France Inter. After announcing the end of his contribution, the 34‑year‑old journalist described the choice of Radio France’s management as “a surrender in the face of a drift” and rejected the proposal for a substitute debate, deeming it a form of “disqualification” that fuels the polarization of public debate.
Management’s motivations
Céline Pigalle, director of France Inter, had justified Sapin’s inclusion in the name of pluralism, stating she wanted “the voice of different points of view on geopolitics, economics and politics”. In a note posted on X, Radio France acknowledged Sapin’s decision, declaring that it is not a victory for anyone and reaffirming the commitment to keep the radio a place of dialogue capable of reflecting the variety of sensibilities, even within the context of the ongoing election campaign.
Reactions of the unions and the press
Sapin’s arrival in the France Inter studios had already sparked protests from Radio France’s unions, which accused him of leaning towards far‑right positions. A new strike action, scheduled for September 21, was called to contest his insertion into the public radio’s schedule, confirming a latent tension within the group.
Criticism from right‑wing politicians
On X, Rassemblement national leader Jordan Bardella described the cancellation of Sapin as “a deep attack on pluralism”, emphasizing that a healthy democracy does not fear the clash of ideas. Bruno Retailleau also called Sapin’s intervention “a brilliant lesson of liberty”, describing the debate as “a small antifascist theater” with irony, but highlighting the risk of ideological control over the public service. Marine Le Pen added that taxpayers’ money cannot be used to favour specific political camps, especially during an electoral period, and accused France Inter’s management of yielding to a “manhunt” orchestrated by the left.
The debate on pluralism in public television
The whole episode highlights a growing tension between public service management and the claims of representation from various political orientations. Sapin, who comes from Le Figaro and Le Point, had delivered a two‑to‑three‑minute editorial every Sunday, claiming to offer an alternative perspective. His departure, although intended to calm internal tensions, reopens the debate on how much pluralism can truly find space in public broadcasters when the positions of their guests spark controversy.
Future prospects
While France Inter defends the continuity of its dialogue mission, the question remains open: will it be possible to guarantee a balance between freedom of expression and the internal pressures of unions and political forces? Listeners of Radio Centrale Milano 1575 kHz will continue to follow the developments of this controversy, which could become a case study on the role of public service in contemporary democracy.
Rachel’s Editorial – The Sapin Affair: the imaginary privatization of France Inter
I now read to you my editorial of today.
We talk about the “preventive censorship” of Charles Sapin, that journalist who managed to drive both the unions and the small circle of left‑wing intellectuals crazy. The fact that France Inter’s management decided to replace a two‑minute editorial with a “debate sequence” is more a marketing gimmick than a defence of pluralism. But really, should a structured debate frighten those who are used to talking about press freedom? We ask ourselves: who is truly afraid, left‑wing commentators or the public that still has to decide whether it wants to hear a voice out of the chorus or the usual chorus of consensus?
Jordan Bardella’s reaction, calling Sapin’s removal “a deep attack on pluralism”, sounds like an election‑campaign slogan more than a genuine denunciation. It is ironic to see the right lament the loss of an opportunity to speak to the public while at the same time denouncing the left for its apparent intolerance. Radio France’s message, in its classic PR neutrality, says it “takes note” of the decision, but does not explain why a right‑wing weekly editor should be treated with the same respect as an independent journalist. Isn’t this a demonstration of how pluralism is calibrated to political conveniences?
The real drama is that the whole episode resembles a low‑brow comedy, where the protagonists enjoy playing the victims of a freedom of speech blocked by a supposed intellectual elite. The fact that the same publicly funded platform ends up cancelling a voice because it is “radicalised” or “extremist” shows that private ownership is now invisible, yet management is clearly in the hands of a sectarian left that proclaims itself the guarantor of the common good. So, is it really freedom of expression that is threatened, or the power to decide who can speak on a public stage?
In conclusion, the Sapin affair is nothing but clear evidence that France Inter is already privatised… by a left that has turned it into an exclusive club. The censorship that calls itself “prevention” is merely a mask for ideological selection: either you agree with the dominant chorus or you are out. The result? A confused audience, a press that self‑cleanses, and a democracy that, ironically, complains of having no more space for dissent. And the lingering question is: how many more editorials will have to disappear before the left stops believing it can buy silence with its own ideological prism?
Koan of the day
Monk: But why did France Inter’s management decide to eliminate Sapin’s editorial, if pluralism is their banner?
Master: Because the bridge built over the river of debate cannot bear the weight of a single stone, otherwise the river overwhelms it and the footbridge becomes an obstacle.
Monk: And if the stone has been removed, will the bridge remain empty or lose its function?
Master: A bridge without a stone is only air; the same holds for a democracy that, deprived of dissenting voices, convinces itself it is already perfect.
This is all for now. From the Paris editorial office, I am Rachel Costa: this is am1575news, France24 and Radio Centrale Milano.