ARE THE MEDIA DESTROYING EUROPE?

On the Panel:
Anna Diamantopoulou, Greek politician, former European Commissioner, President of DIKTIO – Network for Reform in Greece and Europe, Greece
Simon Jenkins, Journalist, author and chairman of the National Trust in London, former editor of the London Times, United Kingdom
Tomasz Lis, Editor-in-Chief of Newsweek Polska and anchor of “Tomasz Lis live”, Poland
Annalisa Piras, Journalist, film-maker and communications advisor, former London correspondent for L'Espresso and Co-founder of Euronews, Italy
Ines Pohl, Editor-in-Chief of taz, Germany
Xavier Vidal-Folch, Associate director of El País, former president of the World Editors Forum and Global Editors Network, Spain

Moderator:
Tim Sebastian, multiple awarded interviewer, originator of the BBC’s “HARDtalk” interview series and currently the host of “The New Arab Debates” on Deutsche Welle TV.

Tim Sebastian starts the live streamed debate with a quote from an adviser to Tony Blair, who once asked an audience if they knew the difference between the mafia and the European Union. Sadly the audience didn’t seem to know. So the adviser explained: “The mafia makes you an offer you can’t refuse, and the European Union makes you an offer you can’t understand.” The M100 debate should “punch a little daylight into an area of enduring European controversy – the press.” The question the panel was asked to consider was “Are the media destroying Europe?”-  which brings a whole series of other questions into the debate like: “What’s the evidence that Europe is being destroyed? Have all the press barons and media groups clubbed together to do what two World Wars, a cold war and  successive financial crises so far failed to bring about. Or is Europe killing itself? Are the basic foundations of the European Union flawed or are the politicians simply unwilling to stare reality in the face?” He pointed out that the panel should also discuss whether Europe is killing its own media and referred to journalism under state pressure in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary as well as in the UK, France, and Italy.

On the panel were three ladies on one side of this argument and on the other side three men against them.

Annalisa Piras from Italy starts the discussion with the opinion, that media are destroying Europe. She pointed out that not only the media are destroying Europe by helping the disintegration, but also the national politicians. In her view the greatest problem is that nobody can understand the EU. In the population can be observed an anti EU feeling, where eurosecptism is rising and eurosceptical parties are created all over Europe. There can’t be confidence, when you don’t even understand this system. She asked: “Why everybody blames Brussels when ministers of the member states accepted this policy?” Concerning the media, Piras sees the responsibility with the media “to make the people understand about the complexity that is around them.” It’s the task of journalists not to be lazy but to be responsible. “There is no democracy without information and information is freedom, but you need to have accurate information,” she reasoned.

The associate director of “El País”, Xavier Vidal-Folch, positioned himself in between the two opinions. First the main problem of the EU, besides “the nationalism, is a lack of leadership and egoistic reactions to the financial crisis.” He blamed the nationalism “for considering neighbours as strangers, partners as rivals and competitors as enemies.” In his opinion, “we should blame governments first of doing less for Europe than they should do.” To overcome next obstacles, the populism and the nationalism has to be eliminated, because they are trying to destroy the confidence between citizens and member states. The press should explain procedures of Europe and not co-operate with the populist mood in Europe. As representative of the newspaper “El País” he explained that the media is not the solution for the crisis, but they don’t have to be part of the problem, neither. He argued: “the national state in Europe is in decline, media related to national public opinion have to realize that their working space is Europe and the world and globalisation now.”

The former European Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou blamed the media on a European level and the “catastrophic role they played, turning the financial crisis into an existential crisis of Europe.” With this behaviour they are “threatening to derail the European project”, she said. She explained that in her opinion the main problem is that “there is no European demos and no European language”, and she asked how it could be possible to blame European media of not supporting Europe, if it even don’t exist. The media themselves have played a very populist role, she admitted. “They have supported national policies against European (institutional) policies and have not given a concrete and clear answer to the people”, said Diamantopoulou. She also thinks that media should be more responsible and do a more serious coverage. The media should take the responsibility to explain for example the role of the European Commission. With an honest reporting the people could understand that the problem is not the Commission, but the member states, deciding what the Commission has to do. The problem is the unanimity of the member states and that the member states are creating the bureaucracy.

From a polish point of view, Tomasz Lis noted that a great part of European media is pro-European, at least in Poland. In his opinion the media are not destroying anything and even if they wanted to, they couldn’t, because they are too weak. He referred to the struggle the media have all over Europe, that they are to preoccupied with their survival than playing an anti European role. The role of the media is to follow and to describe. He refused the headlines titling the end of Europe. For him it’s “part of the European project, having the right to criticize, when there is a reason to criticize.”

Ines Pohl has got a critical eye on the media. On the one hand “the role of the media is not to support Europe, the role should be to report and write critical about Europe, but not in a destructive way”, she said. As experienced editor she understands, that it’s too easy to find a “bad sexy headline”. And because of the complex structure of Europe, it’s a very hard work for journalists to explain these constructions, when in many newsrooms there are only one or two people responsible for whole Europe. Therefore it’s so easy to serve populist ideas and fears with headlines. The aim of the media is to sell more copies, but with a headline about Europe you find no market. On the other hand, Europe needs a smart reporting, but the quality media is under pressure and a good coverage is in danger. The media have to point out, what are the alternatives to a European community for example. The media have to do a good and careful reporting; journalists have to criticize with arguments and not with populist fear-making. The Europeans should search for the common ground and the media should report about common ideas, culture, and markets and accept the differences. She wants the media to wider their perspective of the “national interests”. After all, “it’s our interest, too, that Greek survives as a member of the Euro zone and that the Spanish youth get jobs”, she pointed out.

Simon Jenkins is of the opinion that the media are not destroying Europe. He stated out that “it’s not the job of a journalist to be nice to power.” The European Union changed seriously and got derived from “a very good course, a good idea, a great treaty, and evolving a system of co-operation into being inefficient, bureaucratic, partially corrupt and detached from the general public in Europe.” The job of the press is to continue a deeply sceptical approach to power, to challenge the European institutions, to explain and to report.

After the introduction and presentation round, the first questions and comments from the audience were heard, like the question from the M100 Young European Journalists participant Ekaterina Kuznetsova. She asked why media are destroying Europe and commented that it could be unfair just to blame one site and that it’s essential for journalists to question something and to reveal the truth. She questioned the debate and noted that maybe Europe is destroying the journalism by not helping and not co-operating with real information.
Annalisa Piras answered that the most information some media are publishing about the European Union at the moment is not accurate and don’t reflect the big picture. She referred to “easy lazy journalism, under the justification to challenge power, becomes an ‘I’m going to have an easy shot to a sitting target’. This is what I’m accusing to be irresponsible in time.” But to destroy what we constructed without providing an alternative makes no sense to Ms Piras.
Thomasz Lis responded to the question with the example, that media is still fighting for survival and after all they have to sell copies and entitle the news with big stories.
Ms Pohl added, that she doesn’t think that criticism is wrong, but a smart reporting is needed.

Hella Pick, Senior Programme Associate of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in London, tried to get to the bottom of the definition of media and suggested not to ignore the citizen journalists. She referred to a changing media scene and she admitted that “trying to explain what goes on in the European Union, create an understanding is a very difficult task for any daily newspaper.” She criticized that you can’t get intelligent information in today’s media.
Mr Jenkins added that the EU is a very bizarre institution, because there is no opposition, not even a second chamber and the EU really needs a countervailing part from national parliaments and the media.

From the audience, Bertrand Pecquerie, CEO of the Global Editors Network, noted that journalism is in crisis, too, that they are in the same boat, because they are exactly in the same crisis. Between simple citizens and their lead there is mistrust and journalists are not trusted even like the politicians. But nowadays journalists are not asking the right questions. Why people going to social media and leaving the traditional media? The people are scared - and the media are not reflecting this total panic.

Ines Pohl pointed out that there are still a lot of great newspapers and excellent TV-stations in Germany and still a great journalism in the world. She doesn’t like the outcry that journalism is dying, “but we are in a crisis because we have to figure out ways to keep this quality journalism paid. This could be the conclusion of this panel”, she added, “Because the question is kind of stupid.”

Xavier Vidal-Folch said that there is a third important player on the scene: the citizens. He agreed with Simon Jenkins that the media in Europe in a good shape. But probably the communication system afforded a big crisis, a financial one, an identity one and the questions, what’s the place of the media in the world.

The discussion ended with a poll of the audience: In the result more than two-third of the attendees believe that the media are NOT destroying Europe.