Debates about the diversity of public audiovisual media have reignited discussions about media neutrality, a principle that may affect more than just public service broadcasters. The broader issue at hand is what rules should govern the media. Three guiding principles—neutrality, impartiality, and objectivity—have been proposed. Applying these principles requires rethinking the roles of the media, journalists, and the Arcom, the French media regulator. On April 27, 2026, the Commission of Inquiry on Public Audiovisual Media, led by MP Charles Alloncle from the Union of the Right, released its report. The press highlighted the report's focus on reducing public service spending and its emphasis on "neutrality," a concept it said should define public service media. The report also criticized public service media for lacking "impartiality," suggesting it leans too far to the left. However, the discussion extends beyond public service: how should the broader media landscape be regulated? If public media has an educational and democratic role, as philosopher John Dewey suggested, then how can a quality public space be created? Our research identifies three regulatory norms—neutrality, objectivity, and impartiality—as essential foundations. Neutrality means the media should not influence the controversies it covers, only reporting on them. According to the Alloncle report, only public service media is required to be neutral, while private media are free to choose their editorial focus. For example, a magazine focused on ping-pong does not need to cover international news. However, if a media outlet only represents part of its audience, it risks influencing public debate rather than facilitating it, as sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has argued about television. This could lead to a situation where the media shapes public opinion instead of allowing it to develop organically. The Arcom, tasked with ensuring media pluralism and social cohesion, must ensure that media do not manipulate their audiences and that a generalist "super-media" exists to bring all voices together, preventing the fragmentation of public discourse. This generalist media would act like a public service, ensuring a balanced and inclusive public space. However, the media should not be allowed to promote only specific viewpoints. Instead, each media outlet's editorial stance should be clearly defined as partial, allowing the public to distinguish between generalist and specialized content. Objectivity is more complex than just reporting facts accurately. It also involves presenting motivations and justifications without bias, as sociologist Max Weber suggested. It requires examining how controversies are framed and the impact of storytelling on public perception. For example, discussing a population only through its problems can distort the narrative. Objectivity is also about acknowledging that citizens can be experts in their own lives and communities, and that media should include diverse voices. Impartiality involves including all opinions in a debate, but it is relative to the audience. A ping-pong magazine might focus on its niche, while a right-leaning audience might expect coverage of security issues, and a left-leaning one might focus on equality. The challenge is to prevent the formation of "informational bubbles" and ensure that all partial views are connected to create a more general understanding. The Alloncle report also suggests that the most intolerant media should be banned, citing the limits on freedom of expression in the 1789 Declaration of Rights. Neutrality, objectivity, and impartiality are regulatory ideals—goals that can be approached but never fully achieved. They serve as compasses for guiding the media in shaping public discourse. Arcom must ensure that the media allows its audiences to learn and engage thoughtfully, avoiding the informational bubbles that can be deliberately created by media owners. In this way, the public space can serve its purpose of illuminating decisions in controversial situations.