Europe in the Media

A Comparison of Reporting, Representation, and Rhetoric in National Media Systems in Europe

Deirdre Kevin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781135704988
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Europe in the Media draws together the results of several research projects that examined media coverage of European political and cultural affairs and media representations of Europe. The book attempts to outline some of the important debates regarding European integration and to describe the media landscape in which these debates are informed, reflected, and facilitated. The research presented sought to answer several questions, namely the role of the media in the democratic process at the European level and the extent to which the media contributes to and reflects the process of European integration. The book provides a wide scope of comparative analysis, allowing for an extremely interesting overview of the way that national media systems in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom approach the issue of European integration. Based on the news output of over 50 media outlets in eight countries, this book contains the original data gathered by experts during two 1-week monitoring periods, as well as data that was collected and coded by experts with reference to the programming of more than 12 major broadcasters in six countries. This volume addresses debates and analysis from the fields of political science in relation to the process of European integration, EU policymaking and public participation and opinion-formation. It also outlines relevant media theory regarding the relationships between the media and democracy, and the media and identity formation. In this way, the book provides a valuable link between these two separate fields of investigation in an area that is of increasing interest to academics, students, politicians, and journalists.

1
Europe and the European Union: The Dynamics of Integration

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the nature of integration in Europe with reference to the impetus for cooperation, and the current challenges to the process. The overall purpose of this work in investigating the nature of political communication and public debate regarding Europe is placed in an economic, political, and social context. A brief exploration of some of the expressions and concepts central to the issue of European integration is followed by an explanation of the workings of the European Union. The idea of European integration is outlined by examining different political science perspectives on why nation states agreed to pool competences and on how the dynamics work. Issues of citizenship, identity, and democratic participation are discussed with reference to information and opinion formation.

Several central concepts such as ‘Europeanisation,’ ‘European identity,’ ‘European integration,’ ‘subsidiarity’ and ‘transparency’ are referred to in this work and require some initial exploration. Attempting to find a definition of Europe itself presents the problem of differing geographical and ideological perspectives on its meaning. Ideological descriptions of Europe tend to focus on common basic beliefs and attitudes towards democracy and human rights. This has, in the past, influenced the geographical sense of Europe, with the division between east and west not simply concerned with physical borders but also with ideological and psychological borders. A further dilemma for the integration project is the identification of the final border—where does Europe, in a geographical sense, end? A particular example is the relationship with Russia, a country combining a geographical and cultural mixture of Europe and Asia.

Europeanisation

‘Europe’ is also frequently an expression that is interchangeable with the EU, not least in media coverage of European issues, and in political speeches, hence influencing public perceptions of Europe. Within the European Union (EU), ‘Europeanisation’ is considered in relation to the impact that EU legislation and regulation has on political and economic life at the national level (i.e., the way in which national politics and economics function). It also relates to the changing nature of overall economic activity and interest aggregation due to European association (i.e., new transnational alliances). In both cases, this Europeanisation reflects some positive implications of cooperation and sharing of information and expertise while at the same time being part of a larger process of globalisation. This expression is also used in relation to the idea of exporting European ideals to other parts of the world or, more particularly, other parts of Europe. One example is a quote from a former UK minister for Europe about the Europeanisation of standards in southeastern Europe:

One year after the Kosovo crisis democracy is spreading throughout the region . . . We want to see a new EU Balkan agenda to encourage this trend, one which will show the practical benefits of living up to European standards and ideals which will strengthen support amongst ordinary people in the region for what Chris Patten has described as the road to Europe.¹

European integration is essentially a concept related to Europeanisation but incorporating the idea of ‘ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’² in the Treaty of Rome. The preamble to the treaty, as signed by the leaders of the six founding members, expressed the overall aims of the integration project. The ‘ever closer union’ involved ‘economic and social progress,’ the ‘improvement of the living and working conditions,’ ‘balanced trade and fair competition,’ and ‘abolition of restrictions on international trade.’ They agreed to ‘harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions,’ to confirming the ‘solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries,’ and to ‘pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts.’³ As such, the project of European integration involved the organisation of economic life, the promotion of trade and prosperity, and an element of redistribution of wealth.

Subsidiarity

The way in which the European Community (later the European Union) organised itself to pursue its objectives is explained here in more detail. Although the division of powers between the institutions was outlined, it was less clear where the division of competences between the European and national level lay. By the time of the negotiation of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union, it was considered necessary to enshrine the principle of subsidiarity in the treaties. The impetus apparently came from

conservative British concerns about national sovereignty and the loss of state control, Christian Democratic/Catholic social philosophy concerning the importance of allowing lower units of authority to achieve their own ends, and German regional politics based on the constitutionally protected competences of the Länder. (de Búrca, 1999)

The EU’s definition of subsidiarity states:

The Community shall act within the limit of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein.⁴ In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.⁵ Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty.

In more straightforward terms, the idea was that decisions would be taken as close as possible to the people. However, rather than a fixed list of competences for the national or supranational levels, the principle loosely relies on a judgement as to the scale and effects of action in a policy area. Hence, the subsidiarity issue still raises questions regarding EU activity in policy areas often considered at a national level to be only of national concern. The British press (certain sections) has reported on a range of issues it considers as interfering in national issues. The European Commission representation in the UK now has a website which it uses to counter what it calls ‘Euromyths.’⁶

Openness, Transparency, and Information

As questions were raised about democracy, openness, and transparency at the European level, reforms were made to give the parliament more status with relation to decision making. Procedures were put in place to allow public access to documents and to create more ‘transparency’ in relation to decision making at the EU level. This included, for example, more access to the Council’s documentation of policy negotiations although at the same time ‘preserving the effectiveness of its decision-making process.’⁷ When acting in a legislative role, the Council is required to be more open, but as negotiators, the intergovernmental aspect is protected.

As outlined in the introduction to this book, with the apparent opposition to further integration during the Maastricht Treaty debates, there was a realisation that the integration process, both in terms of goals and procedures, was functioning without the participation or support of the public. One perspective on this concerned the lack of citizen identification with this process and with EU institutions, and no ‘sense of belonging’ to a community beyond the local or national level. Subsequently, there were attempts to involve and inform the citizens with information campaigns such as the ‘People First’ campaign, information strategies on the Euro, the ‘Building Europe Together’ campaign that dealt with the Amsterdam treaty, and more recently, the ‘Dialogue Europe’ project. It is apparent that the EU recognises the need for popular consent, particularly as their future agenda includes both deeper political integration and expansion to the east. This expansion will undoubtedly have implications for the allocation of structural and regional funding, for the budget of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and possibly for future investment and employment prospects.

The results of attempts by the EU institutions to inform and involve citizens can, on the one hand, be looked at through changing attitudes and opinions, the development of which are monitored by the EU through its use of Eurobarometer surveys. Frequent national polls are also commissioned in relation to particular policy issues, for example, attitudes to the single currency in the UK. Such polls cannot really predict electoral behaviour when it comes to elections and referenda. This is partly due to the complexity of national debates and attitudes towards EU membership being tied up with a range of other factors particular to the nation-state. Essentially, the ideas that shape these attitudes, combined with the reasoning behind such support, may stem from entirely different factors.

Another way in which the impact of ‘openness’ and attempts at informing and involving the citizen can be examined is through the dissemination process of the media. One major obstacle is the complexity of the process of policy making.

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS FUNCTIONS

The main concerns of the founders of the European Economic Community (EEC) were: the control of the ‘instruments of war’ (with the original European Coal and Steel Community); the rebuilding of European economies; and, although not explicitly stated, the secure provision of food. After a situation of almost famine in parts of Europe during World War II, the development and protection of agriculture through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was central to the integration agenda. The CAP has been problematic in its effects on overproduction and overdevelopment of agri-industries, has caused wide disparities in farm incomes, and externally has had a diverse effect on world food prices (i.e., causing a decrease in the income of farmers worldwide). Added to this, recent food scares and a growing distrust in the process of food production has further questioned the working of the CAP and also brought about a strong sense of connection between food production and national identity. The CAP has been reformed⁸ but still generally consumes over half of the EU budget and remains a highly politicised aspect of EU policy making.

The Treaty of Rome (1957) gave the Parliament (which in the first instance was more a delegation of national representatives) initially just a consultative role, with the Commission proposing and the Council of Ministers disposing legislation. The Commission has three main roles, the first being the power of legislative initiative. Whereas in some areas the Commission shares the right to initiate legislation in general, the Council and Parliament must wait for a Commission proposal before they can legislate. The Commission is also described as the ‘Guardian of the Treaty’ with the role of enforcing Community law both against member states⁹ and against enterprises, particularly in relation to competition. It also has an executive role in implementing some Community law and policies, but in line with the principle of subsidiarity, most implementation is the responsibility of the administrations at national, regional, or local levels in the member states. Currently, the president of the European Commission is selected by the governments of the member states and is approved by the European Parliament. The other members are designated by the 15 national governments in common accord with the incoming president. The larger member states nominate two Commissioners each and the smaller states one each, a situation that will change with the ratification of the Nice Treaty. Finally, the president and the members are subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.

The Council (officially the Council of the European Union, often called the Council of Ministers) consists of representatives of the member states at ministerial level. Originally the main legislative body, the Council now shares legislative power with the European Parliament on most subjects. Depending on the legal basis of the measure in question, the Council decides by unanimity (i.e., every member state has a veto), qualified majority, or simple majority. Each member state is allocated a certain number of votes by the Treaties: for example, Germany, France, Italy, and the UK have 10 votes each, compared with 8 for Spain, 5 for the Netherlands, and 2 for Luxembourg. At least 62 votes are required for a qualified majority. This system was intended to ensure that the larger countries could not out-vote the smaller ones, and led to the development of a vote-bargaining system. The Council meets in different compositions of national ministers, depending on the area. The Council’s work is supported by the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER). The European Council consists of the heads of state or government of the member states and the president of the Commission. The European Council normally meets twice a year, once under each of the 6-month rotating periods of presidency of the Council. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), aside from dealing with cases taken against member states and organisations in relation to the implementation of community law, has also become the arbitrator on interpretation of EU law with the frequent referral of cases from national courts. The European Central Bank, although not a Community institution as such, represents the supranational control of monetary policy for the members of the ‘Euro-zone.’

The introduction of direct elections in 1979 helped to increase the legitimacy of the European Parliament, and subsequent treaties have extended the Parliament’s influence in relation to amending and adopting legislation. The codecision procedure (implying an equal footing with the Council of Ministers on decision making) now applies to a wide range of issues such as the free movement of workers, consumer protection, education, culture, health, trans- European networks, employment, discrimination, and EU fraud prevention. The cooperation procedure previously applied to a large number of areas, but since the Amsterdam Treaty¹⁰ the scope of this procedure has been reduced in favour of the codecision procedure and now applies only to certain aspects of economic and monetary union. Hence, the Parliament is now on equal footing with the Council concerning decision making in a range of policy areas particularly to do with free movement and social policy. Parliament’s assent is required for important international agreements such as the accession of new member states or association agreements with third countries, the organisation of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, and the tasks and powers of the European Central Bank (ECB).¹¹ Additionally, the Parliament must be consulted on the main aspects and basic choices relating to Common Foreign and Security Policy, and to policing and security.¹²

A further important aspect of the EP role in the European Union has been the involvement in appointing and approving the members of the Commission. The resignation of the Commission in 1999 undoubtedly compounded public perceptions of corruption at the European level and the idea of the EU ‘gravy train.’ It is difficult to assess whether the general public understood the role played by the European Parliament in this affair by exerting its powers over acceptance of the European Commission. Recent Eurobarometer data claims that ‘EU citizens are now significantly more likely to express satisfaction with the way democracy works in the European Union (42%) than they were in spring 1998 (+7%)’ (European Commission, 1999a). This change in opinion is interpreted by the Commission as a positive response to European Parliament’s involvement in the protection of democratic interests at the EU level.¹³

From a media perspective, one senior BBC official noted that ‘when they (the European Parliament) actually started to take some real decisions about the European Commission, they started to get coverage. I think when they start to make decisions that matter this is going to happen more and more.’¹⁴ It is, however, likely that there remains a lack of public understanding concerning the division of powers at the EU level. Hence, any disgrace for one institution could have the effect of smearing the others, particularly in instances where ‘Europe’ in a generalising sense, or ‘Brussels’ in a diminishing sense, has become a catch-all expression for the European Union in many media outlets.¹⁵

The current make-up of the Commission (and the Parliament) and the weighting of votes in the Council have (after many years of deliberation) been reviewed with reference to future enlargement. A system originally designed for 6 members, which functions for 15, could not conceivably be workable for a community of up to 22 members. The institutional reform constitutes an important part of the Treaty of Nice. Part of the contentious debate over Nice is the fact that the national veto on legislation has been reduced to fewer areas of legislation due to the difficulty of obtaining unanimous agreement with so many members. The influence of smaller countries will be reduced, as previously it was possible for countries to form alliances in the council of ministers when voting on issues and block the power of the bigger states. Now the larger countries will have a larger vote (to make up for the loss of a second commissioner), allowing the possibility for as few as three large member states to block any decision.

The policy-making process in the EU is complicated. Different policy areas are treated differently depending on the level of competence the EU has in these areas. For example, actions related to the development of the single market are core EU competences. Legislative initiatives are generally based on treaty principles, and proposals are developed through consultation, through the ‘green paper’ process involving the input of a wide range of experts, national committees, industry representatives, and often employee and consumer representatives. Depending on the basis for legislation, the EU can formulate a regulation that is directly applicable in all member states or a directive that outlines a required result to be achieved through implementation at the national level, or ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• For Lack of Affection: The Challenges for Europe in the Media and a European Public Sphere
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1: Europe and the European Union: The Dynamics of Integration
• 2: The Media and European Integration
• 3: Overview of European News Coverage
• 4: News Coverage of the European Parliamentary Election Campaigns
• 5: The War in Kosovo: Media Debates About a ‘European Crisis’
• 6: News Coverage of Economic Issues
• 7: News About Other Countries and People in Europe
• 8: Reporting Europe: Trends and Developments
• 9: Overview of Programmes Dealing With Europe
• 10: Analysis of European Television Programme Content
• 11: Europe in the Media: Summary and Conclusions
• Appendix I
• Appendix II
• References