NEWS COVERAGE OF THE EU

Information about Europe is very complicated, with a very complex institutional organization. It is not perceived as exciting news. Therefore, journalists use certain types of headlines to attract readers. Indeed, the differing coverage of the EU can be explained in part by the newspapers’ perception of their readers’ interests. News on the EU does not interest as many readers. Newspapers must respond to the context of their respective societies, and they must face the constraints and requirements of the market. In other words, the process of producing the news on the EU responds to several technical requirements as well as the economic, ideological, and organizational constraints of the industry, and the socio-cultural context.

The most salient aspects that newspapers have to consider when covering the European Union are tied to general rules and mechanisms, as well as to socio-psychological aspects. Most of these are also taken into account when producing other types of news, and some are specific to covering the EU.

1. Difficulty of Explaining Europe to the Audience

The difficulty for publishers of printed media is how to make the European Union attractive to read about. EU institutions decide important political choices and many directives and policies that affect the public directly. The difficulty of the journalist is to make people understand those directives and policies so that readers realize the importance they have on their lives. It is a difficult task to make a complex institutional machine understandable, particularly when the machine is perceived by the public as distant and not directly connected to their lives. The EU is a very hard subject to cover because most people do not have enough information, people do not know how the EU works, the Commission, the Council of Ministers, etc. It is complicated because the EU is something that is not completely federal or only supranational; it depends on the areas. Furthermore, there is not any clear historical reference to relate to the readers.

Furthermore, journalists frequently have to cover European issues in terms of policy rather than politics, and policies, contrary to politics, are mostly dry and very technical. EU policy is characterized by its bureaucratic language and acronyms, which makes it unattractive. The challenge is to present this information in a way that is readable, interesting, and understandable: The prime criterion is to make attractive for the readers something as abstract as the EU. The trouble with the European stories is that in many occasions the story is very important, but if it is not attractive to read, the story is lost.

To make it attractive, newspapers appeal to what works well when covering politics; that is, producing shocking headlines, often combined with conflict and bad news. Newspapers need to attract readers to inform them; therefore, they try to use shocking headlines. This implies that an eye-catching headline does not always reflect the real content of the article. More often than not, the headline emphasizes the drama and negatives, rather than positives. A common headline found in the newspapers after an important meeting in Brussels or an intergovernmental meeting is reflected in the following examples: “Europe does not advance”, or “Europe is in a standstill” . This kind of headline creates the illusion that when the representatives of EU institutions meet they have to accomplish something important. Given the nature of EU institutions, and the nature of negotiations it is unrealistic to expect important advances at every meeting. For instance, because many fundamental issues require a large vote (in some cases a unanimous vote), it is normal that the meetings do not always produce agreements. But the way the press covers these meetings creates the illusion that it is a failure when agreements are not reached, which in turn fuels a sense of frustration among the public.

Information on Europe can be boring for the average citizen. It is dense; it is about unending negotiations, policies, and institutional change. Journalists believe that it is difficult to attract readers with these topics: As arid as the information can be, it is journalists’ obligation to inform the public, and in order for journalists to inform, the public should read, and in order to read they should be attracted to read with headlines that are attractive to them. Therefore, journalists try to write attractive headlines and stories that imply some type of conflict or situation that the reader will be interested in reading. In the process, they often reify reality.

2. Emphasis on Contest and Conflict

There is a widespread assumption among journalists and other media practitioners that the public is often attracted to conflict, to drama: If the topic is conflictive and creates debate, it is a major consideration for journalists to decide to cover it . To attract viewers in general there is a need for some type of dramatization, when explaining to the population European Union issues; for instance, the reasons for a qualified majority, the majority vote and so on. Therefore, to entice readers and viewers, print media concentrate on competition between ideas and, if possible, between identifiable individuals representing political parties, EU institutions, or member countries. Issues do not sell newspapers; therefore, newspapers executives see it necessary to emphasize conflict, and, when possible, use opposing personalities, which they believe attract readers. Journalists like stories that have some conflict, for instance power conflicts between EU institutions or between Member States, and especially between leaders. They follow the evolution of those conflicts from one day to the other. In short, confrontations make good news: they attract readers. In some cases, personal enmity between leaders is considered relevant to illustrate the debates and issues of the EU.  In general, journalists try to personalize the issues as much as they can in informing the public about EU issues. The public does not necessarily need to be familiar with the background of opposing ideas or individuals to follow the contest. Also attractive for the newspaper readers are debates in which clear-cut ideologies are opposed, such as rejecting neo-liberal policies, or statements that have some content that could be perceived as anti-German, anti-French, or anti-any nationality. By concentrating on competition between institutions, countries, or individuals, the media play on the common knowledge of the audience. Who wins and who loses is easier to cover: Even serious and complicated topics about changes in Europe and against protectionist and different views of Europe  between two Member States attached to their respective social welfare and protectionism system, could be a great piece of news, but it needs to be put it in contrast.

Journalists also argue that, by emphasizing the contest in a story, there is less chance of being accused of bias. Indeed, an in-depth discussion of a policy and its implications for society are inevitably subjective (the focus, choice of sources, or availability of sources are necessarily judgment calls) and readers (or critics) often perceive this as evidence of manipulation. On the other hand, when the story is put in terms of a contest, the journalist can easily present contrasting positions. Furthermore, by emphasizing competition, there is always the possibility for different angles on a story, because of the inclusion of new actors or changes in the polls. Indeed, once a particular policy has been explained, it is no longer a novelty. And novelty is a fundamental requirement for the production of news. A story cannot be a repetition; it must have new developments. Contest and conflict offers that sense of change, of novelty. This perceived need to emphasize contests leads journalists to rely increasingly on opinion polls and surveys. Polls can be used as a tool to demonstrate the importance of an issue to the public or in evaluating public reaction to a particular policy or story. Opinion polls are fundamental to the press’s emphasis on contests, such as counting those in favor of or against a given policy. Polls also add scientific and concrete data to a story that might otherwise be too abstract. In short, reporters and editors of newspapers are more inclined to address strategic details of competition in their news at the expense of the more complex, but fundamental, issues because contests are more easily dealt with, given time and space constraints, and the level of reader understanding. Thus, competitive politics, and not public policy, is what is most covered and discussed in the daily news. The complexities of the issues, therefore, are de-emphasized, and even stories lacking a competitive theme are often twisted in order to focus on contest. Because of this type of coverage, issues are presented as if they were less important than the position taken by politicians from different parties or countries. In consequence, the implications of given European policies for the society at large are barely presented in the daily news.

3.Emphasis on Bad News

There is a tendency in newspapers to run negative stories about bureaucracy, and even more so when dealing with the EU and its bureaucracy. Newspapers cannot write about the positives of Europe; it is unrealistic. As a matter of fact, often the EU directives encourage a negative reaction, especially if they try to absorb the cultural differences of all the states. In journalism, good news is often bad news. What will go into the news in the newspapers tends to be about problems, about negatives rather than: Is not Europe wonderful?”  Therefore, in the production of daily news, newspapers end up carrying more bad news than good news, and that in turn might affect reader’s perceptions. There is excessive criticism of bureaucracy or corruption, and that might contribute to create a negative perception of the EU.

European institutions and people involved in politics, including lobbying groups, try to communicate to the public things that are going great, but many of their explanations are not as prominent in the daily press as they would like. This is because the press does not devote as much attention to success stories or difficult explanations of an issue. The sort of thing that the representatives of the EU will communicate about the European institutions is not necessarily the information that will go into the newspapers. What will go into news tends to be about problems about negatives. All the newspapers have to deal with two contradictory objectives: to communicate with as many readers as possible, and to produce quality information in order to attract and communicate with the decision makers (i.e., economic and political elites) in a very competitive market. In short, newspapers are confronted with the challenge of producing easy-to-understand articles that also inform. Newspapers compete with each other, therefore they need to be popular, to attract a large range of readers, but they also want to be the newspaper of reference. Dealing with all their constituencies when covering Europe is at the center of the newspapers’ preoccupation. They need readers to attract advertising money. But they also need to produce quality articles, reliable information so that the core of their readers, the businessmen and professionals, those who decide, continue to buy the newspaper.

Brussels is a market for the information, and newspapers are continuously competing with other national newspapers for readers: They want as many as possible of their readers to read but they also want stories that will encourage people to read their newspaper.  Newspapers need to sell copies so they can attract advertisers and other sponsors. The level of competition and the demands on newspapers vary according to the country. The British press is very competitive because papers depend on the market to survive, whereas in France there is a basic subvention for national newspapers, and more people read elite newspapers than in the UK. In an environment of tabloids and simplistic journalism, it is rather hard to be able to survive by presenting serious news.

4.Bureaucrats and Politicians Controlling the Agenda

 A major recurring criticism of journalists covering the EU is that they are tied to EU programs and policies, and to what EU bureaucrats want them to cover. To a certain extent, the EU bureaucrats do control the agenda. Because newspapers are always looking for a scoop, information coming from a particular individual in the Brussels bureaucracy can  influence what will be covered in the newspaper. Because journalists work with the decision-makers in Brussels, and often they write pieces directed to the decision-makers in the industry or in other areas, there is the risk for journalists to become unknowingly the speaker for the European institutions. However, in terms of influencing what newspapers publish, national governments are more important than the Brussels bureaucracy, even on European issues.

From time to time, some national minister office will call journalists to state what are the interests of their government is on a given issue, or they may have someone from the government complaining about a given information that is published in the newspaper. Also, newspapers tend to cover stories related to the national interest because of readers’ interest. What determines what will be covered is to a large extent what journalists see as important for their country, what they think their readers will find important. For instance, if the French interest could be affected, also if the issue will have an important influence on the European Union or on French external relations. In sum, whether because of pressure from the national government or because of the need to attract viewers interested in what affects their own country, the national government’s perspective often influences coverage of the EU. Coverage is  informed by what the EU perspective from the government own officials is. Ideally journalists should be able to inform considering other countries’ perspectives, but they rarely do that. In other words, the issues brought about by the national government inform the coverage of the EU. Furthermore, most newspapers in these countries are tied to a political project, if not necessarily a political party; therefore, the content of an editorial or an opinion piece will show this attachment, and often the news might also be influenced by a given political view, and might be produced with the intention to benefit a given political option. In addition to the political party in power, other national constituencies, such as large companies or political parties, are constantly pressuring the newspapers on what they should be covering and how. This is the daily reality of any journalist. Some newspapers might occasionally publish a piece that reflects what they see as the truth, even against the interest of their own country, and in opposition to lobbies, which want them to inform according to their agenda, but most of the time they try to avoid confrontation. In short, journalists cannot overcome that they have to report on what politicians say; and what politicians say can vary considerably depending on the circumstances. Most politicians are not always clear regarding European policies; they might embrace, in a general sense, the idea of European integration, but most are often incapable of endorsing policies that affect their own constituency. Indeed, many politicians have one discourse in their own country and a different one in Brussels. For example, it is not uncommon to hear a politician saying to unhappy constituents in Paris, London, or Madrid, about an unpopular policy adopted by the EU: 'There is nothing we can do, Brussels decides', even thought he or she supported that particular policy in Brussels. The same minister negotiates an issue in the Council and agrees, and then returns to her/his capital and announces: “It is unacceptable what Brussels is trying to impose.” Because most people do not know how the decision-making process in Brussels works, they accept this explanation and blame the “foreign” organization, particularly the Commission, which is often used as scapegoat. In other words, reporting what the politicians say in this context will not help to truly inform the public about how the EU works, nor will there be transparency, and the public will continue to believe, among other things, that there is a distant decision maker, and that the building of the EU remains distant and non democratic.

Conclusion

The number of stories about the European Union is considerable in all the newspapers, with an overall average of at least one story every two days. Comparing quantity of stories by nationality, the French newspapers published the most, followed by the Spanish.The British newspapers have fewer stories on the EU

Most stories on the EU are placed in the international/world affairs section of the newspapers. But whether in a world affairs section or a dedicated Europe section, news on the European Union is still presented as foreign affairs. Considering all the newspapers together, there is more negative than neutral and positive news in the coverage of the EU or its institutions. In order to be successful in their respective objectives (particularly producing fast and attractive news), the newspaper editors choose what they think is the easy and most effective approach: They follow simple one-sided ideas or formulas such as contest or opposition. In the process, nuances are lost. For instance, they often present the news in terms of the Commission or the Council, as opposed to the national government, giving the impression that the Commission or the Council acts independently from the member countries’ governments. The unintended consequence of this approach is that they end up misinforming the public about the workings of the EU, as well as producing a negative view of the EU. Furthermore, covering issues in terms of context and opposition (e.g., them/us, French/British, the Commission versus a given national government) will most likely reinforce nationalism over the long term rather than attachment to the European Union. Certainly this kind of coverage (a large proportion of negative news on the EU, with emphasis on contest, bad news, and personalities) implies that most of the news not only projects a negative view of the European Union, but also does not seem to help to inform the public about several basic aspects of the EU. There is an important and difficult contradiction here. On one hand, by emphasizing bad news, personalities, contest, etc, the media could argue that they attract readers to learn more about the EU, but on the other hand, if most news is negative, then the perception of the EU by the public will tend to be negative as well. It might be that the media try to tailor their content to what will attract the audience, but the audience is also educated through the media. Even assuming the uses and gratification argument that people are not passive receptors, newspapers play a considerable role in bringing their readers information about the EU, which is perceived as distant from their everyday lives, and about which most readers know little. In short, following only the need to attract readers can end up been counterproductive in terms of facilitating the public’s understanding of EU issues. Indeed, polls conducted by the European Commission confirm that the EU member countries’ populations know little about the workings of the EU. In sum, many of the principles that dominate the production of news considerably undermine information on the EU. The news production practices and the strategies for assigning meaning to EU issues have overdramatized the coverage and, to a large extent, reinforced negative stereotypes of the EU institutions. The search for audiences and the sensationalism that is assumed to attract them cause the media to “dumb down” information. As a consequence, newspaper coverage contributes only slightly to the real debates on the process of European integration. There are differences though among newspapers in terms of how specifically they represent the EU, according to nationality and political orientation. These orientations are tied to a certain extent to the national government’s position on the EU, the editorial line of the newspaper, and the media-perceived interest of their national readers (particularly competition for people’s attention). Indeed, even though there is no direct control by a political party on what newspapers must cover or say about a particular issue, pressure from politics exists, and there seems to be a complicit relationship between the newspapers and national politicians. Politicians need the media to advance their agenda, and the media needs politicians to produce news. Also, although it might be true that owners do not interfere with the production of daily news, every newspaper responds to a certain ideology and has a specific editorial line, which forces journalists to inform within a certain frame. For instance, even though there is a widespread ideology among the mainstream press that follows the liberal model that predominates in the EU,  there are substantial differences among the outlets. While some tend to advocate for an unregulated market, and often criticize the EU for being too intrusive, other newspapers are more in agreement with a further regulated European market, closer to a social democratic model. In short, journalists might have a certain independence, but only within a certain frame of reference. Overall, the news on the EU presented to a public with limited knowledge of this supranational organization tends to reinforce traditional views on economics, politics, and society and the relation among the citizens, the national state, and the EU, particularly reinforcing the widespread belief that a national government is better than the EU for solving society’s problems. Furthermore, the different content and approaches to covering the EU does not help to create some type of discourse that frames European issues as “common European problems”. Indeed the media have not been successful in establishing a connection between citizens and the EU institutions