I Premi “Catalunya Europa Segle 21”

I Premi “Catalunya Europa Segle 21” Desembre 2012

The Significance of EU Topics in National Media: Has There Been an Europeanization of Reporting in the National Media?

By Laura Batalla Adam

Amb la col·laboració de

About the author

Laura Batalla Adam holds two B.A. degrees in Political Science and Public Administration and Journalism from Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona), as well as a M.A. degree in European Political and Administrative Studies from the College of Europe (Charles Darwin Promotion). Laura currently works as a policy advisor in the European Parliament. She is a regular media commentator on EU affairs and a team member of the “The European Daily”, –Europe’s Daily Newspaper-, since April 2011.

Address for correspondence: laura.batalla@coleurope.eu

2

Abstract

Criticisms are often voiced on the fact that there is no well-informed European public. However, as the process of European integration has advanced, the media have been devoting more resources and space to the coverage of European affairs. In this sense, the information available for the interested citizen has increased considerably in recent years. At the same time, national media have gone from being mere transmitters of information to having their own voice on European issues. In this respect, the media have emerged as actors capable of influencing the opinions of citizens, thereby contributing to the emergence of a European public sphere.

The present study analyzes whether an Europeanization of the national media has taken place. This will be addressed by analyzing how national newspapers provide information in Europe. The results will allow determining whether a European public sphere is emerging. The study compares the coverage carried out by La Vanguardia (Spain), The Guardian (United Kingdom) and Le Monde (France) with regard to the 2009 European Parliament elections, the last steps regarding the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and its entry into force, the appointments of Herman Van Rompuy as President of the European Council and Catherine Ashton as High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and last but not least, the Copenhagen climate summit.

The results reveal that some European topics have experienced a certain Europeanization of interest, exceeding the national boundaries and expanding to other European media.

However, there is still an absence of European debate in the national public spheres.

Although it can be said that the Europeanization of the public sphere in the media is slowly emerging, given the improved transnational political communication in the different public spheres, its consolidation requires that the citizens become more involved 3

in the public debate on European affairs. In this respect, the European Union should put forth a greater effort to communicate its mission and functioning in a more comprehensible way to its citizens.

For its part, the development of the online press has recently offered new possibilities for the creation of a pan-European network of high-quality journalism. Should this be achieved, it would then undoubtedly contribute to the consolidation of a European public sphere.

4

Key words

Europeanization

Media content analysis

European news coverage

European public sphere

5

List of abbreviations

EP

European Parliament

EPP

European People’s Party

EU

European Union

MEPs

Members of the European Parliament

MoDem

Democratic Movement

MPs

Members of the Parliament

MS

Member States

PP

Partido Popular

PS

Parti Socialiste (Français)

PSOE

Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol

UK

United Kingdom

Ukip

United Kingdom Independent Party

UMP

Union for a Popular Movement

6

Table of contents

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 9

1.1.

Methodology and sources ………………………………………………. 11

1.2.

Delimitations ………………………………………………………....... 15

I. Theoretical research 2. Theoretical framework …………………………………………………………. 18 2.1.

Defining Europeanization ……………………………………………… 18

2.2.

The European public sphere: what role for the media? ……………....... 19

2.3.

The role of the media in a democratic system …………………………. 23

II. Empirical research 3. La Vanguardia ………………………………………………………………….. 27 3.1.

The 2009 European Parliament elections ……………………………… 28

3.2.

The Treaty of Lisbon …………………………………………………... 33

3.3.

The appointments of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton …… 35

3.4.

The Copenhagen climate summit ………………………………………. 37

3.5.

Concluding remarks ……………………………………………………. 39

4. The Guardian …………………………………………………………………... 41 4.1.

The 2009 European Parliament elections ……………………………… 42

4.2.

The Treaty of Lisbon …………………………………………………... 46

4.3.

The appointments of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton …… 49

4.4.

The Copenhagen climate summit ……………………………………… 55

4.5.

Concluding remarks ……………………………………………………. 57

7

5. Le Monde ………………………………………………………………………. 59 5.1.

The 2009 European Parliament elections ……………………………… 60

5.2.

The Treaty of Lisbon …………………………………………………... 63

5.3.

The appointments of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton …… 64

5.4.

The Copenhagen climate summit ……………………………………… 67

5.5.

Concluding remarks ……………………………………………………. 69

6. Analysis ................................................................................................................ 71 7. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….... 75 8. Bibliography ………………………………………………………………….… 78 9. Annexes ……………………………………………………………………….... 94

8

1. Introduction

In the beginning of the European integration process the ideas of the founding fathers were successfully materialized. To put it in a different way, their ideas were translated into action. European leaders agreed on a common goal: to prevent another war between France and Germany, that is, a European war. The common European project designed by Jean Monnet and his contemporaries has been extended since then by their descendants, who have modernized and streamlined it. Recently, in the early twenty-first century, the European project has been expanded to 27 Member States.

The European Union is an unprecedented political experiment that has achieved an historic success. It has avoided war, has brought stability and progress to European society and has become a model, supranational although mainly intergovernmental, which can help to resolve tensions and conflicts worldwide. The success of the European Union, therefore, cannot be questioned. However, one of the most challenging problems for the EU is that it is not able to communicate itself and to attract the interest of the public.

Criticism is often raised about the fact that there is no well-informed European public.

However, as the process of European integration has advanced, the media have been devoting more resources and space to the coverage of European affairs. In this sense, the information available for the interested citizen has increased considerably in recent years.

At the same time, the national media have gone from being mere transmitters of information to have its own voice on European issues. In this respect, the media have emerged as actors capable of influencing the opinions of citizens, thereby contributing to the emergence of a European public sphere.

The purpose of this study is to determine if an Europeanization of national media has taken place. This will be addressed by analyzing how national newspapers provide information in Europe and how they define it. The results will allow us to determine whether an Europeanization of the national public spheres is emerging.

9

The absence of a European public sphere has already been addressed by those who have studied the European integration process. However, so far a concise typology that allows us to list the necessary factors in order to assume its existence has not yet been established. The causes of the absence of a European public sphere are varied and the responsibilities are shared. On the one hand, political leaders can be blamed because they often restrict the European debate on purely domestic issues. For their part, the national electorates, more concerned with local than European issues, often vote in a local dimension, punishing (or not) the national government in power. On the other hand, the media also tend to give a national reading of the European issues. In this context, it is assumed that it is precisely the consolidation of a European public sphere, along with a committed European citizenry, that should give substance to the political and social advancement of the European project.

As mentioned above, the present study analyzes the role of the media in defining the European Union and, therefore, its role in contributing to the formation of a European public sphere. The research concentrates on three EU member countries: Spain, the United Kingdom and France. These countries were chosen because they represent different approaches with regard to the European integration process. The accession of Spain to the EU brought the political and economic modernization needed by the country.

In this sense, the Spanish press is expected to be in favour of the process of European integration, given the benefits derived from its EU membership. For its part, the United Kingdom is one of the most skeptical countries with regard to the European project. In this regard, it is likely that the British media pay less attention to European affairs and is more skeptical when reporting about the EU. Finally, France is one of the bigger and most powerful Member States of the EU. Its longstanding membership in the European club, presupposes a more established EU reporting and debate about European issues.

The study compares the coverage of La Vanguardia (Spain), The Guardian (United Kingdom) and Le Monde (France) with regard to four EU-related events that took place in 2009. The topics chosen are the 2009 European Parliament elections, the last steps 10

regarding the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and its entry into force, the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as President of the European Council and Catherine Ashton as High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and last but not least, the Copenhagen climate summit.

The analysis will take into account the scope and diversity of themes, genres, styles and narratives (a more detailed description regarding the criteria on which the content analysis is based can be found in the methodology section). In the first section, the role of the media in influencing the process of Europeanization of the national public spheres as well as their role as guardians of the democratic system. The empirical part of the paper will consist of a content analysis of the coverage carried out by the three newspapers aforementioned in relation to the four EU events proposed. The results of my analysis will be presented in two steps: a detailed description of the findings of the content analysis for each newspaper at the end of each chapter and in a general way with the elaboration of comparative tables (that will be attached at the end of the study as annexes).

1.1. Methodology

While many of the studies conducted in the past have tended to focus on the number of articles published by the news media in relation to the European Union, the present study will be based, on the contrary, on the analysis of content of the articles published in three quality newspapers, namely La Vanguardia (Spain), The Guardian (United Kingdom) and Le Monde (France) with regard to four European events that occurred in 2009. Therefore, the objective of the present analysis it is not to compare the number of articles published by the media mentioned before, but to analyze the visibility of the EU coverage and the stance adopted by the aforementioned media when it comes to informing the public about a particular aspect of the European Union. In this respect, the media analysed will be seen as actors with an opinion of their own with regard to the four European issues chosen within the framework of this study, assuming that the media has a powerful formative effect on the citizens, promoting a public debate within the society.

11

In order to determine the formative power of the said media, the author will not only analyze their editorials, assuming that it reflects the opinion of the newspaper in relation to a particular European event, but also the commentaries and political columns published by the columnists of each newspaper. In addition, special attention will be paid to all those articles that are not only limited to the mere reproduction of political statements, such as longer news analysis and debate-style articles. The analysis of in-depth reports are of great relevance for the present study, since they are supposed to help the reader to understand more easily the complex EU political machinery. Moreover, both interviews as well as guest contributions from external authors specialized on European topics will be also considered as another tool that adds to the formation of an independent opinion by the citizens on EU affairs.

Thus, the quality of the news published by each newspaper will be measured on the basis of its content and accuracy and the variety of journalistic genres used by each media. The stance adopted towards the aforementioned EU events (negative, neutral or positive) will also be of great importance. As argued before, informing about an event that has occurred is not the same than explaining the reasons why that given event has taken place.

Similarly, by publishing an opinion article in relation to a particular event or to accompany an article with an interview or the contribution of an expert in the field, show the importance that the newspaper attributes to that particular event. In fact, with regard to the holding of the European Parliament elections or the organization of a world summit, as it is the case of the 2009 Copenhagen summit, newspapers normally tend to cover these kinds of events very broadly, mainly because they are short-term events, lasting only a couple of weeks. However, with respect to the last stage of the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which took over a year, it will be interesting to see up to what extent each newspaper has followed that process. In both cases, the in-depth coverage and the opinions expressed by the said newspapers in relation to all of the events proposed will be particularly important to determine whether they provide high quality information to their readers.

12

The present study will compare the news coverage conducted by La Vanguardia, The Guardian and Le Monde on the following events: the 2009 European Parliament elections, the last steps regarding the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and its entry into force, the appointment of the President of the European Council and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and last but not least, the Copenhagen climate summit held in December 2009.

Within these four events, the role played by each of the media mentioned above will be analysed, paying particular attention to the richness of journalistic genres used by each one and the quality of its content. For its part, in each of the chapters devoted to the analysis of each newspaper, the events mentioned above will be analysed by taking into account the following aspects: 

The 2009 European Parliament elections: the issues that dominated the campaign (national or European), the importance that the newspaper attached to the elections (measured by its editorials), the reference to the campaigns carried out in other member countries, the evaluation of the results both at the national and European level, and the existence of analytical / critical coverage.



The last steps regarding the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and its entry into force: the causes of the Irish 'yes' in 2009, the position of the newspaper in relation to the referendum, the referendum implications for the EU as a whole, the coverage of the steps taken by the Polish and Czech presidents, and, finally, the newspaper's opinion with regard to the Lisbon Treaty and its implementation.



Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton's appointments: the suitability of Tony Blair's “candidacy”, the newspaper's opinion with regard to Van Rompuy and Lady Ashton's appointments, and the implications of both appointments for the EU's future.

13



The Copenhagen climate summit: the importance attributed by the newspapers to the EU during the negotiations and the evaluation of its contribution.

While the first three topics relate to the internal dimension of the EU (although in the second and third cases the external dimension of the EU is also present), the last topic has mainly to do with the international projection of the EU and its impact in world politics.

The analysis of these variables will allow us to determine whether there has been a Europeanization of the national discourse when reporting on European affairs. Similarly, the articles published by the newspapers will allow us to assess if the citizens have the necessary information at their disposal in order to be able to form their own opinion about the EU, fuelling the debate on European issues and contributing to the formation of a European public sphere.

The news articles have been obtained both from the printed edition and the online edition of the said newspapers. This is due to the difficulties in obtaining the news published in the printed edition of some newspapers (with the exception of La Vanguardia). Particular difficulties were encountered in accessing the printable version of Le Monde articles as access required payment for each article, despite subscribing to the said newspaper. Due to this limitation, unfortunately only a limited amount of Le Monde’s articles have been analysed for this thesis. The access to The Guardian, selected as having the best website, was easier. It was also interesting to note that more space was allocated to EU affairs on the website than in the printed version of the newspaper as the website does not require any space limitations.

For each topic, the number of articles, editorials, and opinion articles, that have been analysed in each newspaper are enumerated below:

1. The 2009 European Parliament elections (since the start of the election campaign at the end of May until mid-June):  La Vanguardia: 152 articles.  The Guardian: 111 articles.

14

 Le Monde: 44 articles.

2. The last phase of the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and its entry into force (from early July until early December):  La Vanguardia: 35 articles.  The Guardian: 88 articles.  Le Monde: 38 articles.

3. The appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as the first President of the European Council and of Catherine Asthon as the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (from late October until late November):  La Vanguardia: 20 articles.  The Guardian: 66 articles.  Le Monde: 33 articles.

4. The Copenhagen climate summit held in December 2009 (from late November to late December):  La Vanguardia: 13 articles.  The Guardian: 42 articles.  Le Monde: 13 articles.

In total 655 articles have been analysed for this thesis.

1.2. Delimitations

Although the comprehensive elaboration of the Europeanization of the public sphere requires an in depth analysis of the EU’s so-called democratic deficit problem as well as the notion of European citizenship. In this thesis, research will be limited to the impact of the media on the formation of a European public sphere, since a thorough analysis of

15

these other elements are well beyond the scope of this thesis. Nevertheless, when relevant, reference will be made to these concepts.

16

II. Theoretical research

17

2. Theoretical Framework

The role of media in reporting on European issues has been usually criticized for its alleged failure to bring the European Union closer to its citizens, thus contributing to the so-called democratic deficit of the EU. However, as I shall try to demonstrate throughout the present study, as the process of European integration has proceeded, the media (and the press, in particular) has been reporting more and more on its progress, providing European citizens with different elements of analysis to better understand how the European machinery works. On the other hand, as it will be discussed further on, the job of the media has somehow contributed to the emergence of a European public sphere.

2.1. Defining Europeanization Although no shared definition of Europeanization has emerged, “the most common denominator which could be found among the different views on the subject is to whether and to what extent can Europeanization deliver a ‘change’”.1

Olsen suggests some processes of institutional change that may be helpful for understanding how Europeanization takes place. Among the areas of manifestation of Europeanization defined by Olsen, the fifth one is of outmost importance for the present study. This conception defines Europeanization as “a political development making Europe a more distinct, coherent and strong political entity”. 2 In this respect, Olsen argues that “the development of a European sphere for public will and opinion formation contributes to common conceptions of legitimate political organization and governance and a shared feeling of belonging, giving direction to collective action capabilities”.3 According to Eder, Kanter and Trenz, a Europeanized public sphere is likely to emerge when “the same topics are discussed at the same time and at the same level of relevance 1

M. Broz, “Is Europeanization of the Public Sphere in Media finally Emerging? Discussed in Context of the EU Media Policy and Changing Trends within the European Media Structure”, Master thesis, Lund University, 2005, p.4, retrieved 26 April 2010, http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1330277&fileOId=1330278.

2 J. P., Olsen, “The Many Faces of Europeanization”, Arena Working Papers, 2002, retrieved 30 April 2010, http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/working-papers2002/papers/wp02_2.htm, 3 Olsen, op. cit.

18

in various public spaces”.4 According to Koopmans and Erbe add that “forms of coupling either [media communication and national public spheres] take place through intensified communicative interchange between different national public spheres (horizontal Europeanization) or through the infiltration of European actors and issues in national public spheres (vertical Europeanization)”.5 Departing from this idea, Risse states that “[…] in this multi-level politics the focus of public communication on the European institutions and their policies might become a parallel structure to the national political level therefore not displacing it but rather complementing it”.6 In this respect, the media are seen as a legitimate contributor in the discussions inside the national public sphere. By reporting on the same European or national topics that can be therefore moved to the ‘higher’ European level, the media are said to contribute to the formation of a European public sphere. In line with the argumentation of Tore Slaatta, it can be said that “the news media is seen as a social and cultural power influencing processes of Europeanization and European integration itself”.7

2.2. The European public sphere: what role for the media?

The role of mass media in the Europeanization of public sphere has become an important topic in the last years. To this extent several studies reaching more or less the same conclusion have been conducted. According to these studies the European public sphere is conceivable in two ways: 1) as a pan-European public sphere independent of individual states or 2) as a European public sphere which emerges as a result of the Europeanization

4

Broz, op. cit., p.7.

Koopmans, R. and J. Erbe (2004), “Towards a European Public Sphere?”, Innovation, 17(2): 97-118, cited in Trenz.

6 T. Risse, “How Do We Know a European Public Sphere When We See One?”, Paper Prepared for the IDNET Workshop “Europeanization and the Public Sphere”, European University Institute, Florence, February 20-21, 2002, cited in Broz, op. cit., p.8.

7 T. Slaatta, “Europeanisation and the news media: issues and research imperatives”, javnost-the public, Vol.13, No.1, 2006, p.8.

5

19

of the national public spheres.8 The first option is ruled out by some scholars since they indicate that the most important preconditions for the existence of a pan-European public sphere are absent, such as the existence of a common language in which EU citizens can communicate with one another, the existence of mass media with EU-wide reach, and the lack of a uniform journalistic and media culture in the EU states.9 The second option is seen as more reasonable as Europeanization would take place precisely when “in the national public spheres, over time, reporting increasingly focused on the European decisions and the elites taking the decision”.10

To analyse the Europeanization of the national media in its totality four main indicators should be analysed.11 The first indicator, which is often referred as ‘horizontal Europeanization’, entails that protagonists in one Member State interact with protagonists in other Member States via the mass media. Within the framework of this indicator, Member States are to take into consideration the developments that unfold in other Member States in order to reach a compromise at the EU level. The second indicator, which is actually related to the first one, takes into account the fact that the same issue is discussed through the national media simultaneously in several EU Member States. In this case debates occur simultaneously and resemble each other. The third indicator takes into account the interaction between the national and EU level which is reflected in the national media, commonly known as ‘vertical Europeanization’. Last but not least, the fourth indicator considers the debate of the same objectives using the same means from an EU-wide perspective.

8

M. Machill & M. Beiler & C. Fischer, “Europe-topics in Europe’s media. The debate about the European public sphere: a meta-analysis of media content analyses”, Paper submitted for the CONNEX workshop “A European Public Sphere: How much of it do we have and how much do we need?“, Amsterdam, December 9-10, 2005, p.4, retrieved 9 October 2009, http://www.mzes.unimannheim.de/projekte/typo3/site/fileadmin/research%20groups/3/Amsterdam%20conference/Amsterdam_ Machill_Beiler_Fischer.pdf.

9 These preconditions have been elaborated by different scholars and can be found in the works of Grimm, Kantner, Diez-Medrano Sievert.

10 Jürgen, Gerhards, “Das Öffentlichkeitsdefizit der EU im Horizont normativer Öffentlichkeitstheorien”, 2002, pp.

135-58 in Hartmut Kaelble & Martin Kirsch & Alexander Schmidt-Gernig (eds.), Transnationale Öffentlichkeiten und Identitäten im 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt (Main): Campus, cited in Machill & Beiler & Fischer, op. cit., p.6.

11 Machill & Beiler & Fischer, op. cit., pp. 6-7.

20

However, depending on the author, the criteria used to measure the dimensions of Europeanization differ from one another. For the purpose of this study, the categorization elaborated below will be used.12 According to Trenz, one way of measuring the scope of Europeanization consists of quantifying “the general level of media attention to political news from the EU or other Member States”.13 While ‘vertical Europeanization’ refers to “the general visibility of the EU measured in the extent to which European events, actors and issues are covered by national news media”, ‘horizontal Europeanization’ refers to “the enhanced visibility of issues, actors and debates from other Member States and the communicative linkages following from it”.14 As pointed out by some authors, vertical and horizontal Europeanization contributes “to a de-borderization of public discourse, but do not necessarily involve the emergence of a new, extended communicative space across territorial states”.15 In this respect, these authors propose a second dimension, according to which a discursive exchange between various national public spheres should take place. In their opinion, discursive exchange “is a crucial prerequisite for the emergence of a common European opinion formation”.16 Finally, the third dimension of Europeanization refers to “the emergence of a common transnational ‘community of communication’ and measures the sense of belonging to a common European public”.17 According to this criterion, “the more actors explicitly refer to ‘the Europeans’ in public discourse the more they explicitly address a European public 12

As shown in the table elaborated by Brüggemann, Sifft, Königslöw and Wimmel and attached in the annexes, these authors distinguish four dimensions of Europeanization, while Trenz differentiates only three. However, the first and second dimensions highlighted by the former, namely “Monitoring Governance” and “Mutual Observation”, correspond respectively to the vertical and horizontal Europeanization mentioned by Trenz. In my analysis, the author has interchangeably used both sets of criteria because they resemble essentially.

13 Trenz, op. cit., p.6.

14 Koopmans, R. and J. Erbe (2004), “Towards a European Public Sphere?”, Innovation, 17(2): 97-118, cited in Trenz, op. cit., p.6.

15 Brüggemann, M. & Sifft, S. & Königslöw, K. & Peters, B. & Wimmel, A., “Segmented Europeanization.

The Transnationalization of Public Spheres in Europe: Trends and Patterns”, TranState Working Papers No. 37, Bremen, 2006, p.

6, retrieved 23 July 2010, http://134.245.95.50:8080/dspace/bitstream/10419/24950/1/514648759.PDF. 16 Brüggemann & Sifft & Königslöw & Wimmel, op. cit., p.6.

17 Brüggemann & Sifft & Königslöw & Wimmel, op. cit., p.7.

21

as ‘we Europeans’”.18

As can be seen, neither a uniform approach in analyzing the Europeanization of the public sphere nor a consensus among the scholars with regard to the level of Europeanized public sphere exists.

Moreover, the theoretical assumptions of these studies are based on the hypothesis that the media merely reflects the views and interests of the political elites. They however fail to recognize that the media can indeed be an actor itself. The media as such has a dual role in serving other actors as a medium of communication and as an actor itself by raising its own voice with regard to the issues that it deems important.19 In this sense “the press acts both as a messenger who selects and reports on significant political events, and as a commentator, a political actor who advances specific opinions in the public sphere”.20 This however, does not necessitate the two roles of the media to overlap. If to interpret this within the framework of the European Union, while the media as an actor can attribute importance to European issues, the media’s coverage of other actors’ actions may reflect strong national perspectives.

In order to distinguish between the dual roles of the media as well as its two functions, a differentiation between media coverage of other actors and input of information via press agencies, and editorials that solely express the view of the newspaper should be made.

In this line of argumentation, according to Eilders and Voltmer21 the mass media in the 18

Brüggemann & Sifft & Königslöw & Wimmel, op. cit., p.7.

B., Page, “The Mass Media as Political Actors”, Political Science and Politics, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1996, pp.

20-25, cited in B. Pfetsch, “National Media in Europeanized Public Sphere: The Openness and Support of the Press for European Integration”, Paper presented at the State of the art workshop Organized by the Network of Excellence CONNEX “A European Public Sphere: How much of it do we have and how much do we need?”, Amsterdam, December 2005, p.3, retrieved 19 April 2010, http://www.mzes.unimannheim.de/projekte/typo3/site/fileadmin/research%20groups/3/Amsterdam%20conference/Amsterdam_ Pfetsch.pdf.

20 P. Statham, “Political Journalism and Europeanization: Pressing Europe?”, Centre for European Political Communications, p. 2, retrieved 9 October 2009, http://www.eurpolcom.eu/exhibits/paper_13.pdf.

21 C. Eilders & Katrin Voltmer, “Zwischen Deutschland und Europa. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Europäisierung der meinungsführenden deutschen Tages-zeitungen”, Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 250-270, 2003, cited in B. Pfetsch, op. cit., pp.4-5.

19

22

European public sphere fulfils two important functions. First and foremost, the function of agenda-setting and second level agenda-setting (or framing). The second function which allows the media to present its own views and positions with regard to the performance of other actors, namely opinion formation. While the first function of the media is dependent on the input of information as well as external factors, the second function of the media allows it greater flexibility in choosing the topic it deems most important.

2.3. The role of the media in a democratic system

The role of the media can be further broken down into four components with regard to their duties within a democratic system according to Hans-Joerg Trenz. A first function of the media is to act as a counterweight of the political system, ensuring the transparency of political processes. According to Trenz, the media plays here “a passive role as the provider of unbalanced information about politics and not of opinion”.22 In his opinion, media pre-selects news “drawing the attention of the citizens to particular issues and suggesting what could be of relevance for them”.23 However, as the EU is concerned, Trenz suggests “there are only few occasions that would justify bothering the average reader of a newspaper with EU politics”.24

Moreover, as noted above, media is also seen as an essential vehicle for fostering political debate, which in turn promotes the formation of public opinion. In this respect, media becomes the “primary medium for the development of public knowledge, values, interpretations and self-understandings for change and innovation, as well as reproduction or transmission over time in the inventory of ideas and arguments that are available in a given public sphere”.25 Applied to the EU, Trenz argues that “this opens a perspective of

22

H-J. Trenz, “Understanding Media Impact on European Integration: Enhancing or Restricting the Scope of Legitimacy of the EU?”, European Integration, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2008, p.293.

23 Trenz, loc. cit.

24 Ibid.

25 B. Peters, “Public discourse, identity, and the problem of democratic legitimacy”, 2005 in E.O. Eriksen, (ed.), Making the European polity. Reflexive integration in the EU, London, Roudletge, p.88, cited in: H-J. Trenz, op. cit., p.294.

23

Europeanization through deliberation, which takes place in transnational networks and issue communities involving people at different places to participate in collective opinion and will formation”.26

On the other hand, the media also exercise an active role by safeguarding democracy, denouncing the abuses committed by the political authorities of the State and defending the democratic rights of the citizens. In this sense, journalism is considered a fourth state power that serves as a counterbalance to the legislative, executive and judicial power branches of the state.

According to Meyer, “the EU corps de presse has also revealed a change of selfunderstanding of EU correspondents from primarily representatives of national interests to critical watchdogs of the EU”.27 In this respect, as we shall discuss further on, “EU correspondents have critically put at test the legitimacy of the EU, accusing the malfunctions of the EU-governance system, its over-bureaucratization and the deficits in decision-making”.28 Finally, Trenz argues that the media assume their most active role as a “political advocate of the general interest”.29 Based on this assumption, in the case of the EU the media can amplify and support strong feelings in favour of European integration by “progressive Europeanism” or the media can raise awareness on the shortcomings of the EU. As such, the media can draw the attention of the EU elites to the demands of the citizens as well as provide them with ways to appeal to the general public.30

In my research, I will take into consideration the aforementioned Europeanization indicators as well as the role played by the media as guardians of the democratic system in order to determine if there has been a Europeanization of the proposed national media 26

Ibid.

C.O. Meyer, Europäische Öffentlichkeit als Kontrollsphäre: Die Europäische Kommission, die Medien und politische Verantwortung, Berlin, Vistas, 2005, cited in H-J. Trenz, op. cit., p.294.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 J. D. Medrano, Framing Europe. Attitudes to European integration in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom, Princeton: University Press, 2003, cited in: H-J. Trenz, op. cit., p.295.

27

24

and whether they contribute to the formation of a European public sphere through their reporting.

25

II. Empirical research

26

3. La Vanguardia

La Vanguardia is the fourth most read newspaper in Spain (despite being mostly distributed in Catalonia) and the one with the highest-circulation in Catalonia.

Before Spain even joined the European Union, La Vanguardia already had a correspondent in Brussels. In fact, “the Catalan press has tended to be more European than the Madrid press”, says Joaquín Luna, editor-in-chief of International Affairs of La Vanguardia.31 While Madrid newspapers tend to report further on Latin America, La Vanguardia offers a greater coverage of European affairs, in detriment of other information of international scope. In fact, as stated by Luna, “we explain more times how things work in Brussels than in Washington”.32

Today, La Vanguardia is closely following the current European affairs with two correspondents in Brussels: one permanent and another one that works on a case-by-case basis. Unlike other correspondents, for the Brussels’ correspondents it is more difficult to get their articles taken into account by the newspaper. In Luna’s opinion, “although the news related to the European Union are of great importance, these do not look attractive to the reader”.33 According to him, this is mainly due to the complexity of the European political decision-making system and the lack of leadership and political authority of the EU. Moreover, Luna thinks that the European Union has failed to communicate itself and to be attractive for the general public. Thus, Luna believes that in order to make the European Union closer to its citizens, “it is not necessary to make a greater coverage of European issues, but to make it more attractive and understandable to the public”. 34 In this respect, La Vanguardia carries out a great pedagogical work through the publication of additional information detailing, for example, what the Lisbon treaty is and what will it its impact be for the EU.

31

Interview with Joaquin Luna, editor-in-chief of International Affairs of La Vanguardia, Barcelona, 22 March 2010.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

27

La Vanguardia usually publishes between one and two articles per day on the European Union that are divided between the international, the national (when a matter directly affects the interests of Spain or Catalonia) and the economy pages. Asked about the creation of a section devoted to European affairs, Luna said that La Vanguardia “does not consider this option, since the current trend of the newspaper is to merge sections creating 'macrosections' of news, as it is the case of "Tendencias", rather creating new sections”. 35 In addition, Luna believes that “there is not enough news to fill a section devoted exclusively to the EU”.36 However, according to the Brussels correspondent of La Vanguardia, Beatriz Navarro, “not a day goes by without a noteworthy event going on in the EU”.37

3.1. The 2009 European Parliament elections The coverage of La Vanguardia in relation to the 2009 European Parliament elections in Spain and Catalonia was marked by a strong presence of the domestic affairs. Most of the news stories referred to the election dispute between the two biggest parties, the Partido Popular (PP) and the Socialist Party (PSOE), under the framework of the economic crisis.

In this sense, the elections were presented by both parties as to show which of the two was most capable of bringing Spain out of the crisis.

While Zapatero struggled not to see his image as president of the Spanish Government undermined, the PP presented the EP elections “as a referendum on the policies of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero”.38 In an interview to La Vanguardia, the European PP’s candidate, Jaime Mayor Oreja, said that: “if the PP wins on Sunday [7 June 2009], with any given margin, a new political chapter will start”.39 Meanwhile, the European Socialist Party candidate, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, lamented that “the PP has not spoken a single second about Europe. It has only spoken about Spain, and in a wrong way. Its 35

Ibid.

Ibid.

37 Interview with Beatriz Navarro, Brussels correspondent of La Vanguardia, Brussels, 18 March 2010.

38 I. Ellakuria, “Vidal-Quadras destaca la incapacidad de Zapatero de entender a los empresarios”, La Vanguardia, 6 June 2009, p. 19.

39 C. del Riego, “Si el PP gana, se abre una nueva etapa en España”, entrevista a Jaime Mayor Oreja, candidato europeo del PP, La Vanguardia, 5 June 2009, p. 18.

36

28

motivation is unique: to take power, and therefore to end up with Zapatero and the PSOE”.40 On the other hand, the president of the Community of Madrid, Esperanza Aguirre, called to vote on censuring Zapatero, “the worst president we have ever had in the Spanish democracy” and “to say loud and clear that the Spanish people no longer supports the way he governs”.41 In fact, as stated by the journalist Carles Castro, the European elections in Spain are “a sort of Spanish elections in Europe”.42 In Spain, the European Parliament elections have become “a kind of confidence vote on the Government in office”.43

In fact, the only party that campaigned on a European perspective was the Catalan party Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds (ICV), whose leader, Raül Romeva, called on citizens “to vote with their heart for a Europe at the service of all citizens asking for social justice”.44 Despite obtaining the best results of all European socialist parties, PSOE's defeat constituted, according to the journalist Enric Juliana “a serious warning for Zapatero”.45 In her analysis of the European Parliament’s election results at the European level, which showed a bulky victory of the European People's Party, the Brussels correspondent of La Vanguardia, Beatriz Navarro, argued that the protest vote on some national governments, especially against the few leftwing governments remaining in Europe, was key to the electoral success of the right-wing European party.46

In its coverage of the European elections, La Vanguardia grouped all news about the Spanish and Catalan election campaign in the national politics section. At the top of each page there was a page header with the following title: ‘European elections’. However, its content had nothing to do with the EP elections from a European perspective. All the

40

J. C. Merino, “No se decide el Gobierno; se puede decidir la oposición”, La Vanguardia, 5 June 2009, p.

18.

41 C. del Riego, “Rajoy pide el voto al PP por la ‘necesidad nacional’ de cambio”, La Vanguardia, 6 June 2009, p. 19.

42 C. Castro, “Elecciones para incondicionales”, La Vanguardia, 9 June 2009, p. 22.

43 Ibid.

44 “ICV llama a votar con el corazón por la Europa social”, La Vanguardia, 6 June 2009, p. 21.

45 E. Juliana, “Zapatero, primer aviso”, La Vanguardia, 8 June 2009, p. 14.

46 B. Navarro, “La derecha arrasa en Europa”, La Vanguardia, 8 June 2009, p. 3.

29

articles in that section were related to the usual political disputes between the main national parties in contention. This fact distorted the European campaign given that the said articles did not inform about the parties’ proposals with regard to the European Union. According to Beatriz Navarro, this was mainly due to two reasons: first of all, because political parties themselves only talk about national issues rather than European issues, and secondly, because journalists only ask politicians about domestic issues. In this respect, Navarro believes that politicians should be the first to promote the debate on European issues, “since it is not something that journalism can solely achieve and promote”.47

Given the political significance attached by La Vanguardia to the European elections, the process of European integration as a whole, and the fear of a high abstention rate, in its editorial published one day before the holding of the elections, the newspaper encouraged the citizens to attend to the polls. However, the newspaper lamented that the campaigns carried out by the various European countries had only focused on a national key issue “preventing the emergence of a public debate on the future of Europe”.48

For its part, the columnist Montserrat Domínguez stated in the first line of one of her articles that she would go to vote because "votes count" and that Europe, despite being “imperfect”, is still worthwhile.49

In the opinion of the columnist Jordi Barbeta, the elections taking place on June 7 2009 were “the most difficult that have been organized in Spain since Franco”, but they were also difficult for Europe “given that Europe is not able to agree on almost anything, because those responsible for it are very busy with internal affairs ... or intimate as Berlusconi”.50

47

Interview with Beatriz Navarro, Brussels correspondent of La Vanguardia, Brussels, 18 March 2010.

“Un voto trascendente”, editorial, La Vanguardia, 7 June 2009, p. 28.

49 M. Domínguez, “Europa, a pesar de todo(s)”, La Vanguardia, 5 June 2009, p. 22.

50 J. Barbeta, “Votar o no votar: ¡uf!”, La Vanguardia, 7 June 2009, p. 22.

48

30

Other journalists were also critical about the design of the Spanish electoral campaign by claiming that the “European elections had never been less European”.51 In Xavier Bru de Sala's view, “issues such as the European social model or energy issues were ignored during the campaign".52 Sala concluded his article 'Less Europe' stating that “Europe is no longer able to have national political thinking and action at European level”.53

According to the correspondent of La Vanguardia in Madrid, Enric Juliana, the 2009 campaign was “the campaign with a greater gap between the citizens and the political establishment [...] as a result of the common strategic interest of the two biggest parties”.54 According to Xavier Batalla, diplomatic correspondent of La Vanguardia, “none of the three criteria for determining whether the European Union meets its objectives with regard to its citizens established by Glyn Morgan dominated the campaign of the last European elections”. 55

Morgan sets out three conditions which, in his view, should allow to discuss and evaluate the process of European integration. These are as follows: a requirement of publicity (according to which the justification of EU integration should appeal to reasons that Europeans consider appropriate), a requirement of accessibility (according to which arguments should be understood by the public), and finally, a requirement of sufficiency (according to which the arguments must show that European policy provides an effective protection of the goods and benefits that seeks to justify its existence).56 In Batalla’s opinion, the non-accomplishment of the criteria laid out by Morgan turned the election campaign into a “lost opportunity”, and regretted that “each and every 51

X. Bru de Sala, “Menos Europa”, La Vanguardia, 5 June 2009, p. 25.

Ibid.

53 Ibid.

54 E. Juliana, “En busca de brotes verdes con la bandera azul a media asta”, La Vanguardia, 7 June 2009, p.

16.

55 X. Batalla, “Ocasión perdida”, La Vanguardia, 7 June 2009, p. 8.

56 G. Morgan, The Idea of a European Superstate: Public Justification and European Integration, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2007, p.41.

52

31

election held since the first European Parliament election in 1979 has been dominated by the national or multi-national interests”.57 In its editorial of the day, La Vanguardia regretted that the European Union was “moving forward while the gap between the citizens and the EU was widening and becoming increasingly visible”.58 On the other hand, the editorial blamed the political parties on the election results for “having polarized the election in political internal confrontations”.59 Finally, the newspaper regretted the fact that politicians did not carry out an “appropriate pedagogy”.60

Table 1 Summary of La Vanguardia's coverage of the 2009 EP elections

Table legend: Numbers in brackets correspond to the three dimensions of Europeanization proposed by Trenz in the “Theoretical Framework” chapter of this study, and are classified as follows: 1. Level of media attention to political news from the EU or other Member States.

While 1a) refers to “vertical Europeanization”, 1b)

refers to “horizontal

Europeanization”.

2. Discursive exchange between various national public spheres.

3. Sense of belonging to a common European public.

57

Batalla, op. cit.

“Europa gira más a la derecha”, editorial, La Vanguardia, 8 June 2009, p. 32.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

58

32

3.2. The Treaty of Lisbon

On July 1, 2009, the Berlin correspondent of La Vanguardia, Rafael Poch, reported that the German Constitutional Court announced the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty, thus overcoming a "discreet" impediment to the treaty’s ratification in Germany. 61

Germany was the fourth country that encountered obstacles to the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. According to the journalist, “an unfavourable verdict of the Court would have given excuses to the other three countries that were having doubts about the treaty [Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic]”.62

The day before of the holding of the Irish referendum, the journalist Rafael Ramos, accredited to Dublin, framed the vote between “anger (against the government of Brian Cowen) and fear (of being marginalized within the European Union)”, and predicted that fear would win.63 In his opinion, the EU “has given to the spoiled Ireland everything it wanted in order to avoid a new ‘no’ in the polls”.64 Following the favourable outcome of the referendum, the same journalist stated that “the anguish of the crisis and the concern about the future have led the Irish to surrender to Brussels”.65 Similarly, in its editorial “Last obstacle for the Lisbon Treaty”, La Vanguardia attributed the change of opinion of the Irish “both due to the concessions obtained from the EU, ranging from military neutrality to preservation of their Commissioner in Brussels- and the belief that coming out of the economic crisis would be impossible without the support of the EU institutions, especially the European Central Bank, which has saved the Irish

61

R. Poch, “Alemania despeja el camino al tratado de Lisboa”, La Vanguardia, 1 July 2009, p. 12.

Ibid.

63 R. Ramos, “Entre la crisis y el miedo, Irlanda se dispone a votar sí a Lisboa”, La Vanguardia, 2 October 2009, p. 10.

64 Ibid.

65 R. Ramos, “Irlanda rectifica y dice sí”, La Vanguardia, 3 October 2009, p. 3.

62

33

financial system”.66 In the newspaper’s view, a new rejection would have plunged the European project into a deep collapse”.67 Finally, La Vanguardia urged to implement the Treaty as soon as possible.

However, its coming into force was subject to the Polish and Czech prerogatives.

Following the signing of the Treaty by the deceased Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, eight days after the Irish ‘yes’, La Vanguardia urged the European diplomacy to mobilize in order to convince the Czech Republic's President, Vaclav Klaus, to finally sign the treaty. In the newspaper’s opinion, “it was unacceptable that the undemocratic attitude of the President of one of the EU member countries refused to sign a treaty, previously approved by its parliament, thus blocking the future of Europe”.68

In early November, the Czech President announced that he had ratified the Lisbon Treaty after the Czech Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal in which Klaus argued that it violated the Constitution of the country.

In his article, “At last, the new EU”, Beatriz Navarro described the Treaty of Lisbon as a “small institutional revolution that will allow Europe to be more efficient internally and externally and leave behind a long period of isolation”.69 For its part, the former MEP, Carles Gasòliba, said in an article published in La Vanguardia that with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon “Europe continues to show progress”. 70 However, he regretted that the appointment of high level politicians and members of the Commission demonstrates “the tension that still exists between the Member States’ reluctance to cede some of their sovereignty to the European Union and strengthen its competences and make it more representative in the international arena”.71

66

“Último escollo para el tratado de Lisboa”, Editorial, La Vanguardia, 5 October 2009, p. 14.

Ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 B. Navarro, “Al final la nueva UE”, La Vanguardia, 2 December 2009, p. 6.

70 C. Gasòliba, “Europa continúa avanzando”, La Vanguardia, 30 December 2009, p. 21.

71 Ibid.

67

34

Table 2 Summary of La Vanguardia's coverage of the passage of the Treaty of Lisbon

3.3. The appointments of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton

Given the opacity of the process of designation of the two high level political positions created by the Treaty of Lisbon, the European press had to speculate with various candidate names which changed from week to week. According to Navarro, the appointment of the top jobs was carried out “in absolute secrecy”.72 Due to the lack of official candidates, the decision fell into the hands of the major European capitals (especially Paris and Berlin) taking the final decision behind closed doors.

In late October, La Vanguardia echoed the intense debate that was taking place in the UK with regard to the possible candidacy of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to chair the European Council. This debate was of particular interest for the newspaper's newsrooms mainly because Tony Blair was once again on the forefront. According to Navarro, “when you personalize the information, it usually appears more attractive to the reader”.73 However, when it started to become clearer that Tony Blair did not have the necessary support for becoming president, and maybe a known or unknown Belgian or Dutchman would receive higher support, La Vanguardia preferred to wait before making any announcement in order to know with more certainty who the new President would be.

72 73

Interview with Beatriz Navarro, Brussels correspondent of La Vanguardia, Brussels, 18 March 2010.

Ibid.

35

Despite being the first in the journalistic polls, Tony Blair did not collect the support from either the Party of European Socialists or the European People’s Party. In one of her articles, Beatriz Navarro pointed out in late October that “if Blair and Juncker's candidatures would fail, this would open the way to other consensual names”.74 That is, less polarizing political figures, with a less charisma and generally barely known internationally [referring, in particular, to the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, and the former Austrian Prime Minister, Wolfgang Schüss]”.75 If that would end happening, Navarro wondered whether "these are the faces with which the EU wants to make room between Barack Obama and Hu Jintao on the international stage”.76

In an interview with Charles Grant, Director of Centre for European Reform in London, close to the Labour Party, and Antonio Missiroli, Director of European Policy Centre, La Vanguardia asked them if Tony Blair would be an appropriate President of the European Union. While Grant was in favour of Blair's candidacy, stating that “if Europe wants to be heard in the world, it needs a heavyweight who Obama, Putin, Hu and Singh would want to see”, Missiroli was against Blair’s candidacy since “he is a very controversial personality, associated with George W. Bush and the Iraqi war, which could cause a popular rejection in Europe at a time when it wants to get closer to the citizens”.77

Following the designation of the two new high posts of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton, the journalist Beatriz Navarro described them as “politically unknown, but with impeccable service records”.78 The journalist considered that the choice of these two political figures that did not “overshadow anyone” was “deliberate”.79 The small Member States wanted to choose someone with a similar profile that would not ignore them, while the bigger Member States preferred someone who would not belittle them or might have a hidden agenda, as many feared about Tony Blair.

74

Ibid.

B. Navarro, “El frente anti-Blair arrecia su campaña para impedir que presida Europa”, La Vanguardia, 29 October 2009, p.5.

76 Ibid.

77 “¿Sería Tony Blair un buen presidente para la Unión Europea?”, La Vanguardia, 30 October 2009, p. 4.

78 B. Navarro, “Van Rompuy, europresidente”, La Vanguardia, 20 November 2009, p. 3.

79 Ibid.

75

36

However, in Navarro’s opinion, “the glamour that the failed candidacy of Tony Blair gave to the post of president is difficult to reconcile with the profile of the Belgian politician, more comfortable in the shadow than under the focus of the television channels across Europe”.80 For her part, the journalist interpreted the appointment of Baroness Ashton as an urgency to give a post to London before “an electoral shift moves the islands further away from the EU”.81 However, according to Navarro, the appointment of Baroness Ashton as High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy “unleashed the fear that she was going to squander the inheritance she received and that the European capitals were going to lose interest in the common European foreign policy”.82

Finally, from Washington, the correspondent of La Vanguardia, Marc Bassets, stated that "the United States still did not have a ‘phone number’ to call Europe”. 83 In Basset's view, a way to prevent falling into irrelevance would perhaps have been to elect a strong EU president.84 Table 3 Summary of La Vanguardia’s coverage of the appointments of Van Rompuy and Ashton

80

B. Navarro, “Un continente víctima del consenso”, La Vanguardia, 21 November 2009, pp. 3-4.

Ibid.

82 Ibid.

83 M. Bassets, “EE.UU. Sigue sin tener un 'número de teléfono' para llamar a Europa”, La Vanguardia, 21 November 2009, p. 4.

84 Ibid.

81

37

3.4. The Copenhagen Climate Summit Just a month before the beginning of 2009’s United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, the EU was divided with regard to each country's contribution to EU funding in the fight against climate change. In its editorial of December 7, La Vanguardia highlighted the “decisive importance” of the climate change meeting that was about to start with regard to the future of the planet. However, the editorial ventured that “reaching an agreement allowing a more sustainable development would not be easy, given the collision of different positions, led, on the one hand, by Europe, and on the other by the United States”.85

The proposals presented by the United States and China during the summit were not sufficient in the opinion of the EU. Despite the increasing expectations of an agreement on combating global warming, the journalist Antonio Cerrillo explained that “at best, [the Copenhagen summit] will only lead to a political agreement or a non-binding statement that refers to next year to complete the global treaty against global warming”.86

In his article, the journalist positioned the EU, alongside with the United States and China, as the leading actors in the summit. Instead of referring to the European countries individually, the journalist grouped them under the umbrella of the supranational institution. On behalf of the EU, one could read statements by the Minister of Environment of Sweden, Andreas Carlgren, the country that held the rotating EU Presidency at that time, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

However, as pointed out by the journalist Laia Forès, in some cases, “Sarkozy and the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown showed their desire to lead the fight against global warming”, by making public, for example, the economic contributions to the global fund

85 86

“Ante la cita de Copenhage”, editorial, La Vanguardia, 7 December 2009, p. 14.

A. Cerrillo, “La UE pide más a Obama”, La Vanguardia, 7 December 2009, p. 20-21.

38

and calling on rich countries to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30%.87 According to Cerrillo, the ‘poor’ agreement reached by the U.S. and China, left the EU “as the only power with important initiatives”.88 Nevertheless, the EU was also criticized for not having been more ambitious. For its part, La Vanguardia’s editorial pronounced “disappointing agreement” in which “neither the pressure from the EU, nor the U.S. President, [.. .] managed to overcome the distrust of China or India”.89 Table 4 Summary of La Vanguardia’s coverage of the Copenhagen climate summit

3.5. Concluding remarks

La Vanguardia has conducted an extensive coverage of the four aforementioned European processes via its two correspondents in Brussels and other correspondents around Europe.

In its editorials, the newspaper has tended to support the process of European integration, urging, for example, to implement rapidly the Treaty of Lisbon. However, it has also been critical of the lack of European debate in the election campaigns conducted in the different Member States (horizontal Europeanization) and the growing gap between the EU and its citizens. In this respect, La Vanguardia has usually put at test the legitimacy of the EU and, therefore, contributing to the appearance of a debate about the need to bring the EU closer to its citizens (second-level agenda setting). The newspaper has also been critical about the opaqueness of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton’s appointments, regretting, at the same time, their lack of charisma and inability to deliver 87

L. Forès, “La UE promote 7.200 millones a los países pobres para facilitar un acuerdo”, La Vanguardia, 12 December 2009, p. 33.

88 A. Cerrillo, “Un tratado congelado”, La Vanguardia, 20 December 2009, p. 36-37.

89 “Acuerdo decepcionante”, editorial, La Vanguardia, 20 December 2009, p. 30.

39

an efficient external representation of the EU.

However, the journalistic evolution of La Vanguardia is incompatible with the idea of creating a section on the European Union, a space that could help citizens to be more aware of the actions undertaken by the EU and its mission. On the other hand, the fact that the Spanish political parties tend to prioritize the national issues over the European ones, prevents the emergence of a debate on European issues and, therefore, the formation of a public opinion on the matter.

40

4. The Guardian

The Guardian is a British national daily newspaper with a certified average daily circulation of 283,063 copies in March 2010, coming after The Daily Telegraph and The Times, but ahead of The Independent. In addition, The Guardian’s website, guardian.co.uk, is one of the most visited English-language news websites.

Editorial articles in The Guardian are generally to the left of the political spectrum. It has two sister newspapers, namely The Observer, which circulates only on Sundays, and The Guardian Weekly, which contains articles from The Guardian, The Observer, as well as reports, features and book reviews from The Washington Post and articles translated from Le Monde.

Despite the Eurosceptic tradition of Britain and the English press, The Guardian is, along with The Independent and the Financial Times, one of the most pro-European newspapers. Moreover, The Guardian has always been internationally oriented, not adopting a particular patriotic tone in its news coverage.

The Guardian tends to publish three to four articles per week with regard to the EU. However, its website dedicates more space to such news, given its unlimited space in comparison to the printed newspaper. In Ian Traynor’s opinion, the Europe editor of The Guardian, the strategy of the newspaper is to develop a website comparable to the best liberal English news websites.90 While newspapers tend to write for the general readership, Traynor argues that with the web it is possible to appeal to niche audiences. In this respect, The Guardian has an extensive section on Europe in its website through which interested readers can find out the latest news and developments in Europe.

Although The Guardian used to have a section dedicated to Europe in its printed edition, the editors believed that having a ‘Europe’ page supposed “the victory of the form over

90

Interview with Ian Traynor, Europe editor of The Guardian, Brussels 27 March 2010.

41

the substance”.91 Sometimes, there were not enough relevant news to publish, so they felt obliged to fill the page with news of less saliency. Thus, they considered it was better to publish only the news of real interest spread across the international, national or business pages, depending on their content.

4.1. The 2009 European Parliament elections

Two main issues dominated the election campaign in the UK: the parliamentary expenses scandal and British policy towards the European Union.

The relation between the UK and the EU has resembled a love and hate relationship. This is partly due to the British public perception of the EU. According to Monaghan, the British perceive the EU as “fat (takes on too many things it shouldn't), ugly (doesn't look like an international organisation should), and boring”.92

When voting for the European Parliament in 2009, Britain had three coherent European policies: “to leave (UK Independence Party-Ukip); to go further in (the Liberal Democrats); and to co-operate but remain aloof from full integration (the Major, Blair and Brown administrations)”.93

The decision of Tory leader, David Cameron, to leave the European People's Party (EPP) in order to form a new Eurosceptic grouping along with other center-right parties in Europe that also believed that the EU should change direction, was also a subject of intense debate.

For its part, the parliamentary expenses scandal uncovered by The Daily Telegraph a few months before its official disclosure, affected the three biggest parties, although with a 91

Ibid.

E. Monaghan, “Europe's failure to connect”, guardian.co.uk, 3 June 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/03/european-elections.

93 N. Cohen, “Cameron can't run away from Europe much longer”, The Observer, 17 May 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/17/david-cameron-conservativeseuropean-elections.

92

42

greater extent to the Labour Party. This provoked an extremely “widespread public anger at the abuse of the expenses scandal by MPs from the main three parties”.94 In this sense, Lerman assumed in one of his articles that “most people who bother to vote [in the local and EP elections] will be registering a protest”. In fact, as Allegra Stratton pointed out in an article, asked whether they would vote on domestic or European issues, “voters seemed ready to regard the election as a chance to pass a verdict on Westminster”.95 As the editorial of The Guardian stated on June 8, “the public mood is clearly for a general election, not because there is a great enthusiasm for the opposition (the European results and strength of minor parties’ shows there is not) but because people think this parliament has no legitimacy”. 96 Meanwhile, as stated in another editorial, The Guardian expressed that it was “hard to tell what the Labour stood for at all in the European contest, except the repeated claim on its website that a Conservative government would be worse”.97 In this respect, Hunton argued that there was indeed an election going on for the European Parliament, but it was “invisible”.98 According to Hunton “the British could be engaged in European matters if anyone dared to lead them”.99

However, the journalist Mats Persson unveiled in one of his articles that the real expenses scandal was in Brussels. The journalist revealed that “MEPs have been quietly clocking up hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in expenses without so much as showing a

94

T. Juniper, “The coming of the Greens”, guardian.co.uk, 1 June 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/01/green-european-election.

95 A. Stratton, “MP's expenses: voters turn away from mainstream parties”, guardian.co.uk, 22 May 2009, retrieved 19 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/22/ukip-green-small-politicalparties-poll.

96 “Labour in crisis: European disaster”, Editorial, The Guardian, 8 June 2009, retrieved 19 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/european-elections-labour-leadership.

97 “Local and European elections: Thursday's choice”, editorial, The Guardian, 2 June 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/02/editorial-local-european-elections.

98 W. Hunton, “Europe might be a better place without the contemptuous, indifferent British”, 24 May 2009, retrieved 19 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/24/europeanelections-labour-conservatives.

99 Ibid.

43

receipt”.100 This time, the British MEPs fare well in the ranking compared to their counterparts in Europe, according to a publication by Open Europe.101 In a similar discourse to the one of La Vanguardia, The Guardian’s journalist Ilana Bet-El stated in her article, “We must take EU elections seriously”, that “the [European] parliament may be remote but it is relevant”.102 However she stated that “voting would be easier if the chamber did more to explain itself and its relevance or if the candidates were politically sexier rather than the somewhat drab collection that appears to be on offer”.103

In an article published in The Guardian's website, the secretary-general of the Brusselsbased think tank Friends of Europe and editor of the policy journal Europe’s World, Giles Meritt, said that the fact that the European elections are mostly understood as a platform to protest on national issues is due to the absence of “EU-wide issues that people can vote for and against” and the fact that “the vote is not a test of personal popularity, either”.104

The poor visibility of the European Parliament elections is mainly due, in Meritt's view, to “its inability at selling itself to public opinion”.105 Similarly, Bet-Il considers that the main difference between the European Parliament and other parliaments is that “it makes for bad television, both because the chamber is big and often relatively empty and because the statements are quite short”.106 By contrast, the journalist considers that “the UK parliament can be manipulated beautifully for television, since there are only benches and members can crowd around a speaker, conveying the impression of a full house”.107

100

M. Persson, “The real expenses scandal is in Brussels”, guardian.co.uk, 27 May 2009, retrieved 19 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/expenses-meps-europeanparliament.

101 Ibid.

102 I. Bet-El, “We must take EU elections seriously”, guardian.co.uk, 11 May 2009, retrieved 19 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/11/european-parliament-election.

103 Ibid.

104 G. Merritt, “European Parliament: unpopular, uninteresting, indispensable”, guardian.co.uk, 31 May 2009, retrieved 10 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/europeanparliament-elections-apathy.

105 Ibid.

106 I. Bet-El, “Pity the Eurosceptics”, guardian.co.uk, 5 June 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/europe-votes-eurosceptics.

107 Ibid.

44

According to Meritt, “the combination of high politics and grinding detail makes EU policymaking a much less interesting spectacle than national politics, and of course there's the added problem that so many of the players are unknown foreigners”.108 Moreover, Sabine Rennefanz points out that the lack of understanding of what MEPs actually do is “not only politicians' fault”, but also due to the fact that “outside election times, there is little media reporting to make processes in Brussels more transparent”.109

Above all of this, Meritt emphasizes that despite the fact that nowadays some four-fifths of the policies that determine Europe's future are taken in Brussels, both journalists and the national electorate, “have little understanding of the significant shift in Europe's political decision-making over the last 20 years”.110

Once the new political map of Europe was announced, the Europe editor of The Guardian, Ian Traynor, stated that “the protest votes and victories for mavericks could also be ascribed to a lackluster election campaign in which leaders of key countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and the other big member states failed to project any persuasive pro-European vision in the midst of the most worrying economic crisis ever experienced by voters”.111 According to an editorial of The Guardian, the turnout of just under 43% illustrated “the mismatch between the aspiration of the EU's leaders and the indifference of its voters”.112

In the UK, Labour's electoral failure led to the rise of Ukip to second place overall, confirming “the enduring strength of the Eurosceptic or even xenophobic dimension of British politics”.113 Moreover, the only seat obtained by the most pro-European of the main British political parties, the Liberal Democrats party, was due to the fact that “they 108

Meritt. “European Parliament: unpopular, uninteresting, indispensable”, op. cit.

S. Rennefanz, “Is Germany too lazy for Europe?”, guardian.co.uk, 6 June 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/06/europe-votes-germany-election.

110 Meritt, “European Parliament: unpopular, uninteresting, indispensable”, op. cit.

111 I. Traynor, “Misery for social democrats as voters take a turn to the right”, The Guardian, 8 June 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/07/eu-elections-social-democrats.

112 “Meanwhile, across the Channel”, Editorial, The Guardian, 9 June 2009, retrieved 19 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/09/european-elections.

113 M. Kettle, “Labour must change, or the party's over”, guardian.co.uk, 8 June 2009, retrieved 19 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/labour-european-elections.

109

45

are a pro-European party in an anti-European electorate – from which Ukip has benefited”.114 In this respect, according to Simon O'Connor “the voter's rejection of Labour and the Tory departure from Europe's largest grouping [EPP] will shrink our influence [Britain’s] in a powerful body [the European Parliament]”.115 In O'Connor's opinion, the degree of British Euroscepticism derived from the last European elections corresponds with “the successive governments who have made no effort to reframe perceptions of the EU in Britain; a British press which, with few exceptions, covers the EU in a way that is at best disinterested, at worst deliberately misleading; and MEPs themselves who have failed to tackle those issues that continue to discredit them and their institution, like the non-disclosure of expenses”.116 Table 5 Summary of The Guardian’s coverage of the 2009 EP elections

4.2. The Treaty of Lisbon

The press coverage of the last stage of the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty by The Guardian focused on two aspects. First, the newspaper paid particular attention to the 114

Ibid.

S. O'Connor, “British voices silenced in Europe”, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2009, retrieved 19 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/10/european-elections-eu.

116 Ibid.

115

46

role played by the Tory leader, David Cameron, following the promise he made in relation to the holding of a referendum in Britain if the Tories came into power in 2010 and the Lisbon Treaty remained unratified. Secondly, The Guardian took this opportunity to promote the debate on the future of the EU and its relations with the United Kingdom at the same time.

According to Elizabeth Monaghan, the original “no” to Lisbon was largely due “to unfamiliarity with the treaty”.117 However, the favourable vote recorded in the second referendum held in 2009, did not appear due to a greater familiarity with the text of the treaty or a favourable public opinion towards the European Union, but to the economic crisis. However, as stated by Monaghan “governments often talk about the importance of having a broad public debate on European Union membership, but rarely has the rhetoric been accompanied by a concrete measure like the Irish national forum [established in response to the “Nice I” referendum outcome by Bertie Ahern, then the Taoiseach]”. 118 In this regard, the journalist regretted the absence of a real debate where the voice of the Irish regarding the Treaty of Lisbon could be heard, without the government imposing its will.

In Ian Tisdall’s words, the key difference between the vote of 2008 and the 2009 vote was “Ireland's transformation from Celtic tiger to timid puss”.119 In this respect, Tisdall argued that “the referendum is not about principles, if it ever was; it's about fear”.120 According to Traynor and McDonald, “a second no vote would bring down the government, kill off the EU's big project to shift the way power is wielded in Brussels, and trigger divisions within the EU”.121

117

E. Monaghan, “Once more with feeling, Ireland”, guardian.co.uk, 1 October 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/01/ireland-lisbon-treaty.

118 Ibid.

119 S. Tisdall, “From Celtic tiger to timid puss”, guardian.co.uk, 15 September 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/15/irish-lisbon-treaty-referendum.

120 Ibid.

121 I. Traylor & H. McDonald, “Support falls for EU treaty as Irish get ready for new vote”, guardian.co.uk, 4 September 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/04/lisbon-treatyirish-support-falls.

47

While The Guardian campaigned for a yes vote, other British newspapers like The Sun, The Sunday Times and the Daily Mail (all critical of the EU) campaigned for a no vote in their respective Irish editions. In one of his articles, Timothy Garton Ash, said that despite the Irish had every right to vote ‘no’ according to his view they should say ‘yes’. 122 In another article, the same journalist stated that “in order to get a stronger European voice in the world, we need the Irish to say yes”.123 Similarly, the chief lead writer for The Observer, Rafael Behr, stated in an article that “the point of Lisbon is to put an end to tedious tinkering at the EU decision-making process, so Europe can start making decisions”.124 However, once ratified, the newspaper said in an editorial that “its birth pangs [Treaty of Lisbon] have been so painful that this child will be the EU’s last”. 125 In the newspaper’s opinion, “its passage has evoked such powerful Eurosceptic currents that by default it has established the opposite of what it set out to achieve – the limits of European integration and expansion”.126 With regard to Britain, and for Cameron in particular, the editorial stated that “the EU was getting its acts together, and the question once again is whether Britain wants to be part of it”.127 Following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish, Cameron announced that he would launch a campaign to repatriate powers “which the Tories believe should be held at a national level”.128

As to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, Ian Traynor stated that “Klaus has embarked on a one-man campaign to stop Europe in its 122

T. G.. Ash, “It takes an Irish poet to remind us of the grandeur of the European project”, guardian.co.uk, 24 June 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/24/republicof-ireland-eu-vote.

123 T. G.. Ash, “Europe must decide if it wants to be more than Greater Switzerland”, guardian.co.uk, 30 September 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/30/german-election-lisbon-treaty-referendum.

124 R. Behr, “Britain must grow up and stop believing Europhobe nonsense”, guardian.co.uk, 3 October 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/03/eu-britainsovereignty-lisbon-treaty.

125 “Lisbon treaty: Painful birth”, editorial, The Guardian, 5 October 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/05/lisbon-treaty-david-cameron.

126 Ibid.

127 Ibid.

128 N. Watt, “David Cameron retreats on European referendum”, guardian.co.uk, 4 October 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/04/referendum-lisbon-treaty-cameronjohnson.

48

tracks by bringing down the Lisbon Treaty”.129 In Adamowski's opinion, Klaus’ strategy of becoming a “widely recognized martyr of the Lisbon Treaty would surely help Klaus reposition himself in politics, launch a Eurosceptic party, or perhaps even head some new pan-European movement”.130 After Klaus announced that he would finally sign the Treaty, Cameron announced the Tories’ plan to change the law so that “any future government would be legally required to hold a referendum before transferring powers to the EU”.131 Finally, some of The Guardian’s columnists tried to demystify the assumption that “Brussels perpetrated indignities against Britain”.132 As stated by Behr, “under the EU treaties, including Lisbon, the vast majority of decisions made in ‘Europe’ that have an impact on Britain, are made with British sovereign consent”.133 Table 6 Summary of The Guardian’s coverage of the passage of the Treaty of Lisbon

4.3. The appointments of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton

The possible candidacy of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to chair the EU Council 129

I. Traynor, “Vaclav Klaus: How Czech president is fighting on to stop Europe in its tracks”, guardian.co.uk, 14 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/14/vaclav-klaus-lisbon-treaty-czech.

130 J. Adamowski, “Vaclav Klaus flies Eurosceptic flag alone”,guardian.co.uk, 13 October 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/13/vaclav-klaus-lisbon-treaty.

131 A. Sparrow & P. Owen & agencies, “Hague rules out Lisbon referendum after Czech leader signs EU treaty”, guardian.co.uk, 3 November 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/03/cameron-eu-czech-libson-treaty.

132 Behr, “Britain must grow up and stop believing Europhobe nonsense”, op. cit.

133 Ibid.

49

captured the attention of the leading British newspapers who embarked on an intense debate about his suitability for the job. Following the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy, The Guardian was very critical with the decision of appointing Van Rompuy as what it referred to as a total stranger.

The idea of Tony Blair becoming the first long-term president of the European Council was first raised by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2006. By then such a post still didn't exist given that the Lisbon Treaty had not been yet ratified by the Irish people. In early October 2009, Nicolas Sarkozy took a step back, arguing that he had doubts about appointing a president outside the Eurozone, while gaining the support of David Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Although the former prime minister had not formally declared his candidacy, he appeared to suggest that he would be interested in the post “only if it gave him real political clout in the international arena”.134 According to Watt, Blair seemed reluctant to campaign openly because “he feared experiencing the same fate as Guy Verhofstadt, the former prime minister of Belgium, who was humiliated when Blair vetoed him for the post of president of the European Commission in 2004”.135

Meanwhile, The Guardian, was not in favour or against the appointment of Tony Blair.

On the one hand, of the half-dozen candidates to become Europe’s president, Meritt argued that “only Tony Blair needs no introduction anywhere. All the other names in the ring have to be accompanied by a description”.136 To which the journalist added “if the presidency goes to a politician who lacks fame and charisma, its place will forever be low down in the international pecking order”.137 In his opinion, Europe’s problem is that “it lacks a clearly identifiable leader. As a result, despite EU's many successes, “it still

134

Press association, “David Miliband backs Tony Blair for EU president”, guardian.co.uk, 25 October 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/25/miliband-backs-blairpresident-eu-new-post.

135 N. Watt, “Tony Blair warned: fight or you'll lose EU job”, guardian.co.uk, 26 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/26/tony-blair-european-union-presidency.

136 G. Merritt, “President Blair would give the EU clout”, 19 October 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/eu-tony-blair-president.

137 Ibid.

50

speaks with too many voices”.138 In this respect, Meritt argued that the risk was “that Europe's squabbling politicians will opt for a figurehead and miss this golden opportunity to create a global leader”.139 Moreover, in an interview to The Observer, Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, underlined that “Blair is a skilled and effective communicator who could sell the EU to its own citizens”.140

On the other hand, an editorial published by The Observer was against the appointment of Blair given the low political profile of the job and the low credibility of Tony Blair. First, the editorial argued that “Mr. Blair would not preside in some lordly capacity over the peoples of Europe”, but “he would simply steer meetings of the European Council, the EU's main decision-making body comprised of heads of governments”.141 In this respect, the newspaper suggested that a more accurate title for the job might be “chairman of European Summits”.142 Secondly, the newspaper argued that the lack of political support in Britain and in the continent due to Blair’s lack of commitment to the European Union supposed that the fact of entrusting such a person “with the task of setting the EU agenda and to expect that agenda to be embraced across the continent was simply not realistic”.143 As pointed out by Traynor, in the British campaign for President Blair, “the contest has been presented as a choice between a weak figure pouring cups of coffee for leaders at EU summits, or a strong leader who can open doors in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing”.144 In this respect, in Ash’s view, “for name recognition and international stature,

138

Ibid.

Ibid.

140 “Is Tony Blair the right man to be president of Europe?”, The Observer, 25 October 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/henry-porter-charles-grant.

141 “Europe needs a president we can call trust. Blair is not the man for the job”, editorial, The Observer, 25 October 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/leadertony-blair-european-union.

142 Ibid.

143 Ibid.

144 I. Traynor, “How Angela Merkel quietly sank Tony Blair's bid to become EU president”, guardian.co.uk, 29 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/29/merkel-sank-blair-eu-bid.

139

51

there is no candidate to compare [to Blair]”.145 However, the journalist pointed out that the post in dispute was not “a chief executive job; only a small supporting staff and budget are at present envisaged”.146 Moreover, this chair, Ash argues, “has the tricky task of representing a European foreign policy that does not yet exist”.147 In Ash’s opinion, “only someone of Blair's stature could coax heads of government like Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel to a common position”.148 Instead, the journalist considered Martti Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland, as the ideal candidate for the post.

Although the British government did not oppose the candidacy of Herman Van Rompuy, in one of his articles Traynor considered that the final stretch of the race for the presidency of the EU was characterized by the struggle between the UK and Belgium for the reign of Europe.149 However, judging by the vagueness and speculative nature of the media reports, Alexander Chancellor thinks that the media knew very little about the process of selecting Europe’s first president.150 According to Chancellor, this process was not only “undemocratic but also not transparent”.151 In his opinion, this contradicted the purpose of the reform that led to the creation of the presidency, according to which the Union should be more “clear, open, effective and democratically controlled”.152 Similarly, Traynor claimed that “the way the first decisions of the Lisbon Treaty were being handled was coming in for much criticism”.153 Moreover, the journalist underlined that now that the European governments finally have the Treaty of Lisbon, “their problem

145

T. G. Ash, “This EU job is no presidency. It will rely on another. And it won't be Blair”, guardian.co.uk, 28 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/28/president-of-europe-foreign-policy.

146 Ibid.

147 Ibid.

148 Ibid.

149 I. Traynor, “Gloves off as EU presidency enters a final round”, guardian.co.uk, 18 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/18/eu-belgium.

150 A. Chancellor, “Blair's bid to be president of Europe seems hopeless”, The Guardian, 6 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/blair-europeanpresident-alexander-chancellor.

151 Ibid.

152 Ibid.

153 I. Traynor, “Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of 'shambolic' process to fill key jobs”, guardian.co.uk, 17 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/topeuropean-job-selection-process.

52

is agreeing what to do with it”.154 A demonstration of this is the fact that the treaty “deliberately leaves the job [the European Council presidency] vague, allowing the successful candidate to write their own rules”.155

About the appointments of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton The Guardian said that “Europe has failed to show much ambition in the two choices and has opted for the path of least resistance in the interests of an easy deal”.156 In Traynor’s opinion, Van Rompuy does not have “the stature to stand alongside Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, or Hu Jintao and that Europe will be relegated to the second division of international powers”.157 In this respect, Kettle argued that the fact that Blair did not get the job is “a great European missed opportunity”. 158 In Watt and Traynor’s view, the two key factors that counted against Blair were “the determination by centreright leaders that the post should go to one of their own and a clear consensus among EU leaders that they wanted more of a chairman than a presidential figure”. 159 Instead, Britain was “rewarded” with the key post of High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security Policy, in Traynor and Watt’s opinion, “arguably weightier than that of the European Council President”.160

154

Ibid.

N. Watt, “European Council presidency may be just the job for Tony Blair – but he can't ask”, guardian.co.uk, 26 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/26/tony-blair-eu-presidency.

156 I. Traynor and N. Watt, “EU gets Belgian president and British foreign minister as Blair blows out”, guardian.co.uk, 19 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/19/eu-president-foreign-minister-ashton1.

157 I. Traynor, “Herman Van Rompuy, Belgium's Mr Fixit”, guardian.co.uk, 19 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/19/herman-van-rompuy-eu-president.

158 M. Kettle, “Dull, imperfect, but let's all cheer Van Rompuy's victory”, The Guardian, 20 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/20/herman-vanrompuy-victory-cheer.

159 N. Watt & I. Traynor, “Tony Blair out of EU race, but Britain provides new foreign minister”, The Guardian, 20 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/19/eu-president-foreign-minister-ashton.

160 I. Traynor & N. Watt, “David Miliband shortlisted to be 'foreign minister' of Europe”, guardian.co.uk, 29 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/29/davidmiliband-eu-foreign-minister.

155

53

In its editorial, The Guardian stated that “[...] the appointments represent a clear victory [...] of the intergovernmental approach to the EU rather than of any federalist challenge to it”.161 In the same line of argumentation, Kettle argued that “last night’s Brussels summit [19 November 2009] signalled that the federalist project is stalled”.162 Similarly, in another editorial, The Guardian maintained that “by passing over the chance to enshrine powerful central leadership, France and Germany have implicitly signalled they are content to continue with a Europe of nation states”.163 Finally, Adrian Pabst claimed that the result confirms “the lack of ambition national leaders have for the EU”.164 In this respect, in the journalist’s opinion “[...] neither the Lisbon treaty nor last week's appointments give the EU proper political clout to implement ambitious and badly needed economic reforms”.165 Table 7 Summary of The Guardian’s coverage of the appointments of Van Rompuy and Ashton

161

“European Union: Now to make it work”, Editorial, The Guardian, 21 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/21/european-union-rompuy-ashton.

162 M. Kettle, “Dull, imperfect, but let's all cheer Van Rompuy's victory”, op. cit.

163 “European Union: Fading presidential ambitions”, Editorial, The Guardian, 20 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/20/european-union-fadingpresidential-ambitions.

164 A. Pabst, “After the Van Rompuy spectacle”, guardian.co.uk, 23 November 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/23/ashton-van-rompuy-eu-sideshow.

165 Ibid.

54

4.4. The Copenhagen climate summit

In its articles regarding the climate change conference, The Guardian focused more on the role undertaken by the United States (reported by a US environment correspondent in New York) and the United Kingdom during the negotiations rather than the contribution made by the European Union as a whole. In fact, the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and to a lesser extent, the London mayor, Boris Johnson, captured the attention of most headlines of The Guardian regarding the Copenhagen summit. While the latter made some appearances urging a gathering of municipal leaders to advocate green consumerism, the former was portrayed as being the first world leader to fly into Copenhagen in order to “help broker discussions on who should pay to tackle global warning”.166 As stated by Stratton, the British Prime Minister regarded his role in Copenhagen “to be one of a handful of apparently lead negotiators”. 167 During Copenhagen the EU “was completely sidelined”.168 In Traynor’s view, the EU “was barely consulted, never mind taking part in the negotiations”.169

In this respect, Britain, together with France, were presented as the pioneers of an international campaign “to force the financial sector to pay for saving the planet from global warming”.170 As stated by Vidal, Stratton and Goldenberg, Gordon Brown and the UK government “led worldwide efforts to forge an ambitious, legally binding global agreement to stop the rise in carbon emissions by 2020 and reduce them dramatically in the following 30 years”.171 In contrast, the name of the EU Environment Commissioner,

166

A. Stratton & S. Goldenberg & J. Vidal, “Gordon Brown flies in seeking climate change finance deal – but says failure is a possibility”, The Guardian, 16 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/15/brown-global-warming-finance-deal.

167 A. Stratton, “UK pleads with US to offer greater cuts in emissions at Copenhagen”, guardian.co.uk, 16 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/16/usemissions-copenhagen.

168 Interview with Ian Traynor, Europe editor of The Guardian, Brussels 27 March 2010.

169 Ibid.

170 I. Traynor, “Brown and Sarkozy move to fund climate aid with global banking tax”, guardian.co.uk, 11 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/11/taxclimate-aid-brown-sarkozy.

171 J. Vidal & A. Stratton & S. Goldenberg, “Hopes for strong deal at Copenhagen appear slim as stumbling blocks remain”, guardian.co.uk, 18 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-treaty-failure.

55

Stavros Dimas, or the Swedish premier, Fredrik Reinfeld, country that held the rotating Presidency of the EU at that time, were hardly heard.

Although the EU was presented as the third most influential actor, after the US and China, the newspaper was quite critical of the role played by the European Union as evidenced by the articles of some of its columnists. Even before the summit started, David Adam and James Randerson said that the EU is “trying to look greener than it really is”.172 Moreover, the journalists stated that with a lack of commitment from the US and China, “Europe likes to portray itself as the most progressive force at the talks”.173 According to The Guardian, the mission of the EU should be “to lead by example since this is the only way to build trust and encourage others to do the same. Trying to be the last to act will appear cowardly and lead to failure”.174

The outcome of the summit was regarded by George Monbiot as being attended by “historic levels of incompetence”.175 In his opinion, at the end the summit was no longer “about saving the biosphere: it was just a matter of saving face”. 176 In this respect, Stratton argues that the prime minister “was important to the negotiations but probably should have managed expectations better”.177

172

D. Adam & J. Randerson, “Copenhagen conference: The countries to watch”, The Guardian, 30 November 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/30/countries-to-watch.

173 Ibid.

174 “Copenhagen summit: The final stages in the game”, Sandbarg.org.uk, part of The Guardian Environment Network, 18 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-climate-change-summit-final-day, 175 G. Monbiot, “Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster while the biosphere burns”, guardian.co.uk, 18 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-negotiators-bicker-filibuster-biosphere.

176 Ibid.

177 A. Stratton, “Gordon Brown basks in limelight of Copenhagen climate change summit”, guardian.co.uk, 18 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/gordon-brown-copenhagen-summit.

56

Table 8 Summary of The Guardian's coverage of the Copenhagen climate summit

4.5. Concluding remarks

Despite the manifest Euroscepticism of the British society, The Guardian, the third most read newspaper in the UK, has carried out an extraordinary coverage of the four events listed above. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, The Guardian is one of the few proEuropean newspapers in the UK. This is reflected in its efforts to trigger the debate on European issues. Apart from providing accurate information about the major European events, The Guardian also carries out a great critical analysis of the EU and the challenges it faces.

Although the last European Parliament elections in Britain were mainly focused on the parliamentary expenses scandal, the newspaper took the opportunity to reopen the debate about the growing British Euroscepticism revealed by the outcome of the elections. As indicated by several columnists of The Guardian, British Euroscepticism is attributable to the fact that successive governments have not made any effort to reframe perceptions of the EU in Britain. In fact, The Guardian is one of the few British newspapers that try to demystify the assumption according to which Brussels perpetrated “indignities� against Britain. By contrast, the rest of the British press, and especially the tabloids, tend to fuel 57

all sorts of misunderstandings about the EU, feeding the Euroscepticism of the British electorate.

On the other hand, The Guardian has proved to be surprisingly active when it comes to raising awareness on the shortcomings of the EU, highlighting, for example, the lack of visibility of the European Parliament or the lack of transparency in the decision-making process of the EU. Moreover, The Guardian has also brought to light some EU abuses, such as the MEP’s expenses scandal according to which some politicians have been pocketing hundreds of thousands of pounds without the need to present a receipt.

Moreover, the fact that The Guardian’s webpage is one of the most visited news websites in English, the third most spoken language in the world, and given its wide content on EU news, can undoubtedly ensure well informed public about the European Union allowing for a constructive debate on these issues. In Traynor’s view, the creation of a European public sphere is not something that can be created from the top down. Traynor believes that although the function of the media is not to be “cheerleaders for Europe (even if we think that it is a good thing)”, the media can and should help to trigger the debate on European issues.178

Thus, for all of these reasons it can be argued that EU topics enjoy a high-visibility in The Guardian’s reporting, contributing, through its critical analysis, to the Europeanization of the British public.

178

Interview with Ian Traynor, Europe editor of The Guardian, Brussels 27 March 2010.

58

5. Le Monde

Le Monde is a French daily newspaper with a circulation of 318, 805 copies in 2009. In recent years, Le Monde has gone from having five correspondents in Brussels to only two, due to the financial difficulties experienced by the newspaper. While one of the correspondents deals with the BENELUX countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg) countries, the other one covers European affairs in Brussels. However, there are also three other people working on European issues at the Paris central newsroom. In total, Le Monde has a team of five people dedicated to coverage of news related to EU, apart from the correspondents reporting from other EU Member States.

Compared to other French-speaking newspapers, Le Monde is the most interested print media in European affairs. In this respect, Le Monde is deeply involved in the debate about the European Union not only in France but also at the European level. According to Philippe Ricard, the Brussels correspondent of Le Monde, the interest of the newspaper for the EU is due to the fact that “the European Union is a centre of power and the media should be interested on it as well as they are in how the French or British government work”.179 In this respect, the main function of the media should consist of observing how the EU makes decisions, to make the decision-making process more transparent and to decrypt it in order to allow the citizens to have a small right of inspection on what is happening. In Ricard’s opinion, one of the ways in which the media can contribute to solve the alleged “democratic deficit” of the EU is to report about EU topics in a more pedagogic way and to be the freest possible to observe what happens.180

Each day, Le Monde publishes a minimum of two to three pages (on a total of 25-26 pages) dedicated to Europe and the European Union. Unlike the other two newspapers analysed before, Le Monde is the only newspaper that has a page dedicated solely to ‘Europe’ (introduced in 2002). According to Ricard, this page was created in order to

179 180

Interview with Philippe Ricard, Brussels’ correspondent of Le Monde, Brussels, 27 March 2010.

Ibid.

59

“have a daily constraint in terms of space to write about Europe”. 181 The page has been recently integrated in the International affairs section (before it was integrated in the national news section), dealing with the impact of the European Union in French politics and the current European affairs in other Member State countries. The ‘Europe’ page has, in this sense, a space of its own in between the international and national news sections in order to report regularly about European issues.

In light of the aforestated, Le Monde offers a well established and prominent daily coverage of European affairs.

5.1. The 2009 European Parliament elections

During the European electoral campaign in France, Le Monde published at least two pages per day, beıng the first one focused on the French electoral campaign and the second one on the European electoral campaign in other Member States (horizontal Europeanization), as well as other detailed information on how the European Parliament works and what are the important forces within the Parliament (vertical Europeanization).

Just as in the cases discussed in the two previous chapters, the European election campaign in France was marked by a strong national dimension, characterized by the economic crisis and its social consequences. In this respect, the debate did not focus on the construction of Europe “but on how to direct it into the existing framework to protect the French in the crisis”.182 Within this framework, according to Arnaud Leparmentier, the electoral programs of the main governing parties revealed “a return to the traditional divisions”.183 In Leparmentiers’ opinion, while Nicolas Sarkozy’s party, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), presented an “intergovernmental vision of the European Union, more liberal and more secure on immigration”, the Socialist Party (PS) chaired by Martine Aubry, favoured a more social project “which would make the Commission an 181

Ibid.

A. Leparmentier, «Derrière une campagne atone, deux conceptions de l'Europe s'affrontent», Le Monde, 7 June 2009.

183 Ibid.

182

60

embryonic European government”.184 For their part, the Democratic Movement (MoDem) and the Greens proposed “an even more federal program”.185 In the latter case, the main leaders of both parties, François Bayrou and Daniel Cohn-Bendit respectively, took part in one of the foremost political confrontations of the French election campaign.

Many columnists of Le Monde uniformly stated that the European elections are “a challenging test for incumbent governments”.186 According to Dominique Reyné, researcher at the Centre for the Study of the French political life (Cevipof), the EP elections are “nationalized in all European countries, but the trend is much heavier in France”.187 In Christian Lequesne’s opinion, from the moment that voting procedures, electoral lists and the electoral constituencies are national, “the electorate cannot relate to European issues”.188 Moreover, Reyné states that in France there is also "a resistance of much of our political class to become Europeanized".189 And he adds that in France when a relatively known French politician is elected to the European Parliament, “he generally hurries in order to resign and return to national politics”.190 In this respect, Jérôme Fourquet regrets that “the clashes or major issues that had given the consistency and relief to the European debate in previous consultations are extinct or obsolete”.191

Thus, an editorial of Le Monde blamed the main political parties (that is the UMP and the PS) for the citizens’ lack of interest in European affairs.192 Moreover, the said editorial accused them of not understanding that “the Euroscepticism that they nourish is the mirror of a growing disinterest -not to mention the mistrust- that they inspire to their own 184

Ibid.

Ibid.

186 P. Ricard, «Une année incertaine s'ouvre pour le renouvellement politique de l'Europe», Le Monde, 7 June 2009.

187 S. Seelow, «Il y a une résistance de notre classe politique à s'européaniser», entretien avec Dominique Reyné, LeMonde.fr, 5 June 2009, retrieved 27 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/06/05/il-y-a-une-resistance-de-notre-classe-politique-a-seuropeaniser_1203012_823448.html.

188 C. Lequesne, «Pour un scrutin vraiment européen», Le Monde, 30 Mai 2009, retrieved 27 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/05/29/pour-un-scrutin-vraiment-europeen-par-christianlequesne_1199701_3232.html, 189 Seelow, «Il y a une résistance de notre classe politique à s'européaniser», op. cit.

190 Ibid.

191 J. Fourquet, «Pourquoi l'abstention est-elle si massive?», Le Monde, 30 May 2009.

192 «Franchouillards», Editorial, Le Monde, 4 June 2009.

185

61

citizens”.193

The online edition of Le Monde has been characterized by promoting a forum where its readers could actively participate by giving their opinion about the development of the European campaign or asking questions to their political leaders or EU specialists. On June 2 2009, LeMonde.fr held two simultaneous chats with Jean-Christophe Cambadelis, socialist deputy for Paris, and Xavier Bertrand, former Minister of Labour, Social Affairs and Solidarity during the second government of Francois Fillon, in which LeMonde.fr invited the citizens to ask questions to both politicians. Some of them took the opportunity to ask Cambadelis about the position of the Socialist Party regarding the entry of Turkey into the EU, if the PS would promote the social dimension of the Union in case the PS won the election, and whether Cambadelis was or was not a European federalist. For his part, Bertrand was asked about the probable high rate of abstention, on whether the UMP’s MEPs would vote again for Barroso, regarding Sarkozy’s promise to define the borders to Europe, and also about what will the EU's future be in the next 20 years according to the UMP, among other questions.

Similarly, ten days before the holding of the European Parliament elections, the online edition of Le Monde published an article grouping the testimonies of nine French citizens that in 2005 voted ‘no’ in the referendum on the European Constitution, indicating the reasons why they considered it was important to vote or not to vote in the 2009 EP elections. A few days later, LeMonde.fr published a new article in which readers outlined their views on the European election campaign. It is interesting to note that many of them claimed that European Elections “go largely unnoticed, sometimes due to the lack of commitment of the parties but also of the media”.194

193

Ibid.

«L’Europe reste pour moi une inconnue», LeMonde.fr, 2 June 2009, retrieved 2 March 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-europeennes/article/2009/06/02/l-europe-reste-pour-moi-uneinconnue_1200970_1168667.html.

194

62

Table 9 Summary of Le Monde's coverage of the 2009 EP elections

5.2. The Treaty of Lisbon

The adoption and entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has been an issue that has lasted eight years. This process has been characterized by high peaks of attention from the media and some others peaks with practically no visibility. The increasing difficulties experienced by the treaty in order to be ratified (frozen by Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic for more than a year in total) have impeded the debate about the complexity of the Treaty in the media. The media have primarily focused in the statements made by Lech Kaczynski and Vaclav Klaus instead of explaining the new features of the Treaty in relation to the functioning of the EU.

European issues are often extremely complicated to report on. In this respect, the evolution of the European Union (the European decision-making process is extremely long) is not really compatible with the pace of the media, which is much more volatile.

The media monitoring of the process of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon can be cited as an example of this.

While in 2008 the Irish said ‘no’ to the Treaty of Lisbon by arguing that the proposed amendment to the European institutions did not show sufficient guarantees on sensitive 63

issues as it is the case of the abortion, in Marion Van Renterghem’s opinion, the context of the economic crisis “has prompted the reversal of opinion in Ireland, a victim of unemployment and an unprecedented recession”.195

The Treaty of Lisbon, based on the defunct European constitution rejected by France and the Netherlands in 2005, was designed to streamline decision-making in an enlarged Europe and to give the Union a greater community visibility on the international stage.

However, as stated by Le Monde “the reorganization under the Treaty of Lisbon will not simplify the functioning of the Union”, instead it will give birth to “a monster with three heads making Europe even more ungovernable”.196 According to the newspaper this is due to the fact that “none of the big European countries would imagine yielding its seat to a unified representation”.197

Table 10 Summary of Le Monde's coverage of the passage of the Treaty of Lisbon

5.3. The appointments of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton

The nomination of Tony Blair was suggested by Nicolas Sarkozy two years before the post was even created. However, Blair’s candidacy was highly contested several groups: by the left, the Tories in Britain, for those countries that did not appreciate his attitude during the war in Iraq, and those other countries whose leaders, such as Angela Merkel, that thought that it was unwise to have a strong President of European Council and thus 195

M. V. Renterghem, «Les Irlandais disent “oui” au traité de Lisbonne», LeMonde.fr, 3 October 2009, retrieved 6 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/10/03/le-oui-l-emporterait-aureferendum-irlandais_1248697_3214.html.

196 « Le toujours improbable George Washington européen», Le Monde, 6 October 2009, retrieved 4 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/10/05/le-toujours-improbable-georgewashington-europeen-par-arnaud-leparmentier_1249384_3232.htm.

197 Ibid.

64

preferred a mediator, a chairman rather than a strong president.

For a time, Blair was the only official candidate. As time went on, Blair's candidacy became less plausible. Le Monde was one of the first newspapers to realize this reality and the first to identify the possible candidacy of Herman Van Rompuy (17-18 September), at a time when nobody talked about him. In France, Blair is someone who is rather controversial because of the war in Iraq and his alliance with the US. In this sense, it can be said that Le Monde used the candidacy of Tony Blair to present a certain profile of President.

Le Monde did not oppose the possible candidacy of Tony Blair to chair the European Council. As stated by Van Renterghem, Blair was “the only European statesman globally known, capable of carrying the voice of the Twenty-Seven, to talk as an equal with Barack Obama and to give Europe the famous ‘phone number’ that it needs so much”.198 According to Van Renterghem, one of the main impediments was his involvement in Iraq alongside with George W. Bush.

As has been demonstrated so far, the European press has generally been very critical about Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton’s nominations, and Le Monde has been no exception in this regard. The newspaper was particularly critical of Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton’s nominations. In relation to the former it could be read that Van Rompuy “has not had much of a presence in the European level”. 199 With regard to the latter, it has been written that “she does not have any experience in diplomacy matters”.200 In this respect, Robert Solé pointed out that “Europe has not chosen a flamboyant president in the person of Herman Van Rompuy […] and we cannot say that Catherine Ashton has been appointed as Minister of Foreign Affairs for her knowledge of

198

M. V. Renterghem, «Tony Blair Le mal-aimé», Le Monde, 29 November 2009.

A. Leparmentier & P. Ricard & J-P. Stroobants, «La Revanche des fédéralistes belges», Le Monde, 11 November 2009.

200 Association France Press, «Catherine Ashton, plus économiste que diplomate», LeMonde.fr, 19 November 2009, retrieved 17 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/11/19/catherineashton-plus-economiste-que-diplomate_1269608_3214.html.

199

65

diplomacy”.201 According to an editorial of Le Monde, both nominations were due to a “technical designation that may be inherent to the construction of Europe: choosing the lowest common denominator and the solution that would cause least trouble, and the search for a minimal disruption for the national egos of the Member States”.202

In this respect, Leparmentier and Ricard considered that the following formula would serve to represent all regions of Europe. Being the distribution of power as follows: “the South, with Mr Barroso; the East with the Polish Jerzy Buzek as president of the Parliament; the founding countries, with Mr. Van Rompuy, as joint candidate of France and Germany; and North Europe with Lady Ashton”.203

In an article published by Michel Mangeot, political scientist at the IEP of Strasbourg, the twenty-seven Heads of State and Government adopted “a principle of institutional prudence by appointing, in fact, not a duet but a trio, in order to satisfy numerous balances or constraints: a young (in function) head of government of a founder country (Herman Van Rompuy) as European Council president; a Labour British female (Ashton), already a member of the college of the Commission as High Representative; and, finally, a formidable and highly respected French diplomat, Pierre de Boisseieu, as Secretary General of the Council”.204 In his opinion, the new presidential system of the EU appeared “much more complex than the previous one”.205

It is interesting to note that, Le Monde was the only newspaper that referred to the new 201

R. Solé, «Lady Ashton, I presume?», Le Monde, 27 November 2009, retrieved 2 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/26/lady-ashton-i-presume-par-robertsole_1272523_3232.html.

202 “Couple discret”, editorial, Le Monde, 21 November 2009, retrieved 27 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/20/couple-discret_1269804_3232.html.

203 A. Leparmentier & P. Ricard, «Van Rompuy et Ashton à la tête de l'Europe», LeMonde.fr, 19 November 2009, retrieved 4 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/11/19/le-belge-herman-vanrompuy-nouveau-president-de-l-ue_1269591_3214.html.

204 M. Mangenot, «Les fausses illusions de la présidence de l'UE», LeMonde.fr, 2 December 2009, retrieved 4 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/12/02/les-fausses-illusions-de-lapresidence-de-l-ue-par-michel-mangenot_1275160_3232.html.

205 Ibid.

66

Secretary General of the Council, a post that none of the other two newspapers, La Vanguardia and The Guardian, cared to mention.

The appointment procedure of the new posts was also criticized. In an article published in Le Monde by Thierry Chopin, Director of studies at the Robert Schuman Foundation, claimed that “the lack of democracy and transparency in its implementation made it look like the Pope's election: no requirement to declare oneself as a candidate and the setting of criteria as the process went on [...] So, it was not until the white smoke came out of the Thursday night’s summit [19 November 2009] to learn the result of the negotiations!”.206

Like The Guardian, Le Monde also referred to the low political profile of the post of the European Council President.

Table 11 Summary of Le Monde's coverage of the appointments of Van Rompuy and Ashton

5.4. The Copenhagen climate summit

Copenhagen was the culmination of a negotiation process launched one year before the celebration of the summit. During its preparation the European dimension was especially present because the 27 Member States were seeking an agreement on the major issues in order to avoid divergent positions and to take the lead during the negotiations. However, during the negotiations some Member States acted more individually than others. During 206

T. Chopin, «La désignation du président de l'UE a manqué de transparence», LeMonde.fr, 19 November 2009, retrieved 17 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/11/19/la-designation-dupresident-de-l-ue-a-manque-de-transparence_1269519_3214.html,

67

the Copenhagen summit the Europeans did not achieve the goals they wanted. This was mainly due to the fact that Europe was “totally submerged by the national logic”.207 At Copenhagen, the European dimension has only showed a small facet of the negotiation process at the world stage.

Unlike The Guardian, when reporting on the role undertaken by the EU within the framework of the Copenhagen summit, Le Monde made constant reference to the EU as a whole by using expressions like ‘according to the Europeans’, ‘the twenty-seven Member States’, ‘the Union’, ‘according to the European leaders’. In this respect, the role played by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, occupied a less prominent role.

In Le Monde’s opinion, the text adopted following the summit did not “include the overall objective set by the conference”, according to which a reduction of greenhouse emissions should have taken place.208

Some journalists uniformly stated that, given the unpreparedness of the United States, “the Copenhagen’s output depended largely on Europe”.209 However, according to an editorial of Le Monde, due to the very ambitious goals defended by Europe “the EU was unable, or did not know how to communicate them”.210 Moreover, the editorial stated that the EU “was marginalized against a coalition that reflects the present distribution of political power in the world: the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa”.211 In Hervé Kempf's opinion, the lack of visibility of the EU during the negotiations was due to the lack of preparation and coordination between the 27 Member States. In this respect, Kempf stated that “Angela Merkel was occupied with the German elections, Silvio Berlusconi and Donald Tusk (Poland) were indifferent or hostile, José Manuel Barroso was mainly focused on the renewal of his mandate, while France and Great 207

Interview with Philippe Ricard, Brussel’s correspondent of Le Monde, Brussels, 27 March 2010.

«Une déception», editorial, Le Monde, 20 December 2009.

209 J-P. Besset & D. Cohn-Bendit & Y. Jadot & E. Joly, «L'Union européenne détient les clefs du succès», Le Monde, 21 November 2009, retrieved 17 March 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/20/l-union-europeenne-detient-les-clefs-du-succes-parjean-paul-besset-daniel-cohn-bendit-yannick-jadot-eva-joly_1269895_3232.html.

210 «Une déception», editorial, op. cit.

211 Ibid.

208

68

Britain separately tried to take the lead”.212 Kempf argued that because of the lack of preparation, the EU “relied on the two great powers [the US and China] to decide”.213 In Stroobants’ opinion, “the pill has been very bitter for the Union, who wanted to portray itself as the leader in the fight against global warming by adopting legally binding provisions to reduce its CO2 emissions”.214 On the other hand, he claimed that the activism of the French President in Copenhagen has had “no other effect than to highlight the divisions in Europe, which would have allowed Obama to negotiate without major difficulties with China and other emerging powers in the absence of the twenty-seven”.215

Table 12 Summary of Le Monde's coverage of the Copenhagen climate summit

5.5. Concluding remarks

With respect to La Vanguardia and The Guardian, Le Monde is the newspaper that devotes more resources (measured by the number of journalists dedicated to report on European affairs) to the coverage of EU topics. Moreover, it is the only newspaper that has a specific section dedicated to Europe. These two elements denote the importance 212

H. Kempf, «L'Europe a démissionné à la conférence de Copenhague», Le Monde, 23 December 2009, retrieved 8 March 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/12/23/l-europe-a-demissionne-a-laconference-de-copenhague-par-herve-kempf_1284252_3232.html.

213 Ibid.

214 J-P. Stroobants, «Après Copenhague, les Européens guettés par des dissensions», Le Monde, 24 December 2009, retrieved 16 March 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/12/23/aprescopenhague-les-europeens-guettes-par-des-dissensions_1284276_3244.html.

215 Ibid.

69

attributed by the newspaper to the coverage of European affairs.

However, the resistance of the French political class to become Europeanized hinders the emergence of a space of deliberation on European affairs. As in the previous two cases, in an editorial Le Monde blamed the main political parties for the citizens’ lack of interest in European affairs.

Unlike the other two newspapers analysed, Le Monde is the only one that has opened the door to citizen’s participation through its website. Coinciding with the European election campaign in France, LeMonde.fr offered its readers the opportunity to give their opinion about the development of the electoral campaign and to participate in various chat rooms where they could ask politicians or EU specialists about what interested them the most.

On the other hand, Le Monde has also been particularly critical of the new institutional design drawn by the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as with the appointment (and its procedure) of Herman Van Rompuy and the Baroness Ashton as new EU representatives, and the national logic that guided the European action during the negotiations of the Copenhagen summit.

70

6. Analysis The high visibility of the aforementioned topics in the three newspapers, as well as the variety of journalistic genres used, shows the importance attached by all of them to the coverage of EU topics. However, the event-oriented approach of the present study suggests a considerable increase in EU reporting prior to the days of such events and all through the event, decreasing shortly before. In this sense, it can be said that the 2009 European Parliament elections featured more in the Spanish and British media because the discussion revolved around the economic crisis in the case of Spain and the expenses scandal in the case of the UK. In a parallel way, the media criticized the lack of European issues in the electoral campaigns both at home and in the rest of EU member countries.

We have seen how the same topics were discussed at the same time and at the same level of relevance in the Spanish, British and French media. However, some differences can be observed in terms of press coverage.

The predominance of domestic issues during the European election campaign often distorted the coverage of what was really at stake. The absence of a European debate in the EP elections leads us to face the chicken and egg problem. The availability of EUrelated information seems not to lead to an increased citizen’s interest in European affairs.

This fact is demonstrated by the low participation rates at the EP elections and the lack of European debate in national election campaigns. As has been shown throughout the present study, the European election campaigns carried out in Spain, the UK and France have highlighted the absence of a debate on European issues. While in most cases newspapers have tended to blame the political parties for the citizens’ lack of interest in European affairs, the citizens have complained about the lack of commitment of both the political parties and the media with regard to the EU. Who is then responsible for the lack of debate on European issues? It can be argued that the responsibility is shared by the politicians, the media and the EU. While politicians use EP elections as a referendum on the policies of the party in government, the media tend to ask political leaders about national issues rather than European. The European institutions are often perceived by the citizens as distant and complex. In this respect, the EU should carry out a greater effort to 71

communicate its mission and functioning in a more comprehensible way. As stated by the three correspondents in Brussels interviewed as part of the present study, the main function of the media is not to make “propaganda� of the EU, but to observe how the EU makes decisions and to make the decision-making process more transparent, reporting on possible irregularities. Therefore, a greater pedagogical work should be carried out by the politicians and the EU in order to bring the citizens closer to the EU. In light of the results, the only actor who has raised a debate on European issues in an effort to Europeanize national public spheres has been the media. All three newspapers have continuously highlighted the enormous importance of the EP as the only directly-elected institution representing the interests of the people of Europe.

When it comes to long political processes, such as the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, frozen since June 2008 by the Irish and then by the refusal of the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, to sign the treaty, the coverage tended to differ in each newspaper. Unlike The Guardian, much of the stories published by La Vanguardia and Le Monde on the evolution of the ratification of the Treaty have tended to be obtained from news agencies (especially those ones published in their respective web pages). Although the three newspapers were in favour of the ratification and subsequent entry into force of the treaty, all of them showed signs of scepticism regarding its content. The selection of candidates for the new posts created by the Treaty of Lisbon has been one of the topics that has attracted more attention from the media analysed. This is due to the coming on scene of outstanding political figures such as Tony Blair. Although all newspapers have carried an extensive coverage of the designation process, The Guardian has been the most involved in the debate. Similarly, all newspapers were highly critical of the appointment of Van Rompuy and Ashton claiming that the appointments lacked ambition and that the EU was still speaking with too many voices.

With regard to the Copenhagen summit, the said newspapers underlined the marginalization of the EU during the summit and its lack of internal cohesion. A closer analysis on the way in which newspapers assessed the EU’s role in the international negotiation arena is a good indicator of their sense of belonging to a same community.

72

The results reveal that the three newspapers have not only been limited to the mere diffusion of information, but they have also expressed their own views on the events (expressed in their editorials and opinion articles). With regard to the four EU events analysed, La Vanguardia, The Guardian and Le Monde have become critical watchdogs of the EU, putting at test its legitimacy and revealing its malfunctions. As it has been exemplified, all three newspapers have simultaneously raised similar concerns about the functioning of the EU, contributing to the formation of a collective opinion on European issues. By doing so, they have shown signs of Europeanization in their reporting. They have all referred to the lack of European debate in their national public spheres, commented on the lack of visibility of the European Parliament and the uncertain fate of the EU after Lisbon and they have interacted with other Member State’s actors in their coverage. By doing so, they have effectively put into practise the three dimensions of Europeanization proposed by Trenz at the beginning of this study.

As have been observed, some European topics have experienced a certain Europeanization of interest, exceeding the national boundaries and expanding to other European media, like the consequences of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty or Tony Blair’s nomination for the presidency of the EU. When analysing the role of the EU during the Copenhagen summit, we have also been able to assess the degree to which the three newspapers feel European, showing their commitment to a common European public. With few exceptions, we observe a greater emphasis on forging a more robust European identity. However, certain European issues continue to be perceived differently according to the national interests at stake. In this respect, it would be necessary to conduct a larger study, covering more countries and issues of less saliency, to determine whether there has been an overall Europeanization of the national media.

With regard to whether the media have contributed to the emergence of a European public sphere some considerations should be taken into account. Most of the news stories published have been placed in the international or national news sections (especially in the cases of La Vanguardia and The Guardian with regard to the European election 73

campaigns in both countries), with the exception of Le Monde, being the only newspaper that has a ‘Europe’ section. Although EU law has a clear impact in the sovereignty of its MS and the daily life of its citizens, EU-politics are not yet considered as domestic politics. In this respect, either if they are integrated into the international news section or the ‘Europe’ section, EU-related news continue to be presented as foreign news. In the same line of argumentation, Slaatta argues that “although the EU beat is growing in significance and numbers, to the editors and the public of the national news media, it is still predominantly a foreign news beat”.216 In this sense, the introduction of a news section dedicated to European affairs is regarded as one measure that could contribute to the emergence of a European public sphere, providing a greater visibility to the EU.

216

Slaatta, Tore, “Transnational Politics and News Production. Norwegian Correspondents on the Brussels Beat”. In S. Harvard (ed.), News in a Globalised Society. Gothenburg: Nordicom. Cited in Slaaatta, op. cit., p.15.

74

7. Conclusion

Although it can be said that a Europeanization of the public sphere is slowly emerging, given the improved transnational political communication in the different public spheres, its consolidation requires that citizens become more involved in the public debate on European affairs fostered by the media. In this respect, the real challenge is to enhance the citizen’s interest in the EU.

As has been pointed out at the beginning of the present study, the emergence of a common public sphere is difficult given the cultural fragmentation of the European continent. Moreover, at a time when the EU needs to be more united than ever, the world is witnessing an unprecedented phenomenon of regionalization that makes it difficult for the EU to communicate with its citizens.

There have been attempts in the early 90’s to form a pan-European media as in the case of The European, which became the first transnational pan-European newspaper, published between 1990-1998, with the motto ‘Europe’s national newspaper’. However, The European was considered to be an idea before its time and it was criticized for expecting to be a newspaper of a nation that actually did not exist. The failure of The European has been linked to the uncertainties of the European project itself.217

In recent years, similar initiatives have been developed, some being more successful than others. With the current crisis of the printed media, the development of the online press has recently offered new possibilities for the creation of a pan-European network of highquality journalism. In 2008, the Spiegel Online (Germany) and NRC Handelsbald (Netherlands) created the first network of private newspaper publishers in Europe, in English as a language of common diffusion. In 2009, the alliance was expanded to Politiken (Denmark) and at the end of April 2010, its publishers announced the incorporation of the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera and their willingness to

217

A. Cusack, “The Life and Death of The European” norumbega.co.uk, 21 July 2008, retrieved 3 May 2010, http://norumbega.co.uk/2008/06/30/the-european/.

75

expand the network to nine new journalistic members during 2010.

Since 2008 they have often exchanged articles and have collaborated on a series of journalistic projects together. During the 2009 EP elections, for example, they jointly covered the campaign for the European Parliament elections, interviewing opinion leaders from all around Europe as part of a project called ‘27 visions of Europe’.

According to the chief editor of the Spiegel Online, Rüdiger Ditz, the aim of this panEuropean network is “to offer independent journalism and to form opinion on issues affecting Europe and the international community from different perspectives”.218

The emergence of a European public sphere depends on the establishment of a public space where citizens can debate on European issues, overcoming national borders and language barriers. In this respect, a more recent example is The European Daily, a project started three years ago in order to create a daily newspaper for Europe, in an effort to bring renewed hope to revive the essence of The European. The European Daily appears to be one of the few newspapers addressing the lack of debate at the European level by providing daily news and analysis from a European perspective. The European Daily defines Europe beyond the EU, does not limit the European debate to purely economic issues and uses English as a lingua franca.

The news coverage of the current crisis of the Eurozone has led to an intense debate focused on the political dimension of the European integration project. Political leaders and thinkers from all around Europe have resorted to the media in order to take part in an unprecedented debate on the need for more Europe or less.

Recently, European newspaper’s editorials have increasingly tended to question the lack of ambition and commitment from many EU governments of creating a genuine political union that would eventually solve the economic crisis.

218

F. Bracero, “Cuatro diarios europeos se unen para divulgar su contenido on line”, lavanguardia.es, 29 April 2010.

76

In this regard, EU’s current economic and identity crisis could be regarded as a new starting point for the emergence of an ultimate European public sphere. It remains to be seen how citizens will take advantage of this opportunity.

77

8. Bibliography Books

-

Morgan, Glyn, The Idea of a European Superstate: Public Justification and European Integration, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2007.

Academic articles

-

Broz, Michal, “Is Europeanization of the Public Sphere in Media finally Emerging? Discussed in Context of the EU Media Policy and Changing Trends within the European Media Structure”, Master thesis, Lund University, 2005, retrieved

26

April

2010,

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1330277&file OId=1330278.

-

Olsen, Johan P., "The Many Faces of Europeanization", Arena Working Papers, 2002, retrieved 30 April 2010, http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/workingpapers2002/papers/wp02_2.htm.

-

Machill, Marcel & Markus Beiler & Corinna Fischer, “Europe-topics in Europe’s media. The debate about the European public sphere: a meta-analysis of media content analyses”, Paper submitted for the CONNEX workshop “A European Public Sphere: How much of it do we have and how much do we need?“, Amsterdam,

December

9-10,

2005,

retrieved

9

October

2009,

http://www.mzes.unimannheim.de/projekte/typo3/site/fileadmin/research%20groups/3/Amsterdam%20 conference/Amsterdam_Machill_Beiler_Fischer.pdf.

-

Pfetsch, Barbara, “National Media in Europeanized Public Sphere: The Openness and Support of the Press for European Integration”, Paper presented at the State of 78

the art workshop Organized by the Network of Excellence CONNEX “A European Public Sphere: How much of it do we have and how much do we need?”,

Amsterdam,

December

2005,

retrieved

19

April

2010,

http://www.mzes.unimannheim.de/projekte/typo3/site/fileadmin/research%20groups/3/Amsterdam%20 conference/Amsterdam_Pfetsch.pdf.

-

Statham, Paul, “Political Journalism and Europeanization: Pressing Europe?”, Centre for European Political Communications, retrieved 9 October 2009, http://www.eurpolcom.eu/exhibits/paper_13.pdf.

-

Trenz, Hans-Joerg, “Understanding Media Impact on European Integration: Enhancing or Restricting the Scope of Legitimacy of the EU?”, European Integration, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2008.

-

Slaatta, Tore, “Europeanisation and the news media: issues and research imperatives”, javnost-the public, Vol.13, No.1, 2006.

Newspaper articles

-

“¿Sería Tony Blair un buen presidente para la Unión Europea?”, La Vanguardia, 30 October 2009.

-

“Acuerdo decepcionante”, editorial, La Vanguardia, 20 December 2009.

-

“Ante la cita de Copenhage”, editorial, La Vanguardia, 7 December 2009.

-

“Catherine Ashton, plus économiste que diplomate”, LeMonde.fr, 19 Novembre 2009,

retrieved

17

79

February

2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/11/19/catherine-ashton-pluseconomiste-que-diplomate_1269608_3214.html.

-

“Copenhagen summit: The final stages in the game”, Sandbarg.org.uk, part of The Guardian Environment Network, 18 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-climatechange-summit-final-day,

-

“Couple discret”, Editorial, Le Monde, 21 Novembre 2009, retrieved 27 February 2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/20/couple-

discret_1269804_3232.html.

-

“Europa gira más a la derecha”, editorial, La Vanguardia, 8 June 2009.

-

“Europe needs a president we can call trust. Blair is not the man for the job”, editorial, The Observer, 25 October 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/leader-tony-blaireuropean-union.

-

“European Union: Fading presidential ambitions”, Editorial, The Guardian, 20 November

2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/20/european-union-fadingpresidential-ambitions.

-

“European Union: Now to make it work”, Editorial, The Guardian, 21 November 2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/21/european-union-rompuyashton.

-

“Franchouillards”, Editorial, Le Monde, 4 Juin 2009.

80

-

“ICV llama a votar con el corazón por la Europa social”, La Vanguardia, 6 June 2009.

-

“Is Tony Blair the right man to be president of Europe?”, The Observer, 25 October

2009,

retrieved

21

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/henry-porter-charles-grant.

-

“Labour in crisis: European disaster”, Editorial, The Guardian, 8 June 2009, retrieved

19

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/european-electionslabour-leadership.

-

“Le toujours improbable George Washington européen”, Le Monde, 6 Octobre 2009,

retrieved

4

February

2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/10/05/le-toujours-improbablegeorge-washington-europeen-par-arnaud-leparmentier_1249384_3232.htm.

-

“Lisbon treaty: Painful birth”, editorial, The Guardian, 5 October 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/05/lisbontreaty-david-cameron.

-

“Local and European elections: Thursday's choice”, editorial, The Guardian, 2 June

2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/02/editorial-local-europeanelections.

-

“Meanwhile, across the Channel”, Editorial, The Guardian, 9 June 2009, retrieved 19

January

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/09/european-elections.

81

2010,

-

“Último escollo para el tratado de Lisboa”, Editorial, La Vanguardia, 5 October 2009.

-

“Un voto trascendente”, editorial, La Vanguardia, 7 June 2009.

-

“Une déception”, editorial, Le Monde, 20 Décembre 2009.

-

«L’Europe reste pour moi une inconnu», LeMonde.fr, 2 Juin 2009, retrieved 2 March 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-europeennes/article/2009/06/02/leurope-reste-pour-moi-une-inconnue_1200970_1168667.html.

-

Adam, David & James Randerson, “Copenhagen conference: The countries to watch”, The Guardian, 30 November 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/30/countries-to-watch.

-

Adamowski,

Jaroslaw,

alone”,guardian.co.uk,

13

“Vaclav October

Klaus 2009,

flies retrieved

Eurosceptic 22

January

flag 2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/13/vaclav-klaus-lisbon-treaty.

-

Ash, Timothy Garton, “Europe must decide if it wants to be more than Greater Switzerland”, guardian.co.uk, 30 September 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/30/german-election-lisbontreaty-referendum.

-

Ash, Timothy Garton, “It takes an Irish poet to remind us of the grandeur of the European project”, guardian.co.uk, 24 June 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/24/republic-of-ireland-euvote.

-

Ash, Timothy Garton, “This EU job is no presidency. It will rely on another. And it won't be Blair”, guardian.co.uk, 28 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, 82

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/28/president-of-europeforeign-policy.

-

Barbeta, Jordi, “Votar o no votar: ¡uf!”, La Vanguardia, 7 June 2009.

-

Bassets, Marc, “EE.UU. Sigue sin tener un 'número de teléfono' para llamar a Europa”, La Vanguardia, 21 November 2009.

-

Batalla, Xavier, “Ocasión perdida”, La Vanguardia, 7 June 2009.

-

Behr, Rafael, “Britain must grow up and stop believing Europhobe nonsense”, guardian.co.uk,

3

October

2009,

retrieved

21

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/03/eu-britain-sovereigntylisbon-treaty.

-

Besset, Jean-Paul & Daniel Cohn-Bendit & Yannick Jadot & Eva Joly, “L'Union européenne détient les clefs du succès”, Le Monde, 21 Novembre 2009, retrieved 17

March

2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/20/l-union-

europeenne-detient-les-clefs-du-succes-par-jean-paul-besset-daniel-cohn-bendityannick-jadot-eva-joly_1269895_3232.html.

-

Bet-El, Ilana, “Pity the Eurosceptics”, guardian.co.uk, 5 June 2009, retrieved 20 January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/europe-

votes-eurosceptics.

-

Bet-El, Ilana, “We must take EU elections seriously”, guardian.co.uk, 11 May 2009,

retrieved

19

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/11/european-parliamentelection.

-

Bru de Sala, Xavier, “Menos Europa”, La Vanguardia, 5 June 2009.

83

-

Bracero, Francesc, “Cuatro diarios europeos se unen para divulgar su contenido on line”, lavanguardia.es, 29 April 2010.

-

Castro, Carles, “Elecciones para incondicionales”, La Vanguardia, 9 June 2009.

-

Cerrillo, Antonio, “La UE pide más a Obama”, La Vanguardia, 7 diciembre 2009.

-

Cerrillo, Antonio, “Un tratado congelado”, La Vanguardia, 20 December 2009.

-

Cohen, Nick, “Cameron can't run away from Europe much longer”, The Observer, 17

May

2009,

retrieved

21

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/17/david-cameronconservatives-european-elections.

-

Cusack, Andrew, “The Life and Death of The European” norumbega.co.uk, 21 July 2008, retrieved 3 May 2010, http://norumbega.co.uk/2008/06/30/theeuropean/.

-

Chancellor, Alexander, “Blair's bid to be president of Europe seems hopeless”, The

Guardian,

6

November

2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/blair-european-presidentalexander-chancellor.

-

Chopin, Thierry, “La désignation du président de l'UE a manqué de transparence”, LeMonde.fr,

19

Novembre

2009,

retrieved

17

February

2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/11/19/la-designation-du-president-del-ue-a-manque-de-transparence_1269519_3214.html,

-

del Riego, Carmen, “Rajoy pide el voto al PP por la ‘necesidad nacional’ de cambio”, La Vanguardia, 6 June 2009.

84

-

del Riego, Carmen, “Si el PP gana, se abre una nueva etapa en España”, entrevista a Jaime Mayor Oreja, candidato europeo del PP, La Vanguardia, 5 June 2009.

-

Domínguez, Montserrat, “Europa, a pesar de todo(s)”, La Vangardia, 5 June 2009.

-

Ellakuria, Iñaqui, “Vidal-Quadras destaca la incapacidad de Zapatero de entender a los empresarios”, La Vanguardia, 6 June 2009.

-

Forès, Laia, “La UE promote 7.200 millones a los países pobres para facilitar un acuerdo”, La Vanguardia, 12 December 2009.

-

Fourquet, Jérôme, “Pourquoi l'abstention est-elle si massive?”, Le Monde, 30 Mai 2009.

-

Gasòliba, Carles, “Europa continúa avanzando”, La Vanguardia, 30 December 2009.

-

Hunton, Will, “Europe might be a better place without the contemptuous, indifferent

British”,

24

May

2009,

retrieved

19

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/24/european-electionslabour-conservatives.

-

Juliana, Enric, “En busca de brotes verdes con la bandera azul a media asta”, La Vanguardia, 7 June 2009.

-

Juliana, Enric, “Zapatero, primer aviso”, La Vanguardia, 8 June 2009.

-

Juniper, Tony, “The coming of the Greens”, guardian.co.uk, 1 June 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/01/greeneuropean-election.

85

-

Kempf, Hervé, «L'Europe a démissionné à la conférence de Copenhague», Le Monde,

23

Desember

2009,

retrieved

8

March

2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/12/23/l-europe-a-demissionne-a-laconference-de-copenhague-par-herve-kempf_1284252_3232.html

-

Kettle, Martin, “Dull, imperfect, but let's all cheer Van Rompuy's victory”, The Guardian,

20

November

2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/20/herman-van-rompuyvictory-cheer.

-

Kettle, Martin, “Labour must change, or the party's over”, guardian.co.uk, 8 June 2009,

retrieved

19

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/labour-european-elections.

-

Leparmentier, Arnaud & Philippe Ricard & Jean-Pierre Stroobants, “La Revanche des fédéralistes belges”, Le Monde, 11 Novembre 2009.

-

Leparmentier, Arnaud & Philippe Ricard, “Van Rompuy et Ashton à la tête de l'Europe”, LeMonde.fr, 19 Novembre 2009, retrieved 4 February 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/11/19/le-belge-herman-van-rompuynouveau-president-de-l-ue_1269591_3214.html.

-

Leparmentier, Arnaud, “Derrière une campagne atone, deux conceptions de l'Europe s'affrontent”, Le Monde, 7 Juin 2009.

-

Lequesne, Christian, “Pour un scrutin vraiment européen”, Le Monde, 30 Mai 2009,

retrieved

27

February

2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/05/29/pour-un-scrutin-vraimenteuropeen-par-christian-lequesne_1199701_3232.html,

86

-

Renterghem, Marion Van, Les Irlandais disent “oui” au traité de Lisbonne», LeMonde.fr,

3

Octobre

2009,

retrieved

6

February

2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/10/03/le-oui-l-emporterait-aureferendum-irlandais_1248697_3214.html.

-

Mangenot, Michel, “Les fausses illusions de la présidence de l'UE”, LeMonde.fr, 2

Décembre

2009,

retrieved

4

February

2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/12/02/les-fausses-illusions-de-lapresidence-de-l-ue-par-michel-mangenot_1275160_3232.html.

-

Merino, Juan Carlos, “No se decide el Gobierno; se puede decidir la oposición”, La Vanguardia, 5 June 2009.

-

Merritt, Giles, “European parliament: unpopular, uninteresting, indispensable”, guardian.co.uk,

31

May

2009,

retrieved

10

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/european-parliamentelections-apathy.

-

Merritt, Gilles, “President Blair would give the EU clout”, 19 October 2009, retrieved

22

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/eu-tony-blair-president.

-

Monaghan, Elisabeth, “Europe's failure to connect”, guardian.co.uk, 3 June 2009, retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/03/european-elections.

-

Monaghan, Elisabeth, “Once more with feeling, Ireland”, guardian.co.uk, 1 October

2009,

retrieved

22

January

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/01/ireland-lisbon-treaty.

87

2010,

-

Monbiot, George, “Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster while the biosphere burns”, guardian.co.uk, 18 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-negotiatorsbicker-filibuster-biosphere.

-

Navarro, Beatriz, “Al final la nueva UE”, La Vanguardia, 2 December 2009.

-

Navarro, Beatriz, “El frente anti-Blair arrecia su campaña para impedir que presida Europa”, La Vanguardia, 29 October 2009.

-

Navarro, Beatriz, “La derecha arrasa en Europa”, La Vanguardia, 8 June 2009.

-

Navarro, Beatriz, “Un continente víctima del consenso”, La Vanguardia, 21 November 2009.

-

Navarro, Beatriz, “Van Rompuy, europresidente”, La Vanguardia, 20 November 2009.

-

O'Connor, Simon, “British voices silenced in Europe”, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2009,

retrieved

19

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/10/european-elections-eu.

-

Pabst, Adrian, “After the Van Rompuy spectacle”, guardian.co.uk, 23 November 2009,

retrieved

21

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/23/ashton-van-rompuy-eusideshow.

-

Persson, Mats, “The real expenses scandal is in Brussels”, guardian.co.uk, 27 May 2009,

retrieved

19

January

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/expenses-mepseuropean-parliament.

88

2010,

-

Poch, Rafael, “Alemania despeja el camino al tratado de Lisboa”, La Vanguardia, 1 July 2009.

-

Press association, “David Miliband backs Tony Blair for EU president”, guardian.co.uk,

25

October

2009,

retrieved

21

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/25/miliband-backs-blair-presidenteu-new-post.

-

Ramos, Rafael, “Entre la crisis y el miedo, Irlanda se dispone a votar sí a Lisboa”, La Vanguardia, 2 October 2009.

-

Ramos, Rafael, “Irlanda rectifica y dice sí”, La Vanguardia, 3 October 2009.

-

Rennefanz, Sabine, “Is Germany too lazy for Europe?”, guardian.co.uk, 6 June 2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/06/europe-votes-germanyelection.

-

Ricard, Philippe, “Une année incertaine s'ouvre pour le renouvellement politique de l'Europe”, Le Monde, 7 Juin 2009.

-

Seelow, Soren, «Il y a une résistance de notre classe politique à s'européaniser», entretien avec Dominique Reyné, LeMonde.fr, 5 Juin 2009, retrieved 27 February 2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/06/05/il-y-a-une-resistance-

de-notre-classe-politique-a-s-europeaniser_1203012_823448.html.

-

Solé, Robert, “Lady Ashton, I presume?”, Le Monde, 27 Novembre 2009, retrieved

2

February

2010,

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/26/lady-ashton-i-presume-parrobert-sole_1272523_3232.html.

89

-

Sparrow, Andrew & Paul Owen & agencies, “Hague rules out Lisbon referendum after Czech leader signs EU treaty”, guardian.co.uk, 3 November 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/03/cameron-euczech-libson-treaty.

-

Stratton, Allegra & Suzanne Goldenberg & John. Vidal, “Gordon Brown flies in seeking climate change finance deal – but says failure is a possibility”, The Guardian,

16

December

2009,

retrieved

22

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/15/brown-global-warmingfinance-deal.

-

Stratton, Allegra, “Gordon Brown basks in limelight of Copenhagen climate change summit”, guardian.co.uk, 18 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/gordon-brown-copenhagensummit.

-

Stratton, Allegra, “MP's expenses: voters turn away from mainstream parties”, guardian.co.uk,

22

May

2009,

retrieved

19

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/22/ukip-green-small-politicalparties-poll.

-

Stratton, Allegra, “UK pleads with US to offer greater cuts in emissions at Copenhagen”, guardian.co.uk, 16 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/16/us-emissions-copenhagen.

-

Stroobants, Jean-Pierre, “Après Copenhague, les Européens guettés par des dissencions”, Le Monde, 24 Décembre 2009, retrieved 16 March 2010, http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/12/23/apres-copenhague-leseuropeens-guettes-par-des-dissensions_1284276_3244.html.

90

-

Tisdall, Simon, “From Celtic tiger to timid puss”, guardian.co.uk, 15 September 2009,

retrieved

22

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/15/irish-lisbon-treatyreferendum.

-

Traylor, Ian & Henry McDonald, “Support falls for EU treaty as Irish get ready for new vote”, guardian.co.uk, 4 September 2009, retrieved 21 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/04/lisbon-treaty-irish-support-falls.

-

Traynor, Ian & Nicholas Watt, “David Miliband shortlisted to be 'foreign minister' of Europe”, guardian.co.uk, 29 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/29/david-miliband-eu-foreignminister.

-

Traynor, Ian and Nicholas Watt, “EU gets Belgian president and British foreign minister as Blair blows out”, guardian.co.uk, 19 November 2009, retrieved 20 January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/19/eu-president-

foreign-minister-ashton1.

-

Traynor, Ian, “Brown and Sarkozy move to fund climate aid with global banking tax”, guardian.co.uk, 11 December 2009, retrieved 22 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/11/tax-climate-aid-brownsarkozy.

-

Traynor, Ian, “Gloves off as EU presidency enters a final round”, guardian.co.uk, 18

November

2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/18/eu-belgium.

-

Traynor, Ian, “Herman Van Rompuy, Belgium's Mr Fixit”, guardian.co.uk, 19 November

2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/19/herman-van-rompuy-eu-president.

91

-

Traynor, Ian, “How Angela Merkel quietly sank Tony Blair's bid to become EU president”, guardian.co.uk, 29 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/29/merkel-sank-blair-eu-bid.

-

Traynor, Ian, “Misery for social democrats as voters take a turn to the right”, The Guardian,

8

June

2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/07/eu-elections-social-democrats.

-

Traynor, Ian, “Vaclav Klaus: How Czech president is fighting on to stop Europe in its tracks”, guardian.co.uk, 14 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/14/vaclav-klaus-lisbon-treaty-czech.

-

Traynor, Ian, “Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of 'shambolic' process to fill key jobs”, guardian.co.uk, 17 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/top-european-job-selectionprocess.

-

Van Renterghem, Marion. “Les Irlandais disent “oui” au traité de Lisbonne”, LeMonde.fr, 3 Octobre 2009.

-

Vidal, John & Allegra. Stratton & Suzanne Goldenberg, “Hopes for strong deal at Copenhagen appear slim as stumbling blocks remain”, guardian.co.uk, 18 December

2009,

retrieved

22

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-treaty-failure.

-

Watt, Nicholas & Ian Traynor, “Tony Blair out of EU race, but Britain provides new foreign minister”, The Guardian, 20 November 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/19/eu-president-foreign-

minister-ashton.

92

-

Watt,

Nicholas,

guardian.co.uk,

“David 4

Cameron

October

retreats

2009,

on

retrieved

European 21

referendum”,

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/04/referendum-lisbon-treatycameron-johnson.

-

Watt, Nicholas, “European council presidency may be just the job for Tony Blair – but he can't ask”, guardian.co.uk, 26 October 2009, retrieved 20 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/26/tony-blair-eu-presidency.

-

Watt, Nicholas, “Tony Blair warned: fight or you'll lose EU job”, guardian.co.uk, 26

October

2009,

retrieved

20

January

2010,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/26/tony-blair-european-unionpresidency.

Interviews

-

Luna, Joaquin, editor-in-chief of International Affairs of La Vanguardia, Barcelona, 22 March 2010.

-

Navarro, Beatriz, Brussels correspondent of La Vanguardia, Brussels, 18 March 2010.

-

Ricard, Philippe, Brussels correspondent of Le Monde, 27 April 2010.

-

Traynor, Ian, Europe editor of The Guardian, Brussels, 27 April 2010.

93

9. Annexes

Brüggemann, Michael; Sifft, Stefanie; Kleinen von Königslöw, Katharina; Peters, Bernhard; Wimmel, Andreas (2006) : Segmented Europeanization: the transnationalization of public spheres in Europe ; trends and patterns / Michael Brüggemann; Stefanie Sifft; Katharina Kleinen, TranState working papers, No. 37, http://hdl.handle.net/10419/24950

94

2009 EP elections Issues that dominated the campaign

La Vanguardia Strong presence of domestic affairs (dispute between the two biggest parties).

Importance attached by the newspaper to the elections

Encouraged citizens to attend the polls (“votes count”).

Reference to campaigns carried out in other member countries

Special attention to electoral campaigns carried out in UK (parliamentary expenses scandal), Italy (Berlusconi’s intimate affairs), France (Bayrou vs. Cohn-Bendit), Germany (parliamentary elections September 2009), the Netherlands (the rise of the extreme right).

Protest vote on some national governments (especially against the left parties),

Evaluation of the results

Topics of debate

Design of the European electoral campaign in Spain (absence of European issues).

Increasing distance of the EU away from its citizens.

The Guardian Parliamentary expenses scandal.

The British policy towards the EU. Cameron’s decision to leave the EPP. “We must take the EU elections seriously”.

The EP is relevant.

Ireland, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland.

Protest vote and victory for mavericks.

Anti-European British electorate.

Mismatch between the aspiration of EU’s leaders and the indifference of its voters.

The election going for the EP was “invisible”.

Lack of EU-wide issues that people can vote for and against.

Inability of the EP at selling itself to the public opinion.

Little understanding of both journalists and national electorate of the EU political decision-making.

95

Le Monde Economic crisis and its social consequences.

Traditional French political divisions.

Blame on the main parties for the citizen’s lack of interest in European affairs.

UK, Germany, The Netherlands.

Increasing Euroscepticism.

EP elections as a challenging test for incumbent governments.

Treaty of Lisbon The causes of the Irish ‘yes’ in 2009

The position of the newspaper in relation to the referendum

La Vanguardia The economic crisis and the concessions obtained from the EU. A new rejection would have plunged the European project into a deep collapse.

The newspaper’s opinion with regard to the Lisbon Treaty and its implementation

“Small institutional revolution that will allow Europe to be more efficient internally and externally and leave behind a long period of isolation”.

Implement the Treaty as soon as possible.

Coverage of the process

Mainly press agencies.

The Guardian The economic crisis.

Le Monde The economic crisis.

“A second no vote would kill off the EU’s big project to shift the way power is wielded in Brussels, and trigger divisions within the EU”.

“The point of Lisbon is to put an end to tedious tinkering at the EU decision-making process, so Europe can start making decisions”.

But… “its birth pangs have been so painful that this child will be the EU’s last”.

The result will be crucial for the future of the EU.

The reorganization under the Treaty of Lisbon will not simplify the functioning of the Union.

Mainly press agencies.

96

Top-jobs Suitability of Tony Blair’s candidacy

The newspaper’s opinion with regard to Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton’s appointments

La Vanguardia Presented as a certain profile of president.

The Guardian Pro: Blair does not need introduction anywhere. There is no candidate to compare.

Con: low political profile of the job and the law credibility of Blair.

“Politically “Europe has failed to unknown, but with show much ambition impeccable services in the two choices and records”. has opted for the path Ashton: urgency to of least resistance in give a post to the interest of an easy London before “an deal”. electoral shift moves the islands further away from the EU”.

About the process of selecting Europe’s first president

The decisions were made behind closed doors.

Implications of both appointments for the EU’s future

“Deliberated” appointment.

“A way to prevent falling into irrelevance would perhaps have been to elect a strong EU president”.

Le Monde Presented as a certain profile of president.

Europe has not chosen a flamboyant president in the person of Herman Van Rompuy and we can not say that Catherine Ashton has been appointed as Minister of Foreign Affairs for her knowledge of diplomacy.

Undemocratic and not Lack of democracy transparent. and transparency.

Vagueness of the jobs. Low political profile of the European Council president post.

Europe will be “Technical relegated to the second designation that division of may be inherent to international powers”. the construction of A great European Europe choosing missed opportunity. the lowest common Victory of the denominator and intergovernmental the solution that approach to the EU would be least rather than of any trouble and the federalist challenge to search for a it. minimum disruption for the national egos of Member States”.

97

Copenhagen climate summit The importance attributed to the EU during the negotiations

La Vanguardia

The Guardian

Le Monde

Among the leading actors of the summit.

References to the EU as a whole.

References to the EU as a whole.

Nicolas Sarkozy occupied a less prominent role.

Evaluation of its contribution

“Only power with important initiatives”.

Although it did not manage to overcome the distrust of China or India.

Presented as the third most influential actor, after the US and China.

But… Attention focused on Gordon Brown’s role.

Criticized for trying to look greener than it really is.

Completely sidelined.

Barely consulted.

98

The EU was unable to communicate its goals.

The EU was marginalized against the US and China.

Lack of preparation. The European leaders were busy on other matters. Absence of the 27. Divisions in Europe.

The EU relied on the US and China on the world’s climate future.