Media

Lifestyle & Innovation

by Philip Moore.

Refugees stopped in Hungary on their way to Germany; French and Italian officials working day and night to keep Greece in the Eurozone; Eastern and Western European nations clashing over Europe’s relationship with Russia. If you were alive these past six months – a safe bet if you’re reading this article – you probably encountered at one point or another the strange beast we call the ‘European problem’.

This most irksome of life forms can thrive and multiply in any environment. There it is, lurking inside your sim card, or messing about in your soup; most of all it seems to prefer your newspaper, its natural habitat, where it awaits the opportunity to strike. Soon, experts warn, there will be a ‘European problem’ hiding behind every headline, and there will be nothing you or I can do about it.

It is perhaps the ultimate cliché to assert that European problems require European solutions. This may or may not be true, depending on the issue; what is certain is that they require a European understanding. Without an informed European citizenry, aware of the context and constraints in which national politics operate, conscious of the deep interconnectedness between all member states, and ready to hold decision-makers at every level accountable for their actions, there can be little hope of addressing the common crises our continent is facing.

Yet the media that most European citizens engage with is almost uniformly national in scope.  If you are a Pole, Poland is the centre of the world; if you are Austrian, everything revolves around Austria[1].  Other member states are presented as (at best) friendly rivals or (at worst) threats to the nation’s wellbeing. Interactions between member states are reduced to a zero sum game: where France gains, the United Kingdom loses, and vice versa.

Meanwhile, anything that comes out of Europe is either sinister, too soporific to pay any closer attention to, or both. Consider, for example, how often your national politicians blame European institutions for decisions they personally approved – and journalists let them get away with it. No one would deny that local and national newspapers are vital organs of a healthy democracy; but an exclusively national framing of current events can only foster ignorance and resentment.

To counter this tendency, there have been many courageous initiatives in pan-European media, this paper included. Although a decisive step in the right direction, they remain too few and too limited in their audience. The emerging ‘European public sphere’ has so far struggled to find its public.  For too long, Europe has been depicted as the province of unscrupulous lobbyists and insipid bureaucrats.

It is particularly revealing, for instance, that a number of online publications restrict articles about the European Union to premium readers. By a strange circular logic, it is assumed that only a niche audience will want to inform themselves about the EU; therefore, any EU-related article is hidden behind a pay wall; therefore, only a niche audience informs themselves about the EU. QED. Is it any wonder that so many perceive the EU to be an exclusive, elitist club?

It is time to proclaim, boldly and loudly, that Europe is interesting. Yes, Europe is interesting – not only the European Union, but also Europe, the living, breathing continent, our common home of cheese, cathedrals and American tourists. And it is interesting not only to pro-Europeans, but also to eurosceptics, and to those who at the moment could not care less which direction Europe is headed, but probably should.

For the European public sphere to concern all Europeans, pan-European media must be unafraid to expand its ambitions and explore uncharted territory. Our national media flourishes because of a wild diversity we often take for granted. In the open democracies of Europe, there is a paper, channel or website for everyone – some serious-minded, others crazy and offbeat, some cultural, others countercultural, some elitist and restrained, others populist and rabidly partisan.

Why can’t European media emulate this diversity? Where is the European ‘Daily Show’? Where is the hard-hitting European investigative journalism? There are dozens of ventures begging to be started by those ready to seize the opportunity.

A European online satirical newspaper is currently in development and should be out in the coming months. Many more initiatives will have to follow: building the European public sphere will take more than one project or group, no matter how dedicated. Your ideas, your contributions are desperately needed.

It is the 1989 Generation Initiative’s hope that they will combine to redefine European media in the 21st century, paving the way for a more open and democratic pan-European conversation.

 

This article comes from our partner organization, the 1989 Generation Initiative. You can find more information on them on their website, Facebook, and EurActiv blog.

 

Image taken from Flickr, by 24oranges.nl.

Politics & The World

by Yannic Bellino

It is a familiar phenomenon: Something – a crisis, a catastrophe, a war – surfaces in the news and then for days, weeks, months on end it seems to be the only “hot” topic there is. It is all over all sorts of media. But then something else happens – a crisis, a catastrophe, a war – and all of a sudden the previous hot topic turns “cold”.

In the last months, we could definitely observe that: Syria, Ukraine, Greece, the Mediterranean Sea, the EU’s Eastern borders, Syria again. A rapid succession of places and the topics connected to them turning hot to the detriment of the previously hottest topic. I want to focus on Ukraine and how it has receded into the background in the face of the Syrian war and the refugee crisis.

Why has mainstream media attention shifted away from Ukraine?

I believe that there are at least two plausible narratives for Ukraine turning cold in the eyes of the media. One is connected to information as a marketed good and media outlets catering to consumer preferences, the other is rooted in geopolitical strategy, security concerns and Putin’s media-savviness.

Let’s start with the information market. Firstly, it is important to realize that media do not precisely depict reality and events, but rather filter it and shape meaning. Secondly, different media outlets compete with one another for consumers. From these two assumptions it makes sense to assume that media will depict reality and shape meanings in a way that appeals to a number of consumers as big as possible in order to maximize profits. So, what do consumers demand? What do we as society value when engaging with media? We do not want to be bored.

The relatively quick succession of dramatic events certainly is a good recipe against boredom. Media outlets know that. So they present this picture of reality. The catastrophe that is currently ‘en vogue’ is the refugee crisis. To some extent, we also hear more again about the war in Syria, mainly due to its connection with the crisis. Does that mean that the Greek crisis is solved? Certainly not. Does that mean things are back to normal in Ukraine? No. But in our fast paced world these topics are old and boring. Nobody – or hardly anybody – has the nerve to constantly hear about one and the same protracted problem for which no feasible solution seems to be nearing.

Another explanation is offered by geopolitics. This narrative departs from the vantage point of the media taking on a more noble role, namely that of a less self-interested messenger. Geopolitical considerations have shifted world leaders’ attention elsewhere – not least to Putin’s clever instrumentalization of the fight against ISIS – and, hence, media attention has also shifted.

A political director at Ukraine’s foreign ministry is quoted in a recent Politico article, claiming that “Russia tries to influence and bind countries to Russia by spreading instability all around: creating frozen conflicts — Transnistria Abkhazia, Donbas — as a way to stop those countries developing on their own”. This would mean that fading media interest in the Ukraine crisis is perfectly in line with Putin’s geopolitical goals. More evidence to this end is offered by the fact that at his UN General Assembly speech earlier this week, Putin chose to focus on everything but Ukraine. He thereby managed to deflect the attempt of multiple speakers, most notably Petro Poroshenko, to put Ukraine at the top of the agenda again.

Instead, he put emphasis on Syria and the fight against ISIS. He has a significant geopolitical interest in stabilizing the Assad regime, his ally. The interests are military and economic (Russian oil and gas companies are active in the region). Moreover, Russian Muslims joining ISIS and then returning at a later point pose an internal security threat, especially in the Caucasus where the situation is already uneasy.

From a geopolitical point of view Ukraine is not a priority for Russia anymore and Putin manages quite well to focus international attention elsewhere. The West – despite the different rhetoric – has for a while now de facto tolerated the annexation of Crimea and Russian military involvement in Eastern Ukraine. Putin knows how to play the geopolitical game. He goes back and forth just enough to keep the international community in a state of relative inertia. He is ruthless. He is charismatic. He is clever. He is good with the media. He is definitely not boring. People like that. So, his voice will be heard.

You be the judge on which narrative is more plausible. I myself believe that – as so often with complex issues – the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In any case, the fact remains that the Ukrainian crisis is not solved (except for Putin maybe, if he indeed seeks a frozen conflict).

The media and – not least – the people need to overcome the one-issue-at-a-time approach. A focus on one hot topic does not do justice to globalized, complexly interdependent world politics.

There are talks held today in Paris between Putin, Poroshenko, Merkel & Co. Did you know that? It is doubtful whether much will be achieved. Putin knows he has to offer his pinky finger every once in a while in order to appease the international community. Yet, expansion remains expansion, annexation remains annexation, and violence remains violence.

The UNHCR is worried about the situation in Ukraine. In 2014, they counted over 800 000 internally displaced persons. Last week their staff was expelled from the Lugansk region. If the conflict flares up again more strongly, with all its adverse effects on the (Eastern) Ukrainian population, mass migration to the EU could follow. Maybe mainstream media will pay more attention to Ukraine again then … if refugees are still a hot topic that is.

In any case, I believe it to be dangerous to slowly but surely accept the new status quo. Anders Fogh Rassmussen and Barack Obama have in recent days warned that accepting Russia’s expansion will erode the (supposedly) established respect for sovereignty in the post-world-war era. But maybe that is just too boring.

 

Picture by Sasha Maksymenko, taken from flickr