The green pavilion, Euronews HQ, Lyon, 2015. Wikicommons/Lydie22.Some rights reserved.At the
height of the euro crisis, media coverage didn’t exactly help to find
solutions: it aggravated conflicts within the Eurozone instead. The then
Belgian prime minister Yves Leterme cites the headlines in the German press in
2010 “where the Greek population on average were described as lazy people that
only wanted to be on the beach, didn’t want to work. And although the
performance of the Greek economy was very bad, to have popular newspapers in
Germany portray Greek individual citizens as on average lazy was definitely
irresponsible.” (The anti-Greek mud-slinging campaign by Germany’s largest
newspaper, Bild, has been documented and
analysed in
detail.)
Of course
European papers do not always peddle such stereotypes about other countries.
But the fact remains that whereas we talk a lot about each other, we hardly
communicate with each other in the media. The success of the Brexit
campaign in the UK is a stark reminder of an all too often neglected
problem: There is no functional European public sphere. That would for
example mean that Greek and German politicians, economists and
ordinary citizens would have been able to discuss their differences of opinion
about austerity on a joint, unbiased platform such as one TV debate watched in
both countries.
We know
from our national experience how essential such discussions are in
understanding each other’s perspectives, forming public opinion and holding our
rulers accountable. But this does not happen in the EU. The perceptions of the
same issue can be completely different in different EU member countries. European
summits are a good example of the segmented European public spheres at work –
with journalists usually sticking together in national groups and primarily
attending their own government’s briefings.
This may
appear as a minor challenge for the EU compared to Brexit, the rise of eurosceptic
parties all over the continent or the Eurozone troubles. But in fact there is a
deep connection – the lack of a European public sphere is a structural problem
which damages the functioning of the EU and distorts citizens’ perceptions
about the union.
Journalists
for national media have a strong incentive to frame their coverage of important
European events as a struggle or a competition between nation states. The obvious
narrative for their respective home audiences revolves around questions like the
one so often heard in the Brexit campaign – “what do we get out of it?” Held accountable exclusively by national
journalists, even a committed pro-European leader like Belgium’s Yves Leterme
admits he often could not resist the temptation to present himself as solely a staunch
defender of the “national interest”.
It is
common to point fingers at “Brussels” as a scapegoat, whereas more often than
not, rather than the European Commission or other Brussels-based institutions, in
reality it is the member states that paralyse the decision making-process. Not
surprisingly, according to UK Project Director Shakuntala Banaji of the London
School of Economics, an ongoing
international research project has found an “overwhelming”
trend of negative narratives in the British press about the EU.
There is no
comparable journalistic lobby for the EU as a whole, and therefore much less
reward for a politician to choose compromise and put the interests of the union
first.
The EU and Eurozone
set policies with a wide-ranging impact on citizens’ lives, including currency
and foreign policy. It is a major anomaly and a key part of the often decried
democratic deficit of the EU that its citizens have no platform to debate these
policies, or at least witness their elected leaders debate them. In terms of
accountability, there is no real pressure either on EU institutions to explain
their policies and keep decision-making processes transparent as there usually
is in democracies – which in turn feeds aversion against EU “bureaucracy”.
The language dilemma
At least
partly, the segmentation of the public sphere in Europe is due to language
differences. It is instructive to look at Belgium as an example. Yves Leterme
grew up speaking both French and Dutch (Flemish) fluently himself but considers
the split in French and Dutch language media audiences a key factor for his
country’s divisions: “It’s certainly the number one reason. Based on the
difference in language, in my country we don’t have common newspapers, we don’t
watch the same news magazines. So the opinion-making for the average citizen is
based on a different approach whether you belong to the French-speaking or
Dutch-speaking part of the country. And this certainly goes for Europe as a whole!”
Language is
a highly political issue in the EU. The disproportionate effort that is spent
on translations by the EU institutions is a clear indicator: The DG Translation
produced 1.9 million pages in written translations in 2015. Although it estimates
that the overall cost of translations for the EU institutions is below 1% of
their budget, and equals only about 2 euros per EU citizen a year, the question
may be asked whether the private sector would be ready to shoulder similar
costs. Probably not.
It is worth
remembering that European integration has moved forward more quickly in many
other fields compared to the media. More often than not, this involves
Europeans communicating with each other in English.
There is
economic integration and globalisation, for example: in multinational companies
like Siemens, it has long become routine to write all internal emails in
English, even if it is just to the colleague at the same site in Germany.
Due to the
Bologna Accords, university degrees and credits have become compatible across
the continent, and millions of students have received the EU’s Erasmus scholarships
to study at least for a few months in another European university. Knowing
English is essential especially for communicating in larger multi-national groups.
English is no longer just the language of international academic conferences
and journals, universities in countries where English is not the official
language – such as the Netherlands – also teach more and more degree programmes
in English.
And of
course, large-scale migration facilitated by open borders has created more
“European” cities. Somewhat ironically, London undoubtedly has become “Europe’s
most European city”, as Der Spiegel recently dubbed it. Again, the ease of
being able to communicate in English has been
an important motivation for many migrants to settle in London rather than Paris
or Berlin.
Former
Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme, while agreeing on the importance of
English for the economy, explains the difficulties of adopting it officially as
a common language in the EU: “Europe cannot go to one common language. Very
fundamental to European integration is the respect for diversity.”
It is hard
to see this attitude changing especially in a post-Brexit EU. But
the Belgian example also illustrates that a multi-lingual media landscape is a
huge obstacle to a joint public sphere. Not accidentally, the few existing
pan-European media platforms mainly use English. The Financial
Times, very widely
read in Brussels, is possibly the most influential trans-national publication
in the EU, although not for a general audience.
Besides, the
EU has attracted a number of predominantly digital platforms specializing in
European issues, usually based in Brussels. These include the EUObserver, an online newspaper that also gives
considerable space to Eurosceptic voices. In 2014, the leading US-based website
and newspaper Politico teamed up with Germany’s publishing house Axel Springer
to acquire the European Voice and turn it into Politico
Europe the
following year. Politico Europe is still in a phase of growth but so far, all
of these platforms, while undoubtedly broadening debate and contributing to the
accountability of European institutions, reach more of a niche audience of
Europe “insiders” and “influencers” than the general public.
A European public broadcaster?
Television
remains the medium where most Europeans get their news. And TV provides some of
the most emotionally engaging joint experiences to Europeans – eg with the
ongoing EURO 2016 or the annual Eurovision Song Contest. Historically, there
have been several attempts to establish a pan-European TV news channel.
Currently, only Euronews deserves this title.
Euronews has
been broadcasting from Lyon, France since 1993 – currently in 13 language
editions that are on air 24/7, including in non-EU languages like Arabic and
Russian. National public broadcasters (from EU countries but also Russia,
Turkey and North Africa) are the main stakeholders in Euronews. But whereas
most Europeans will have come across Euronews at some point or another, few
know it well or feel strong about it. Does this simply show audiences are not
interested in a European broadcaster?
There may
be other explanations. Euronews often has a distant, slightly artificial feel about
its programmes. It mostly contains news bulletins which are shown without a
presenter, one reporter’s voiceover following the next. This obviously makes
translations easier. And Euronews has even developed a distinct philosophy of
pure news “avoiding any national viewpoint”.
Tellingly, its most remarkable innovation is a programme called “No Comment”, which simply documents
an incident without any reporter’s explanation.
It can be
interesting and moving to watch – but is this the right way to engage and
involve wide audiences in political discourse? Political television usually relies
on the well-known faces of strong presenters. Political talk shows and interactive
debates are a key element on national public television to give audiences a
chance to ask questions, make their points and develop their own opinion.
Public
broadcasters that are (more or less) independent from government interference,
with the BBC as the prime example, are a typical feature of European
democracies. Outside of Europe, many envy us for these impartial public
broadcasters that embody a strong cross-party democratic consensus. In a sense,
it is thus surprising that Europe has been able to create a common currency and
a common diplomatic service but not an efficient common public broadcaster.
“I think
the European Union, the Council of Europe also, should invest more in a public
broadcasting institute or organisation, or at least bring existing initiatives
together”, says Yves Leterme – “for the domestic scene, in order to have better
knowledge amongst Europeans about the situation in each other’s member states;
but also for the outside world.”
There is no
sign of this happening anytime soon. Current trends in the European media are going
in a different direction. Europe’s loudest international voices remain firmly
national. Besides BBC World, both France24 and Germany’s DW TV have expanded
their broadcasts in English, with competition for global audiences growing from
international broadcasters based in Turkey, Russia or China.
Building up
a quality TV news channel is very expensive. But the EU already spends huge
amounts on communication projects to improve people’s understanding of its
institutions and policies, both within member countries and neighbouring
regions. If a full-fledged, separate pool of reporters and linear 24 hour
transmissions are considered too costly, one could be creative and, for a start
at least, rely on synergies, for example begin with a few debate formats that
are jointly produced by existing English language channels in Europe and
broadcast each week on those networks, as well as online and on national TV
channels with subtitles in the respective languages.
The
UK vote on June 23 is a wake-up call – the EU needs to
recognize that more and more of its citizens feel alienated from it, and look
for new ways to give them a voice and address their concerns. Media needs to
play an important role in these deliberations.