Mr. Fritz-Vannahme, you once said that the lives of correspondents in Brussels fluctuate between “boredom and fascination”. Why does the European Union vary to such extremes for journalists?
It lies in the structure of the European Union, which can’t be understood at first sight. Virtually everyone I know who comes to Brussels takes at least a year to develop his own EU mind map. That sounds a bit surprising at first. After all, every journalist knows the big institutions, such as the European Commission or the European Parliament. But there are also 27 member states and various partners, such as the USA, China or Switzerland, who are represented in Brussels as well and engage in political activity there. The European Union is neither a federal state nor a confederation of states – it’s something quite special. So you have to learn to cope with that to begin with. All the bureaucratic procedures and all the regulations can become quite boring. But it’s fascinating to work in this conglomeration of cultures and languages. All of the countries bring their own history and stories along, and they are all working together to shape the same thing: Europe. That balances out the boring aspects.
Although the influence of the European Union on national politics is increasing, journalistic coverage tends to be subdued towards the EU. Is the EU project impossible to convey in the media?
Time and again people claim that reporting on the EU is declining. But I don’t think it is. On the contrary, I think it’s actually increasing, though it’s not exactly making the headlines. It certainly seems far more interesting to spend weeks reporting on the choice of candidates for the American presidency than on the choice of candidates for a president of the European Commission. The lack of personalization in European politics makes it difficult to associate particular topics with specific people. What’s more, Brussels isn’t excitingly photogenic. Too little happens to make it interesting for television coverage. But the media are dependent on images.
Could it be that journalists in the European news departments simply don’t take the topic seriously enough?
Sometimes journalists in Brussels are almost too keen on detail. I think the problem lies in their news departments at home. Why? Because Brussels’ decisions land on the desks of the local editors, but they usually have no idea how the decisions came about. If these journalists were better informed, the content of many of the critical reports about the Eurocrats and their seemingly incomprehensible decisions would look quite different. That’s why I constantly call for a definite improvement in training on the EU, especially among journalists at the local level.
What about the readers, listeners, Internet users – doesn’t the EU interest them?
Oh yes, definitely! And their interest in the European Union is actually growing. But all too often the EU isn’t explained to them enough. This makes the situation tricky – it leads to diffuse opinions. And lack of understanding results in rejection. You often hear people saying: “There’s no escape from Europe.” It expresses a kind of helplessness, but it also shows that something has grown with Europe, something that has long become a part of everyday life. And then there’s the frustration at not being able to influence either the decisions or the important questions surrounding personnel in the European Union.
So a European public can only emerge when leading EU figures are directly elected?
Yes, that’s what it boils down to eventually. Things have already been improved by the treaty reform. We’ll have a prominent representative for EU foreign policy, and we’ll have an EU Council President who will spend two-and-a-half years in office. These figures are far more visible. The next step has to be the direct election either of the Council President or the European Commission President. I’m convinced that this will come about in the next four years.
Is it essential for Europeans to mutually identify themselves with the grand political EU project through the media in order for the community of states to survive?
I definitely warn against ordering something like that from above. The Commission has already tried it, but people quickly see through such things as marketing. I see the development of a European identity as something more indirect. We have identical debates on major topics in all of the member states. We have discussions on the war in Afghanistan, on climate protection. The concerns of Europeans in the respective national media are identical in many respects. And that is the beginning of a mutual identity. We share the same worries and we have to find the same solutions.
