2009-03-01

BRUSSELS - A story about double-pensions in the European Parliament is currently on tour through various European media. Country by country the news make headlines, as a set of informations seems to circulate. Can the European public sphere follow the story?

German news magazine Stern was the first to publish a story about double-pensions at the European Parliament: Under the headline "The silence of the EU parliamentarians" a German colleague could publish a story on some members of the European Parliament and their extra pension fund in Luxemburg.

Also Dutch radio KRO Reporter published the story about the "Dutch members controversial pension fund", the Luxembourg paper Lëtzeburg Privat published an article under the headline "Improving pensions with taxpayers money" and Danish Jyllands-Posten published an article about "Double pension to EU parliamentarians".

In a follow-up blog on Stern.de, the German newsmagazine compares the debate following the disclosure in the different countries. Thus one hub or meeting point was created for this particular story, in this case on a German blog.

In these decades of building a European community we often talk about a common European public sphere. And isn't the way of that story it? Or at least a version of it? Sure, the debates about the EP funds is going on country by country as the information is disclosed, and it is not simultaneous but drip by drip. Yet given the fact, that the pension fund is a tradition, that has lasted several decades, is a more or less unanimous debate in several countries within a month or two not as close, as we get to a common debate?

The strength of a model based upon networking or based upon working on the same story more or less simultaneously is, that each journalist addresses his or her own target group in their own language with an angle and style, that the target group easily can relate to. A previous example is a subject, that for decades was considered one of the most boring among EU policies - except for specialised media: The common agricultural policy.

Until 2004. That summer two Danish journalists broke the spell by wobbing out (getting access to information) the names of the end-recipients of the EU subsidies in Denmark. The status: Large corporations and large landowners, among them business-elites and nobility, where the top-recipients.

Since the concrete stories hit the news in Denmark, colleagues in other countries have followed the idea, similar articles popped up all over Europe as the facts got out country by country. Often after months or years of fighting for the data.

The data aswell as links to some of the stories were gathered on a non-profit website, www.farmsubsidy.org, which receives or has received funding from the European Social Fund, the Hewlett Foundation and the Open Society Foundation.

The site is a new and interactive way to present an investigative story - journalists and readers all over Europe can simply go to the site and have a look at the data for further possible stories. In that sense the Farmsubsidy site functions as the European meeting point on this particular subject. But how can other stories that either have been researched by a network of journalists or that are being researched based upon more or less simultaneous inspiration by colleagues in other countries contribute to a common European debate? 

In other words: Who shall gather the debate? 

One great and useful example is Eurotopics, "my precious Eurotopics" as a researcher who is obliged to follow closely the European debate once put it. Funded by the German ministry of interior and run by the N-Ost journalist association, Eurotopics every day gathers the most important debates from all over Europe. After editing, the overview is translated into English, French, German and Spanish. Other useful European meetings points focusing on news and debate are the Brussels-media like EUobserver.com or European Voice.

Neither of the meeting points does or can research their own stories all over Europe. The best model for a common European public sphere thus currently seems to be the bottom-up approach of networking: Journalists follow a good story according to journalistic principles. In their own country or accross borders. The special task for the "European meeting points" like Eurotopics and others then will be to focus on exactly that role: Being a forum, where Europe actually can meet.

The meeting points are meeting points of the elite, of opinion makers and of journalists. Obviousy they will not be the European meeting points for a broad public. How could they? Each country, each language, even sometimes each region has it's own media and language tradition familiar to the public. Centralised European media outlets thus are unlikely to be accepted.

However journalists joining forces in research and following a story across borders appears to be a good solution for the time being. Stories in various countries can lead to several debates, that then can be picked up at the meeting points and redistributed.

Let's develop this type of flexible models to improve journalism in Europe and to start developping a European public sphere. 

Written by Brigitte Alfter

Pre-application sessions for potential applicants - grants journalists

Questions? In-house assistance to better prepare your application

2024-03-07

BRUSSELS - Let us walk you through your application to increase your chances of getting funded.