“Reporters sans frontières” (RSF), translated from French as “Reporters Without Borders,” is an international non-governmental organization headquartered in Paris that “advocates” for press freedom. However, the organization also faces accusations related to political controversies, financial transparency issues, and allegedly serving specific interests on a global scale.
RSF currently operates through:
– 134 correspondents worldwide;
– six international sections located in Germany, Austria, Spain, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland;
– one international headquarters in Paris, France; and
– seven offices in London, Brussels, Tunis, Washington, Rio de Janeiro, Dakar, and Taipei.
Taking into account what it describes as the organization’s biased activities toward Azerbaijan, Faktyoxla (a fact-checking portal) decided to investigate a number of issues related to RSF’s activities and operations.
RSF has published more than 50 articles concerning Azerbaijan on its official website since 2020, including around 20 articles during the 2024–2026 period, all of which, according to the assessment, contained criticism directed at the country.
For comparison, an examination of RSF’s publications concerning France revealed what the authors describe as a markedly different approach. Aside from one or two limited appeals, the organization rarely criticizes the French state. Instead, it has publicly recognized and praised the activities of Arcom, France’s Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communications.
In certain cases, Arcom has reportedly relied on RSF’s investigations when taking action against media outlets. One example cited is the regulatory measures imposed on the CNews television channel, which is known in France for its right-wing editorial stance.
The article further argues that RSF has acted in parallel with French law enforcement authorities regarding the social media platform X and its owner, Elon Musk. It notes that, during the current year, the Cybercrime Division of the Paris Prosecutor’s Office attempted to question the American businessman, while RSF also submitted a complaint against the platform to the same division.
RSF was founded in 1985 in Montpellier, France, by Robert Ménard, Rémy Loury, Jacques Molénat, and Émilien Jubineau, and was officially registered as a non-governmental organization in 1995. The article identifies the political trajectory of RSF’s longtime leader, Robert Ménard, as one of the key factors raising questions about the organization’s objectivity. Ménard headed RSF for nearly 23 years, from 1985 until 2008, before transferring leadership to Jean-François Julliard and leaving the organization.
Following his departure from RSF, which at the time was generally perceived as having left-leaning views, Ménard adopted a significantly different political orientation and became associated with France’s radical right.
In 2014, he was elected mayor of Béziers, with support from political forces close to the far-right National Front, led by Marine Le Pen. He subsequently became widely known for positions characterized as anti-immigration, nationalist, and Islamophobic.
According to the article, during his political career Ménard linked the growth of France’s Muslim population to the so-called “Great Replacement” theory, sought to compile statistics on Muslim schoolchildren despite French restrictions on collecting ethnic and religious data, advocated banning kebab restaurants, and referred to immigrants as “occupiers.” (BBC) He was eventually prosecuted and fined on charges related to incitement to hatred and discrimination.
Although RSF has maintained that Ménard’s personal political views did not influence the organization’s policies, the article argues that, given his leadership of the organization for more than two decades, RSF’s institutional principles, expert networks, and methodologies were shaped during his tenure. According to the article, a number of critics, particularly from non-Western sources, believe that Ménard’s political background contributed to RSF’s critical positions toward Muslim-majority countries, immigrant communities, and certain regions, including Azerbaijan. Some observers have also interpreted RSF’s assessments of media freedom in those countries through the lens of Islamophobia. (institute.aljazeera)
Below there are some of Robert Menard’s most famous anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant statements:
On September 5, 2016, during an appearance on the French television channel LCI, Ménard stated: “In a classroom in the center of my city, 91% of the children are Muslim. Of course, this is a problem. There is a limit to tolerance.”
On September 1, 2016, marking the beginning of the school year, he wrote on X (then Twitter): “#SchoolOpening: The clearest proof that the Great Replacement is underway. Just look at the old classroom photos.”
Sources and forms of funding of the organization
Although RSF officially presents itself as an independent organization, more than half of its budget — approximately 54% — is financed directly by Western governments and state institutions. These sources reportedly include the European Commission, the French Development Agency (AFD), and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
The article further notes that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a U.S.-funded political foundation, and the Open Society Institute, founded by billionaire George Soros, are among RSF’s major donors.
It points out that in 2005, RSF founder Robert Ménard publicly acknowledged that the organization had received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is financed by the U.S. Congress. According to Ménard, the amount received was approximately $40,000, representing around 2% of RSF’s budget at the time. The article argues that, because the NED has been associated with political developments and regime-change allegations in various countries, this admission raised questions about RSF’s claims of complete independence. (monde-diplomatique)
The article further notes that, in 2008, UNESCO withdrew its sponsorship of an event organized by RSF. According to the text, UNESCO considered RSF’s conduct to be excessively politicized and lacking in impartiality. Specifically, some UNESCO member states viewed RSF’s campaigns against countries such as China, particularly ahead of the Beijing Olympics, and Cuba as biased and inconsistent with UNESCO’s principles. RSF, in turn, accused UNESCO of compromising with authoritarian governments.
The article argues that the foundations and government institutions supporting RSF financially provide insight into what it describes as the organization’s underlying political agenda. It states that the Open Society Institute, founded by George Soros, allocates significant grants to RSF’s projects related to independent journalism. Additionally, the Sigrid Rausing Trust, a London-based foundation focused on human rights issues, reportedly finances several of RSF’s regional initiatives.
Some Western governments and state agencies that fund RSF include:
Agence Française de Développement (AFD), which is owned by the French state and provides direct support to RSF’s activities headquartered in Paris;
The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), which administers grant programs aligned with the foreign policy priorities of Scandinavian countries;
The European Union, through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which reportedly provides RSF with hundreds of thousands of euros annually through European Commission funding mechanisms.
The French Development Agency (AFD) is among the principal providers of grants to RSF and constitutes a significant component of the organization’s financing structure. The article argues that this relationship reinforces allegations regarding RSF’s institutional ties to the French state. AFD and RSF reportedly cooperate on projects related to the protection of journalists and media freedom, although, in certain regions — particularly in Africa — such initiatives are sometimes perceived as instruments of French neo-colonial influence.
The article further argues that, despite RSF’s claims of independence, a substantial portion of its budget is derived from official French state institutions. In addition to AFD support, RSF reportedly receives project-based financing from the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. According to the article’s assessment, given the deterioration in relations between Paris and Baku, it appears unlikely that an organization receiving financial support from French state institutions would adopt positions fundamentally different from the foreign policy orientation of the French government. The article contends that RSF’s activities correspond to the political positions promoted by the Élysée Palace, in part to preserve its funding sources.
As additional evidence, the article refers to legal disputes involving the wife of the French president and several journalists. It argues that searches conducted on RSF’s website reveal no material regarding journalists allegedly subjected to judicial pressure in those cases, whereas the organization responds rapidly to comparable incidents occurring elsewhere in the world, including cases unrelated to journalism.
Based on these observations, the article concludes that the French government’s negative and critical attitude toward Azerbaijan has directly influenced the reporting and activities of Reporters Without Borders, whose headquarters are located in Paris.
The influence of the French political elite and the Armenian lobby
The article further argues that non-governmental organizations operating in France are subject to pressure from the country’s influential Armenian community and lobbying organizations, including the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations of France (CCAF). Against the backdrop of what the article characterizes as a hybrid campaign conducted by the French government against Azerbaijan, it argues that RSF has intensified its criticism of Azerbaijan in order to maintain domestic political support and avoid becoming a target within French political discourse. The article also claims that, because France provides political and military support to Armenia, RSF has aligned itself with this policy by overlooking alleged violations of media freedom in Armenia while placing Azerbaijan on what it describes as a “black list.” According to the article, since 2020 RSF has published only eight articles concerning Armenia, including three during the last three years.
“Order” of the Elysee Palace
According to the article, RSF rapidly adjusts its priorities when French state interests require it. As examples, it cites developments in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, where France has lost political influence, as well as unrest in New Caledonia, arguing that RSF either presents these events as matters of democratic protection or refrains from substantial criticism.
The article concludes this section by asserting that RSF operates under the political, financial, and geographic umbrella of the French state. It argues that the more strained relations become between Paris and Baku, the more subjective, unfounded, and biased RSF’s reporting on Azerbaijan becomes. According to the article, RSF functions not as an independent journalistic institution, but as an instrument serving the state interests of the country in which it was established.
Although Reporters Without Borders (RSF) officially operates as an independent non-governmental organization, it maintains extensive projects, programs, and institutional partnerships implemented directly in cooperation with the French government. According to the article, these relationships demonstrate that RSF’s activities are closely connected to the foreign policy objectives and soft power initiatives of the French state.
The official joint programs and areas of cooperation between the French government and RSF are as follows:
Multi-year global partnership agreement between AFD and RSF
According to the article, RSF and the French Development Agency (AFD), a state-owned French institution, have signed a large-scale, multi-year partnership agreement covering activities in 66 countries across four continents. The total budget of the project reportedly amounts to €8 million, of which €5.6 million is financed directly by the French state through AFD.
Under this program, the French government, through RSF, reportedly finances, trains, and supports 18 local media organizations operating in different regions of the world. The article argues that this initiative serves as a mechanism for extending French influence in areas that are strategically important to French foreign policy.
“The Voices in Exile” Program
RSF launched the “Voices in Exile” initiative in cooperation with Canal France International (CFI), the French government’s official international media operator, as well as organizations including SINGA and Maison des Journalistes (MDJ). According to the article, this program receives direct financial and institutional support from the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs.
The stated objective of the program is to transform Paris into an international hub for journalists who have fled their home countries. According to the article, the initiative provides legal, financial, and logistical assistance to journalists and media professionals from regions such as the post-Soviet space and Africa. The article argues that, in return, some of these journalists engage in information campaigns directed against their countries of origin while operating from Paris.
Material support provided in cooperation with the French Ministries of Defense and Interior
RSF distributes protective equipment, including bulletproof vests and helmets, to journalists working in conflict zones and other high-risk environments. According to RSF’s own reports, this equipment is supplied directly by the French Ministry of Defense and the French Ministry of the Interior.
The article argues that such logistical and material cooperation between a non-governmental organization and a state’s defense institutions raises questions regarding the organization’s independence under international standards.
Joint Projects with the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) and the French diplomatic network
RSF has prepared and distributed a “Handbook for Journalists during Elections” in various countries, particularly during election periods.
The article states that the international dissemination of these projects has been financed and supported by the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF), which it describes as one of France’s principal international political instruments. It further notes that French embassies abroad have served as local implementing partners for these initiatives.
Based on these examples, the article argues that the French government does not regard RSF as an ordinary non-governmental organization. Instead, it claims that French state institutions, including the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Interior, as well as agencies such as AFD and CFI, delegate financial, logistical, and political responsibilities to the organization.
According to the article, whenever a country — including Azerbaijan — becomes a target of French foreign policy criticism, RSF launches campaigns against that country under the banner of press freedom advocacy. The article contends that these activities are linked to the financial support and institutional guidance provided by the French state and represent a consequence of the organization’s alleged political dependence arising from state-NGO cooperation.
Journalists in France who expose issues affecting state interests, investigate military affairs, or cover anti-government protests have, in some cases, been subjected to pressure, legal action, arrest, or physical violence by state institutions, including the Directorate-General for Internal Security (DGSI), the judiciary, and law enforcement authorities. (BBC)
These incidents represent examples of what it describes as state pressure that is often overlooked or insufficiently addressed by Paris-based RSF.
Arrest of journalist Ariane Lavrilleux by the Domestic Intelligence Service (DGSI)
The case of journalist Ariane Lavrilleux, affiliated with the investigative outlet Disclose, who in 2021 published documents concerning France’s military cooperation with the Egyptian regime, referred to as “Operation Sirli.” The documents proved that, based on information provided by French intelligence, the Egyptian army carried out more than 19 bombings on the Libyan border under the guise of a smuggler, killing hundreds of civilians. (the Guardian)
The article states that, rather than investigating the allegations contained in the documents, French authorities initiated proceedings against the journalist. It claims that the DGSI conducted surveillance of Lavrilleux, carried out a search of her residence, detained her for 39 hours, and initiated criminal proceedings related to the disclosure of national defense secrets, potentially exposing her to a lengthy prison sentence.
Alex Jordanov’s book “Secrets of Intelligence”: Serious criminal trial
The article also highlights the case of investigative journalist Alex Jordanov, who in 2019 published the book Les Guerres de l’Ombre de la DGSI (The Shadow Wars of the DGSI), which examined the internal operations of French intelligence services, including recruitment methods and influence operations.
According to the article, French authorities subsequently opened a criminal investigation against Jordanov. It states that the journalist, who was 65 years old at the time, rejected an offer to admit guilt in exchange for a reduced sentence. As a result, prosecutors reportedly sought a prison sentence of five years and a fine of €75,000 before the Paris Criminal Court. The article argues that this case represented an attempt to intimidate investigative journalists.
Illegal arrest of journalists covering budget and social protests
Journalists seeking to cover demonstrations against government austerity measures, budget policies, and the organization of the Olympic Games have increasingly become targets of police action in France. (ifj.org)
The article cites the cases of independent journalists Patricia Huchot-Boissier and Arnaud Vilette, who were reportedly detained and arrested by police in Saint-Denis without formal charges while preparing to cover a protest. The article also refers to the arrest of journalist Taha Bouhafs, who was detained while reporting on protests near a theater attended by French President Emmanuel Macron. According to the article, authorities justified the arrest on the grounds that Bouhafs was allegedly “part of a violent group.”
Systematic police violence against journalists during demonstrations
According to reports cited in the article, including findings from the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) and the Mapping Media Freedom (MapMF) project, numerous journalists have sustained injuries while covering anti-government protests in France in recent years. (monitor.civicusa)
A journalist working for the public broadcaster France 2 was reportedly hospitalized with severe burns after being struck by police projectiles while covering anti-government demonstrations in Lyon.
In Montpellier, reporter Samuel Clauzier was allegedly choked by police officers while filming protests, and his camera equipment was damaged.
During demonstrations in Paris, journalist Laurent Bigot and photographer Axel Gras were reportedly knocked to the ground and beaten with batons, with Gras sustaining a head injury.
In Spain, freelance journalists were forcibly removed from their tear gas masks by police to prevent them from filming the protest and were threatened with 24-hour detention if they protested. (europeanjournalists)
Political influence and structural pressures on French public broadcasting
The French government has sought to centralize the management of public broadcasting institutions in a way that could limit editorial independence. It refers to proposed legislation introduced by the French Ministry of Culture, which would place major public media organizations, including France Télévisions and Radio France, under the control of a single state holding company.
Representatives of the political left and journalists’ unions have argued that these reforms could facilitate political influence originating from the Élysée Palace, increase pressure on editorial policy, and reduce funding for programs critical of the government.
Proof of hypocrisy
The French state is raiding the home of an investigative journalist who covered war crimes in the country with intelligence forces, threatening a reporter who wrote an opposition book with 5 years in prison, and beating and hospitalizing reporters during protests. Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) presents these gross violations of the law in their own home as only individual incidents, but when Azerbaijan takes legal measures to protect its sovereignty, it immediately calls it a global “press freedom disaster.” These facts once again expose that RSF is not an objective rating agency, but a diplomatic cover for the repressive foreign policy of the French state.
Faulty methodology
The article further argues that the World Press Freedom Index, published annually by RSF, relies on a methodology that is fundamentally flawed in terms of its mathematical calculations, structural design, and evaluative criteria. According to the article, numerous international media analysts, independent researchers, and governments have criticized various aspects of the index’s methodology.
Confidentiality of respondents and anonymous selection of “experts”
According to the article, RSF does not disclose the identities or total number of journalists, human rights activists, academics, and other experts who participate in the surveys used to prepare its annual rankings.
These “experts” are selected by RSF itself rather than through objective or transparent procedures. It claims that, in the case of Azerbaijan, the organization primarily consults individuals who have left the country, represent radical opposition groups, or receive funding from Western organizations, while excluding journalists considered to be impartial. According to the article, this methodology predetermines negative outcomes.
The article clarifies that the term “secret experts” does not imply that respondents operate clandestinely. Rather, it refers to RSF’s practice of not publicly disclosing the identities, affiliations, or organizational backgrounds of survey participants. According to the article, this approach contradicts the principles of transparency and accountability that the organization itself advocates.
Mathematical distortion through logarithmic population weighting
The article further criticizes RSF’s method for calculating violations committed against journalists, including killings and arrests. According to the article, RSF divides the number of violations by the logarithm of a country’s population rather than by its actual population size.
The article argues that this logarithmic approach artificially minimizes differences between large and small countries. It claims that, under this methodology, countries with populations numbering in the hundreds of millions may record dozens of journalist killings while still receiving relatively favorable scores. At the same time, smaller countries, including Azerbaijan, may receive lower rankings despite having recorded no journalist killings, due to administrative or regulatory issues.
Deliberate confusion of the concepts of “national security” and “crime”
RSF automatically classifies anyone arrested for a violation of the law as a “politically imprisoned journalist” simply because they have a journalist card or a social media account in their pocket.
Measuring “chaos” rather than quality
RSF itself acknowledges that the World Press Freedom Index does not assess the quality of journalism. The article argues that countries characterized by high levels of media disorder, disinformation, blackmail, or so-called racketeering journalism may receive favorable ratings if governments refrain from regulatory intervention.
Measures introduced in Azerbaijan, including the establishment of a media register through the Media Development Agency (MEDIA), efforts to improve professional standards, and initiatives aimed at preventing abuse within the media sector, are classified by RSF as restrictions on freedom. According to the article, RSF’s methodology therefore rewards the absence of regulation rather than the existence of a professional and accountable media environment.
Double standards and selective geographical focus
The index does not evaluate the response of countries to events with the same weight.
Military censorship imposed on the media by non-independent governments and the removal of opposition channels from the air are leniently viewed as “the necessity of protecting democracy.” However, when the same legal steps are taken by Azerbaijan, they immediately result in a sharp decline in the rankings.
Experts and prominent media figures (“Al Jazeera”, “BBC”, “The Guardian”) harshly criticize the methodology of RSF’s World Press Freedom Index.
Subjectivity and opinion-based assessments
The index is largely based on the responses to a survey of experts (journalists, academics, human rights defenders) selected by RSF.
Many of the questions used in these surveys are inherently subjective, including inquiries such as: “To what extent does the government influence the media?” and
“Do media owners interfere with editorial policy?”
It is interesting to note how and by what criteria does RSF select experts? Of course, this is not transparent. The selected experts may be pro-Western or biased towards certain countries. These ratings, prepared on the basis of “perception bias”, make the reports vulnerable to criticism.
Lack of transparency
The article further argues that RSF’s methodology lacks transparency because the identities of participating experts remain confidential and the precise weighting and scoring mechanisms used in the questionnaire process are not fully disclosed. According to the article, this lack of transparency makes it difficult for external researchers to replicate or independently verify the organization’s findings, leading some countries to characterize the system as a “black box.”
Western-oriented approach
According to the article, RSF’s methodology is primarily based on Western liberal concepts of media freedom, including media ownership diversification and limited state intervention in the media sector. This framework does not sufficiently take into account different cultural and political contexts (e.g. national security priorities in developing countries). Western countries (France, Sweden, Norway) usually rank high, while non-Western countries automatically rank low.
Calculating abuse cases
The article also raises concerns regarding RSF’s quantitative indicators relating to attacks, arrests, and other violations against journalists. It argues that the formulas used to normalize these figures according to population size have been subject to criticism and that the interpretation of statistical data can become particularly problematic in conflict zones and other exceptional circumstances.
Biased position against Azerbaijan or “the fish stinks from the head”
When we look at the articles and terms used by Pierre Haskin, the chairman of the organization’s board, journalist and geopolitical commentator, his position towards our country is clear. No matter how objective he tries to appear in his articles, he immediately reveals his pro-Armenian position and love for Armenia.
RSF regularly places Azerbaijan among countries described as having severe restrictions on press freedom in its annual reports. However, it argues that the criteria used in compiling these rankings remain insufficiently transparent and rely heavily on subjective evaluations.
Any legislative reform or regulatory initiative introduced in Azerbaijan’s media sector — including discussions surrounding the country’s new Media Law in June 2026 — is immediately characterized by RSF as “censorship” or as an attempt to establish “excessive regulatory control” over the media.
RSF deliberately overlooks the geopolitical realities faced by Azerbaijan, including regional security challenges and efforts to combat disinformation.
An organization that turns a blind eye to violations of journalists’ rights and the closure of media outlets in Armenia or some other pro-Western countries is distinguished by conducting a special smear campaign against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani state officials and parliamentarians have repeatedly assessed these reports as a “political order” and an attempt to damage the country’s international image.
The article cites a specific example that it argues demonstrates RSF’s bias toward Azerbaijan. On November 29, 2021, the Media Development Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan (MEDIA) sent an official letter of protest to RSF.
RSF had published information stating that two journalists had been killed in Azerbaijan but failed to specify the circumstances of their deaths or identify those responsible. Such an incomplete presentation creates an opinion in the international community that the journalists were killed by the Azerbaijani state or that there is no internal stability in the country.
The Media Development Agency recalls that this is not about any internal criminal incident or state persecution. AZERTAC correspondent Maharram Ibrahimov and AzTV cameraman Siraj Abishov were killed on 4 June 2021, while performing their official duties in the village of Susuz in the liberated Kalbajar region. They were martyred after their vehicle struck an anti-tank mine that had been planted by Armenian forces during their withdrawal from territories occupied for nearly three decades. This is a clear war crime committed by Armenia seven months after the end of the war.
The MEDIA demanded that RSF correct these facts on its website and not distort them. The letter emphasized that any attempt to indirectly blame Azerbaijan for the mine explosion caused by Armenia is unacceptable. When preparing a report, RSF should refer not only to its own “secret experts” or one-sided sources, but also to official documents and chronology provided by official state bodies (for example, MEDIA).
The main essence of the conversation is that the international organization presents the facts in its reports one-sidedly, hides the perpetrator of the incident, and thereby indirectly tries to put Azerbaijan in a guilty position.
The reasons and objectives behind the bias against Azerbaijan and other countries
According to the article, several strategic considerations explain what it characterizes as RSF’s long-standing and systematic bias toward Azerbaijan and other countries pursuing independent political courses.
The desire to be a foreign policy tool and political order: When donors who fund RSF want to put pressure on certain countries in accordance with their geopolitical interests, they use such NGOs as a “soft power” tool. Azerbaijan’s independent foreign policy and its refusal to accept every dictate from the West make it a target.
Impact on international image and blackmail: The repeated characterization of Azerbaijan as a country with severe restrictions on press freedom is intended to undermine the country’s international reputation and reduce its attractiveness to foreign investors. This portrayal serves as a political instrument that can be used to exert pressure on Azerbaijan in international organizations and diplomatic forums.
The application of double standards: In RSF’s rating tables, the countries that fund it (for example, France and Sweden) always rank at the highest places. An organization that turns a blind eye to violence against journalists in France or the suppression of opposition media outlets in Armenia describes any legal regulation in Azerbaijan as a “disaster.” This is not objectivity, but bias.
Maintaining the flow of grants: Organizations with a large network like RSF must always have a list of artificially created “hotspots of tension” and “countries under pressure” in the world to ensure the sustainability of their budgets. By regularly targeting Azerbaijan, they report to their donors and secure financial grants for the following years.
Find the original article here
