Journalism in France

In preparing for a presentation on world journalism (my chosen country being France, because I spent a year in French-speaking Switzerland), I realised that my Powerpoint bullet points had turned into mini essays, so decided to whack them in a blog.
My "area" in the group was regulations, and the issue of public and private in the media, which seriously intrigues me. It seems that, at the moment especially, within the French media there is a growing problem with general relations between journalists and politicians. I say 'especially' in reference to the Mitterand case- Sarkozy's minister for culture, who has recently been slaughtered by the press for various reasons all stemming from his writing about his sexual escapades with "young boys" in Thailand.
My reasons for using this as my example follow thus: 1) he's a politician, and he's very prominently "in the news"; 2) he used to be a Television personality; 3) he wrote the book in which he confessed his paedophilic sins four years ago.
The third point is, in my humble opinion, the reason why Sarkozy is now defending Frederic Mitterand- the President hired the guy knowing that he harboured disgusting sexual habits amongst, no doubt, several STIs... However, why this is is totally beyond me. So I've come up with a formula if you will, as to why the French are only now making a huge deal out of the whole issue.
Basically, selected aspects of the public versus private interface are changing in France, quite specifically and significantly concerning the mediatisation of politicians. It is my belief that there is now no political, journalistic, and certainly no popular consensus as to where this dividing line should, if at all, be drawn. I've designed a formula to lay out this theory:

1. Politicians need to use the media for the purposes of self-publicity and to project a coherent electoral image.
2. Journalists operate in a highly competitive market which is dominated by the pursuit of audience and advertising revenue.
3. The French public, as voters, have become somewhat disenchanted with the political class. As users of the media they view politicians rather as celebrities, and have an insatiable appetite for personal information on them.

Tony Blair once said: "Everything private is potentially public." Apparently so.

This is potentially why "sex tourism culture minister" Mitterand is being absolutely slaughtered by the disillusioned, somewhat bitter French. Especially now because he is supporting a man who believes a thirteen-year-old is old enough to decide whether or not to have sex, or know whether she is in love. Debatable of course, but we can all agree that the law is in place for a reason, and it is in place. Of course, no one cares that Mitterand's having a bad time anyway, because he's a 'pedofile degoutant', but this is besides the point. Why wasn't he told off four years ago when we read his book the first time around?
Maybe because he was a TV personality, choosing to bare himself. Now he has a hand in running France. While this possible answer could and does make sense, it doesn't offer an explanation as to why he was still widely liked after the book was first published, and more importantly- why he was elected as Minister of Culture. And on a vaguely humorous note, how very ironic: he certainly has succeeded in showcasing some Thai culture across the pond.
Anyway, since I'm English, could we possibly compare this problem with the MPs expenses scandal? Are we intruding into their 'private sphere' by demanding to know what they do and how they spend in la quotidienne? Not really considering most of them are blowing our ridiculously large taxes on gardening. But something to think about nonetheless.
Until next time...
Keeley xx