The Majestic, Nagui, Delphine Ernotte… Eric Morillot's revelations that are shaking up public broadcasting

On the eve of the Cannes Film Festival, a book is already causing a stir in the corridors of France Télévisions and Radio France. The Untouchables of Public Broadcasting, published by L'ArtilleurEric Morillot and Michel Goldstein delve into the inner workings of a system accused of financial misconduct, cronyism, and ideological activism. From the explosive Majestic affair during Cannes to the controversies surrounding Nagui, Léa Salamé, Élise Lucet, and Delphine Ernotte, the authors paint a portrait of a public broadcasting sector that many French people now consider disconnected from their reality. With exorbitant salaries, internal privileges, suspicions of collusion, and a culture war, the book, propelled by runaway success in bookstores, is already shaping up to be one of the major media events of the spring. For Entrevue magazine, Eric Morillot speaks frankly about the revelations that are already shaking the French audiovisual landscape.

Interview: On the eve of the 2026 Cannes Film Festival, your book has reignited the Majestic affair. Why could this story become explosive?

Eric Morillot: Because that is precisely one of the book's major revelations.

While all of France will be watching Cannes, the red carpets and the parties of the Festival, we reveal in "The Untouchables of Public Broadcasting" the very embarrassing behind-the-scenes details of the stay of several France Télévisions executives at the Majestic during the 2023 Cannes Film Festival. We publish very disturbing information concerning the bill for these luxury nights.

During their hearings, Delphine Ernotte and several France Télévisions executives claimed that these trips “didn’t cost taxpayers a single cent” thanks to a barter system. The problem is that no barter agreement has ever been found. And, more importantly, we are revealing the existence of an invoice from the Majestic Hotel paid by the company Global Business Travel (GBT).

A judicial investigation has been opened today. This case could very quickly escalate dramatically.

Moreover, the first consequences already seem visible. France Télévisions will no longer be staying at the Majestic, but at another Cannes luxury hotel, the Gray d'Albion, which is only slightly less expensive, as Christophe Tardieu, Secretary General of France Télévisions, recently indicated. This change might also raise eyebrows, given how small the cost difference between the two establishments appears—a bit like replacing a Ferrari with a Porsche.

Why is this case so shocking?

Because it's immediately visual. The Majestic is Cannes, luxury, suites, the Croisette.

When the French discover that public service leaders are staying in one of the world's most prestigious hotels, with dubious billing and financing, while they are being told that savings must be made, it inevitably causes a shock.

The Majestic has become the symbol of a public broadcasting service living in a different world. And that's not just a minor detail; it's the gateway to something much larger.

Hotel Le Majestic Cannes

Your book describes a veritable system…

Yes. The commission of inquiry uncovered enormous privileges, exorbitant salaries, incredible protections, networks of influence, conflicts of interest, and a clear ideological bias. Many French people suddenly felt they had discovered the dark side of public service.

Nagui is one of the names that comes up most often in your book…

Because it raises a lot of questions. At one point, Charles Alloncle even claims that Nagui is “the person who has profited the most from public funds in the last ten years.” Obviously, this statement caused a huge uproar. Nagui responded publicly, denouncing a campaign against him and speaking of online hate. But the debate had begun.

And above all, the French have started to look at certain public service stars differently.

Do you think there is a divide today between the stars of French television and the rest of the country?

Yes, absolutely. The problem isn't that some public figures earn a good living. The problem is the contrast. Many French people feel that certain public service stars live in a sheltered world, constantly lecturing others, speaking on behalf of the people, while remaining completely disconnected from their reality. And when stories about salaries, privileges, or luxury hotels surface, anger erupts.

Do you also talk about Léa Salamé in your book?

Yes, because she has become one of the most emblematic figures in public broadcasting. Her hearing before the commission made a significant impact. She explained, in particular, that "transparency is essential," while refusing to publicly disclose her salary. This passage struck a chord with many. Because it perfectly encapsulates the current unease: many French people feel that certain media figures demand total transparency for others, but become much more discreet when it comes to themselves.

We also revisit the questions raised during the commission's hearings concerning the links between journalism, influence, and political affiliation. And, of course, her relationship with Raphaël Glucksmann also fueled the debate on neutrality in public broadcasting. Léa Salamé is not the central subject of the book, but she emerges as one of the most symbolic faces of a media system that is currently raising a great many questions among the French public.

Patrick Cohen and Thomas Legrand also appear in a sequence that went viral...

Yes, that famous video filmed in a Parisian café. In it, Thomas Legrand can be heard saying, “We’re doing what’s necessary for Dati, Patrick, and me.” This statement had a bombshell effect. Because it gave many French people the feeling that there was collusion between certain journalists and certain politicians. Even Jean-Luc Mélenchon reacted very harshly. From that moment on, many people thought, “So they’re not neutral.”

You also mention Élise Lucet in your book…

Yes, because her hearing made a lasting impression. Charles Alloncle asked her why she refused to disclose her salary, given that she embodies transparency on television. She replied that her compensation was approved by state auditors. But many French people took away something else: the champion of transparency didn't want to reveal her own salary.

This passage has circulated widely. Because it touches on something very deep in public opinion: the feeling of a permanent double standard.

Delphine Ernotte appears as the central figure of the book…

Yes, because she embodies this system. The book recounts her rise, her networks, her supporters, her statements, and the ideological transformation of France Télévisions under her leadership. And above all, this now-symbolic phrase: “We try to represent France as we would like it to be.” For many French people, this phrase was a shock. Because they felt that a small elite wanted to culturally reshape the country.

You're going very far on the ideological issue…

Because the leaders themselves have finally accepted it. When Stéphane Sitbon-Gomès declares: “Wanting to live together begins with seeing things together”, it reveals a very precise vision of the role of the media.

The idea is no longer simply to inform or entertain. The idea has become to culturally transform society. And many French people now consider that public broadcasting has become an opinion-based media outlet funded by their taxes.

The president of France Télévisions, Delphine Ernotte-Cunci, and the director of channels and programs, Stéphane Sitbon-Gomez

You also mention enormous privileges at France Télévisions…

The figures are staggering.

The average salary at France Télévisions exceeds 6,000 euros gross per month.

Around thirty directors earn more than the President of the Republic.

And above all, there are completely exceptional social benefits.

For example, some severance payments can be up to four times higher than what is provided for in the Labor Code.

When the French discover this in the current context, it inevitably provokes a huge reaction.

You often use the word “caste”. Why?

Because there is clearly an extremely powerful inner circle at play. The same networks are always present: elite universities, ministerial offices, major newsrooms, administrative authorities, media executives, and the political sphere. And above all, a shared worldview. The book shows how this elite has gradually taken control of public broadcasting.

Why is this book likely to generate so much discussion?

Because it touches on something very deep in the country. The French have a growing feeling that there are now two worlds: that of the media elites and that of the rest of the country.

When they discover the luxury hotels, the salaries, the privileges, the arrangements, the contradictions and the protections, it inevitably causes a shock.

And above all, the book gives names: Nagui, Delphine Ernotte, Patrick Cohen, Thomas Legrand, Léa Salamé, Élise Lucet… These are no longer abstract concepts. They are the faces of a system that many French people now view differently.

Ultimately, what is your book about?

He recounts how a portion of public broadcasting gradually transformed into an ideological, social, and financial fortress. A fortress where some believed themselves untouchable. And for the first time, we have opened the doors of this fortress.