European integration & the media; the Dutch perspective*

In the aftermath of the referendum on the Constitutional Treaty in the Netherlands, people all around the European continent seemed baffled by the outcome. How was it possible that the citizens of one of the founding countries of the European Union - one might even say a country that had always been considered a model of compliance with European integration – rejected the ‘Constitution’? Even more unsettling perhaps than the mere refusal by the electorate was the turnout, which proved substantially higher than during the elections for the European Parliament the previous year. Not only did the Dutch turn the proposition at hand down, they did so in large numbers. Who is to blame (or should be praised if you like) for the outcome?

Accusations

It may come as no surprise that in the days after the referendum accusations where directed at the politicians and political parties in favour of the Constitution. Their campaigns were said to be lacking in enthusiasm, to contain too many difficult explanations in their information leaflets and to be unable to really connect with the electorate. Such an explanation filled me with a feeling of injustice however, not so much out of sympathy for the powers that be, but simply because it is too easy. However big the role of politicians in the public debate, there are two more parties involved here: the public itself and the media. In my humble opinion, the media (in the Netherlands at least) have disregarded the European integration process for too long, which may have caused the apparent apathy among the public.

Media

For this article I lean heavily on the work of Norris** who states that there are ‘three basic roles for the news media: as a civic forum encouraging pluralistic debate about public affairs, as a watchdog against the abuse of power, and as a mobilizing agent encouraging public learning and participation in the political process.’ When we shift our focus away from national news coverage and look at the situation in the European Union we are confronted with some severe problems. In our daily lives we can relate things like taxes, prices shifts and criminality to national policy-making rather easily. European policy-making seems to be something vague and far away however, for we only get acquainted with it when it is finally implemented by national governments. Therefore it is much more difficult for the public to identify with policies from Brussels than with national policies, let alone to understand how the institutions of the European Union function! This means that the (meagre) media coverage of the European institutions and policies determines our image of those institutions and policies to a far greater extent than is the case with national politics. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that the little information we do receive seems to focus on issues in which ‘Brussels is meddling in national affairs.’

Change

In order to influence or change the public attitude at the aggregate level, Norris states, three interrelated conditions must be met, and I quote:

1. The news media need to provide reasonably extensive coverage of each issue.
2. The coverage that is provided needs to display a consistent directional bias.
3. The public needs to be attentive to news cues, as compared with other types of information, such as those provided by parties, political leaders, specialist consultants, social and political groups, interpersonal communications, objective conditions, and personal experiences. (p. 183)

This notion provides us with a manual for analysing the influence of the media on the outcome of the referendum on the European Constitution in the Netherlands.

Newspapers

It will come as no surprise that the referendum received a lot of news coverage. In general, elections and referenda tend to create a unique momentum in democratic societies that attracts a lot of attention from the media. This was not the case with the elections for the European Parliament the year before however. With a simple test I will try to provide you with a possible explanation for the differences between both events. I wish to stress however that this little examination has no academic pretensions. I think it is a useful exercise none the less.

Online

By searching through the articles of the most important daily newspapers of the Netherlands online, I was able to investigate the amount of articles that had been published in the month previous to the elections for the European Parliament of the 10th of June 2004 (period 1), and in the month previous to the referendum of the 1st of June 2005 (period 2). For obvious reasons, the search criteria could not be the same unfortunately. For the elections I used the following search criteria: elections, European, and parliament. For the referendum I used: referendum and Constitution. The articles that emerge with a simple test like these are, to say the least, quite varied in nature. Articles might have been on the front page or somewhere in the margin. They may have had an accompanying photograph or not. They differ, in other words, in every way they can in a newspaper.

Results

For period 1, the total amount of articles was 264 and in the second period 1007 results were found. This comes down to a staggering difference of 743 articles. The two so-called ‘quality newspapers’ of the Netherlands made up for the bulk (42%) of the articles in the second period by the way. The first condition as expressed by Norris seems to be fully met looking at the results. To prove a consistent directional bias in the articles additional research is needed, but on the basis of the material I was able to read myself I would guess that the general tone is a negative one. Negative about the campaign of our national politicians and negative about the European Union as a whole. Whether the public was attentive to news cues would be something for further research as well, although in my eyes this point bears less importance than the first two.

Interpretation

What does this all mean? The debate on the European Union focuses to a large extent on the so-called democratic deficit and the apparent apathy of the public towards its institutions. On top of that, Eurobarometer poll’s show declining support for European integration. My guess would be that the organisation of the various referenda (at least in the Netherlands) should be understood in the light of the fear that the European Union might lack legitimacy.

Task

Whether you regret the outcome of the Dutch referendum or not, it is a fact that it sparked a much-needed public debate. Furthermore, the referendum has proven that such a debate about Europe is possible as long as the media devotes enough attention to it. Structural news covering of what is going on in the European Union and its institutions may contribute to a healthy public debate, solve a little bit of the problem of the democratic deficit and may even result in more support for European integration. A task not to be taken lightly!

Ruben de Winther, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

* This article is an abstract of a paper written for a course on European Politics at the University of Amsterdam.
** Pippa Norris, A Virtuous Circle, political communications in postindustrial societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)

This article was published in Politeia Newsletter 39 - October 2005