‘Bridging the Gap’ between EU Politics and Citizens? The European Commission, National Media and EU Affairs in the Public Sphere

Abstract

Information about political processes is an important prerequisite for debates in the public sphere, which can strengthen the legitimacy of decisions. This article analyses how far both Commission communication and media news coverage contain information on (a) policy issues, (b) the policy process and (c) the actors involved and the positions they take. Data have been gathered through a qualitative content analysis of Commission communication output and the news coverage in two Dutch and two German newspapers with regard to two specific policies: the sustainable use of natural resources and wastes and the accession process leading up to the Eastern Enlargement. The results suggest that the Commission and the national media emphasize different aspects of the EU political process. This could pose problems in terms of the legitimacy of EU policies and the Commission’s role therein.

Key Words:

• Democracy
• political communication
• European Commission
• media
• public sphere

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Tannelie Blom, Frank Schimmelfennig, Monika Mokre and the participants in the panel ‘Media reporting and debating Europe’ at the ECPR Graduate Conference 2006 for their constructive comments and feedback on earlier drafts of this article. Thanks also go to Jon Foster for looking over the text for language usage.

Notes

1. Commission communication allows the mass media to follow, understand and report political processes. Media communication allows the audience to follow, understand and discuss as well as other media to report on these processes.

2. The year 2003 was selected for three reasons: there was only one Commission in this year (no change, as for example in 2004), the year is recent enough to bear topics of actual relevance and, at the same time, distant enough in the past to be able to put communication activities and interaction into context.

3. Although generally positive about the integration process at the onset, since the 1990s Dutch and German citizens have become more critical about the EU’s functioning and its democratic credentials.

4. In contrast to, for example, information sources based on confidential relationships between journalists and spokespersons or other Commission officials.

5. In fact, except for the large numbers of press releases issued on Competition and External Relations, there was no true focus in the Commission’s press releases. Instead, all subjects were represented rather equally.

6. Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme. OJ 2002, L242/1‐15.

7. These included not only Commissioners, but also for example spokespersons (FAZ 19 January 2003; VK 12 March 2003) and Commission representatives in the accession countries (NRC 4 November 2003).

8. In the Enlargement case, for example, the Commission spoke about improving conditions for enterprises, promoting the development of transport and environmental infrastructure, fostering the creation of jobs, etc. through the Community Support Framework and different operational programmes (26 June – 22 September 2003). The media simply refer to “fostering innovation and development” of candidate countries’ infrastructure through “EU subsidies” (SZ 23 October 2003) or to helping candidates setting up necessary offices through “Commission support” (VK 30 June 2003). In contrast, one example of the sustainability case elaborates rather concretely on the EC wanting “to slow down the increasing waste avalanche, recycle a larger proportion of the wastes and ensure a most environment‐friendly disposal through the definition of collecting points, recycling quotas with deadlines, and guidelines for a Europe wide retrieval system” (FAZ 26 March 2003).

9. Of course, some have suggested that the national focus of most media does not allow for European‐wide debates to take place and might even increase scepticism. Yet, we would rather agree with Voltmer & Eilders (2003, 195) who argued that a national focus on EU affairs might actually make people more aware of European politics.