Frans Timmermans

On 8 October, the conference on the EU and the Media was opened by the Dutch Minister of European Affairs, Frans Timmermans, who addressed the challenging relationship between the EU and national media to the more than 80 guests assembled. Speaking without notes, he began by suggesting that Although the Dutch press had devoted more attention than ever before to the European elections, the Dutch public pays scant attention. Brussels is far away and citizens find difficulties in identifying their interests. The increasing role of the media in public life came with the growth of nation states, and the need to legitimize the process among a wider group. Meanwhile newspapers themselves fuelled a drive for a wider readership, partly for economic reasons. But now, advertisers do not need newspapers and their readership is declining. This is important because newspapers form the only real countervailing power in government. What nation states once needed, Europe requires now. It is important to bind citizens to Europe since problems are increasingly only resolvable at a European level. He concluded by suggesting that if this is not done, we will lapse into national policies and ultimately sacrifice our ability to influence world developments.

Claes de Vreese presented the results of research done on communication and the 2009 European Parliament elections. Ten years ago, he claimed, the Netherlands were champions in ignoring news from Brussels. Then the TV had only two!! Items on the elections, and both of those on the eve of polling. In 2009 the Dutch media paid more significant attention to these elections than in the past. This was because politics was more involved and because more issues were on offer. The media made clear that the elections were clearly important, but even so, the news was led by national political figures and not by MEPs or candidates) Despite all this, voter turnout was not higher than previous elections.

Huub Pelikaan emphasized the link between the economic attitude of national political parties and their support for Europe. The more a party wants to transfer economic power to the EU, the more the party supports the Union.

Mark Kranenburg suggested that media interest in Dutch elections was because they were unpredictable, whereas those for the European parliament were not. This constituted a news problem. Conflict makes things journalistically interesting. But the EU makes it difficult to know on what to focus, and on what to write. This was partly because there was no clear centro of power. In the most recent elections, journalist interest was quickened by a power question – how many votes would Wilders’ PVV obtain?, who would lead the EP list for the PvdA? - but these were ultimately national power questions, played out in a European arena. Media coverage was not helped by the fact that all parties wanted ‘less Brussels’ – a clear message, but not one that bore too much repetition.

panel members

In the afternoon a lively debate took place between the panel members and the audience. Richard Griffiths argued for the need to increase the use of new media, referring to the Barack Obama campaign as a concrete example. Ex-representative of the Dutch Parliament, Godelieve van Heteren, questioned the notion of European ambition (or rather the lack of), when it comes to keeping the citizens informed. European news, she contended, must be disseminated on a daily basis in order to create a European togetherness feeling. Ralph Hallo asserted, based on his experience in Brussels as an environmental lobbyist, that the attention from national media on European affairs is insufficient. Ben Knapen concluded that the lack of a common language, a missing EU-image and reference framework combined to makes it very difficult for the media, and thus also for the citizens, to follow the developments of the Union. The lack of news on European decision making, regulations and their value carries adverse effects on the (in-)activity of the national media on European news. Often this means that the outcome of European regulations that do have an effect on the daily lives of citizens are formulated, approved and implemented outside of the public eye. This is an essential missed chance to reach out and appeal to the citizens.

Ludolf van Hasselt

The Friday session was opened by Ludolf van Hasselt, head of the European Commission’s representation in the Hague. He conceded that, despite the EU’s achievements, citizens appeared disenchanted with it and for understandable reasons – the loss of control, the long and diffuse decision-making process, the doubts about the EU’s capacity to solve common problems and the fact that the distance between the EU’s rhetoric and the perceived reality. The situation is aggravated by the fact that it  is national governments that communicate Europe, and their focus is on national developments and their own claims to power. Brussels has begun to give communication a higher priority and it could do more, but it needs the citizens to respond if it is to be successful.

Geoffrey Martin suggested that  his own experience with the Commonwealth, with 54 member states, puts the EU in a different dimension. He stressed that the difference between the EU  Commission and a nation, is that nations have a vote and the EU does not. The Commission has tried too hard, rather than simply supplying information. Johanna Möller suggested that his comparative media survey, including Germany, revealed that there was no European public sphere and that this meant that there was no common basis for discussion. The European news in Germany was drenched in the national setting and reached the average citizen in this way. This was not ideal but, as a result, a broader support base for the European Union was evident in German. Susan Banducci deplored the minimal news coverage on EU issues in the British press, and the generally negative tone of the reports that were written. During European-wide events, such as the EP elections, however, the coverage did increase. Katrin Juhandi, one of the two MA-EUS graduates presenting papers, also saw press coverage increasing immediately before the elections, but strangely enough, even more so after the elections. Unfortunately, the news was not on the content of the campaign but by a rogue politician, running his won campaign. The same tendency was observed by Veronica Tarjan, the other MA student, who showed how the election coverage in Hungary was intimately intertwined with the viccitudes of national politics rather than a properly articulated discussion of EU issues. Finally, Bernard Sinnott, with the aid of campaign materials from both sides, took the audience through the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

For the final day of the conference, the subject and use of new media was covered. Lutz Meyer highlighted innovative methods on how to carry out a strong campaign, by placing emphasis on the influence of European regulations in relation to the daily lives of citizens. Loraine Mullaly also stressed this idea. She explained that the Irish `Yes´ for the Lisbon Treaty is thanks to the commercial and more independent campaigning using concrete examples on how European regulations affect citizens. Asimina Michailidou subsequently emphasized the importance of online communities. These examples of new media can lend a hand in fostering a more open European debate. 

After three days of presentations and discussion, it seems the relationship between national media and the EU remains problematic. A number of improvements are however visible, notably the increase in media attention during the recent European elections. Nonetheless, there is clearly a long way to go before a cohesive relationship can come into form. For both the national media and national politics much room for improvement is needed. Europe has to become more assimilated in these areas if the media and politics want to reach their common goal: enhancing outreach to the citizen.