Skip to main content

Article Category

News

Article available in the folowing languages:

More resources in Brussels could reach a common European space for debate

Researchers from the CINEFOGO Network of Excellence suggest: ‘more journalistic resources in Brussels in order to reach a common European space for debate’

Recent processes of EU enlargement and integration, ratification of EU Constitution and Lisbon Agreement have not been successful to proof sufficient commonness within the new Europe and its public sphere. In the normative understanding of the democratic media performance, the media plays a key role in a healthy public sphere formation with exchange of opinions, acquisition of knowledge and information, confrontation of public problems, exercise of public accountability, discussions of policy options, and scrutiny of those in power and mobilization of the society. Put it simply, the media should encourage public involvement and development of public sphere around EU-related affairs. To promote Europeanness among the diverse national and international target groups, European Commission has addressed the issue in its official documents, including the White Paper on a European Communication Policy (2006), the Action Plan to Improve Communicating Europe by the Commission (2005), Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate (2005), and Communicating Europe in Partnership (2007). Dynamic changes within and outside Europe and significant challenges have attained a lot of research and debates. Studies of EPS have been in rise for more than a decade. Despite a relatively long tradition on the national and transnational public spheres, there have been no agreement on the potentials and progress of the European public sphere formation. On the basis of completed empirical research (including FP 6 project AIM: Adequate Information Management in Europe), it can be concluded that information management on the political level within Europe is in conflict because of different national cultures and systems of news and information management. This is one of the major and most demanding differences between national systems of information management and news production and that of the European Union and its institutions. Brussels correspondents are facing numerous constrictions: while working in Brussels they have to constantly switch between two frames – national and transnational. Thus, there is no clear, unique and culturally determined set of standards covering the entire spectrum of demands for EU-related information. And this aspect of quality of information processing appears to be a fundamental difference if compared to the national information and news cultures. For instance, it is necessary to have longer articles and more thorough analysis to make audience interested in the news. Also, it is necessary to have more resources in Brussels, and to apply practice of cross-reporting by integrating regular coverage from Brussels with knowledge and initiatives of journalists from other departments of the same media company. Empirical and theoretical papers on this topic are available to download from the CINEFOGO outcomes database: http://cinefogo.cuni.cz/index.php?&w=50&srch=wp7&id_result=2526 Source web: http://www.cinefogo.org/workpackages/wp7 For more information contact scientific communications consultant Ellen-Kristina Kristensen on telephone number +45 4674 3307 or mail ellenk@ruc.dk

Countries

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, United Kingdom