Time to put EU issues in their wider context

Date: 06/02/1997

Barney Price laments the UK media's tendency to cover European issues only when they affect domestic politics.

ONE morning last month on the BBC World Service programme Europe Today, we had a live, outside broadcast from Rotterdam - part of a series of special broadcasts staged by the BBC to mark the Dutch presidency of the European Union.

During the course of it, we asked a leading Dutch commentator to give us an impromptu review of the morning's main Dutch newspapers. The lead item in our programme had been a look at the issues to be discussed later that day by EU foreign ministers, meeting for the first time under the Dutch presidency.

“What were the Dutch papers saying about it?” we asked. The answer: it did not rate a single mention. So great is the consensus in the Netherlands about the EU, it seems, that it does not really get all that much press coverage.

In the UK, quite the opposite is the case. Arguments about the Union and its future probably get more media coverage here than in any other European country. It is virtually impossible to pick up a newspaper or watch a news programme in which the European issues are not discussed.

As the general election approaches, this media obsession with Europe is likely to become even more intense. But what effect is it having on British public opinion? Are we all better informed about European affairs as a result? Or has it helped fuel an increasingly anti-European mood?

The reason Europe gets so much attention is, of course, mainly to do with domestic British politics.

It boils down to this. Prime Minister John Major, down in the opinion polls, and with no overall majority in the House of Commons, needs to appease and to demonstrate his authority over the Eurosceptic faction in the Conservative Party.

To do either, he also needs to be seen to be standing up for the UK's interests in Europe. Every aspect of the government's dealings with Europe is therefore analysed not in terms of the issues involved, but in terms of whether the government has shown weakness or strength.

Just look at the confrontational spin all the British papers put on the outcome of that EU foreign ministers' meeting: “Britain slams EU fast-track strategy” (The Independent), “Show of power by Paris-Bonn axis outflanks Britain” (The Times), “Major's vision of EU rejected” (The Daily Telegraph), “Big Euro brush-off for Major” (The Sun).

For much of the British media, Europe is an arena into which our leaders go to do battle. The role of the press is to proclaim either victory or defeat.

All our politicians are compelled to play the same game. It is getting harder and harder for them to be conciliatory or seek compromise without being accused of 'giving in'.

Labour leader Tony Blair, desperately keeping his fingers crossed that his party's lead in the polls continues until the election, refuses to say anything which could be portrayed as a sign that he is 'soft' on Europe.

Even the most pro-European of the UK's party leaders, Paddy Ashdown of the Liberal Democrats, was moved to describe as “unhelpful and unwise” the comment by German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel in a New Year message that “Britain belongs to Europe”.

To highlight the domestic implications of European developments is probably a natural instinct for journalists in any European country. But in the British context, the overall effect is to accentuate the feeling that the UK is isolated, and that 'Europe' is foreign and hostile. Often, the word 'Europe' itself is used not to denote a continental land mass, or the populations which reside on it, but as shorthand for a collective political entity with which the UK has serious disagreements.

The word 'Brussels' is frequently used in a similar way, to mean the embryonic bureaucracy of a federalist superstate. It is not always made clear who or what 'Brussels' is, but there is a strong suspicion that it is controlled not by us, but mainly by politicians in France and Germany, heirs in the British Eurosceptic demonology to those famous European centralisers, Napoleon and Hitler.

The Eurosceptic mindset is, of course, most apparent in the British tabloid newspapers, which discovered some time ago that it offers a great opportunity to make their readers feel good about being British.

The “Up Yours, Delors” school of journalism taps into our collective national pride: Sir Francis Drake seeing off the Spanish Armada ... the Duke of Wellington winning the day at Waterloo ... the heroism of the RAF in the Battle of Britain - our proudest moments are all to do with resisting foreign interference from the continent.

We may not be much good at sport these days, but at least we are not going to give in to those Eurocrats. It is a message which cheers people up and helps sell newspapers.

Some of the more serious, broadsheet, 'quality' papers also take an openly Eurosceptic (though somewhat less xenophobic) editorial line. But even in those which do not, European issues seem increasingly to be framed in the same 'them and us' model.

Europe is covered mainly in so far as it affects British politics. Stories about the Union only gain prominence if the UK is at odds with Brussels.

If EU ministers meet, the story will typically be reported in terms of whether the British representative succeeded or failed in getting his way. If there is no confrontation, then it is no story.

One effect of this is to make the UK appear more isolated than it really is. We are told little of the disagreements other countries are having with Brussels, or indeed with each other. In fact, there is very little coverage of the domestic affairs of other EU countries. We seem to know more about what goes in the United States than in the rest of Europe.

Of course, rows and disagreements are always easier to turn into news than complex issues in which black and white are not simple to distinguish.

Making the EU interesting and relevant is a challenging task for any journalist. It is often complicated, worthy and dull, and it can be maddeningly difficult to work out what the story is. For television, there is the added difficulty of trying to find interesting pictures to illustrate EU stories.

And it has to be said that amid all the European coverage in the British media, serious arguments on both sides of the debate can certainly be found if you dig deep enough - even in Eurosceptic newspapers.

But on the other hand, there is a vast information gap about Europe and a failure to reflect the full significance of the profound economic, political, constitutional and legislative changes which are taking place.

The big questions about sovereignty, the role of the nation state and the accountability of European institutions do need to be debated. The feedback we get from listeners to the Europe Today programme suggests that there is a large, unmet demand on the part of Europe's citizens for more information about the impact all these things will have on their everyday lives.

The challenge for all journalists covering Europe is to satisfy this demand in a lively, interesting way.

My impression is that British journalism is admired throughout Europe because of its independence and willingness to challenge comfortable orthodoxy.

With English now firmly established as the leading European lingua franca, there is an opportunity for English language media to reach out to a wider European audience.

British newspapers are now published and distributed throughout the continent. They can be read on the Internet. British television and radio is widely available everywhere via cable and satellite.

Is it too much to hope that one day the British media will start taking seriously the fact that they are being read, watched and listened to by increasing numbers of Europeans, and so come to see Europe as more than just a domestic political issue?

Barney Price is editor of 'Europe Today', BBC World Service. This article expresses the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect official BBC policy.