1. Not sure how the EU works or what institutions are involved? –> Just write “Brussels”.

2. Germany is generally seen as important in EU politics and journalists know how to frame it: If Germany is active in a certain policy domain just write something about  “German dominance” and if you work for British newspaper add  some subtle references to the war. If  Germany is passive in a given policy area just write that Germany abandons the EU and it clearly adopted a unilateral strategy, if you work for a British newspaper you could add something about the war.

3. Found a short reference in a paper which talks about your country? –> Is is an evil plan to undermine democracy

4. General rule: No need to distinguish between different European institutions and organisations. Who cares whether it is the Council of Europe, the European Council, the Council of the EU, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union or the European Court of Human Rights . –> Just write something about eurocrats and unelected foreign European judges interfering with your beloved country. [thanks Andrew!]

5. You are in Brussels and there are several events happening at the same time?  –> Well, this is a clear sign that the EU does not address the important issues! (Important issue = event you attend)

6. Unsure what is happening in the EU? –> Don’t bother ringing someone in Brussels. Just make something up about bananas or recycle a story you read half a year ago. If you are ambitious call the press department of one of the parties in your capital or use a recent party pamphlet.

7. Did you come across a controversial statement or an opinion of an MEP or any national MP? –> Start your article with “EU plans to…” or “Country X wants to…” Any MEP or committee must be prefaced by “senior,” “influential” or “key” as long as he/she/it says something confrontational. [thanks Tim Jones]

8. Facts are overrated. Don’t bother checking the original EU policy documents. There is no need to understand differences between white or green papers, a report or a regulation or a directive. It is much easier to write about ‘crazy ideas of EU bureaucrats’.  If you have an idea for a good EU story don’t let facts ruin it. Plus, nobody will check if a EU story is true. Everyone knows that the EU is boring and evil. Moreover, the single aim of the EU is to produce unnessary regulation (generally known as ‘red tape”).

9. Use “EU bureaucrats” or “Brussels bureaucrats” as often as possible. A more experienced lazy journalist would simply refer to ‘Eurocrats‘. (Thanks Gawain) Useful adjectives in this context include “unelected”, “unaccountable”, “corrupt”, “highly-paid”, “highly-pensioned”, “lazy”. This list is not exhaustive and can be adapted to your journalistic needs. You may also use “EU official” or “EU representative” especially if you follow rule 4.

10. Don’t mention that ministers might have a veto over EU policy –> Just write about how the EU destroys national sovereignty.

11. You think that the EU is a bit too complex and everything takes a bit too long? –> Well just focus on zero sum games especially during summits.  One country wins, one country looses. That is life. That’s the EU. Simples.

12. A good headline is key. So always go for the pun or the the odd ‘eurocrats’, ‘empire’ reference. And the fight is always between europhiles and eurosceptics. Keep that in mind.

13. Symbols are more important than substance. Stories about what people had for breakfast or dinner, something about flags or anthems are great examples. Always mix personal stories about EU leaders with national stereotypes and prejudices. You will be surprised: it always works.

14. EU funding is always a great story. There is corruption, waste and funny projects. However, do not mention that projects need co-financing. Also do not try to look at the positive examples, it would just spoil the story. Anyway, EU money is by definition a bad thing. So, don’t try to explain why EU funding exists in the first place.

15. The EU budget as well as the budget negotiations provide many interesting options for lazy journalists. You could write that the EU books have not been signed off for years – without mentioning the auditing rules. Or you could write something about how much money your country pays to be in the EU -  without mentioning that it may get something back. Don’t make the mistake to link to any official cost-benefit calculation. Because if they exist they are must be wrong, if they don’t exist it is generally a conspiracy.  Rather use a statement from another newspaper or dodgy think tank. Just don’t ask any questions. Never think about what the EU could do with the money, just assume that “Brussels wastes all the money it gets”.  Budget negotiations are zero sum games, so rule 11 applies. There is no such thing as the “European interest”.

16. The single market means competition which might include foreign companies winning tenders in your country. If that happens just focus on the foreign element of that company. Make some claims about corruption.  Write about how many jobs will be lost. No need to mention that new jobs will be created. If you are an ambitious lazy journalist write about how EU competition laws are made to destroy your local economy.

17. Don’t bother learning a foreign language. It is not useful in EU journalism. You can always rely on international news agencies.

18. Subscribe to all ‘think tanks’ and ‘business associations’ which are highly regarded among your collegues. From time to time, just ‘write’ (copy/paste) short articles. Don’t include links to your sources.

19. Context is overrated. Headlines are more important. Just go for the best quotes – no context needed. If you have a great quote from last week, you can still use it. No need to check whether current events have moved on.

20. A beginners mistake is to engage with the opposite side or with critics of your work. So, just don’t do it.

The second part of the ‘short guide to lazy EU journalism’ will be published in the coming weeks on this blog and might focus on the recent “Eurocrisis”. Use the comments below to share your tips how to become a lazy EU journalist or how to cover the eurocrisis as lazy journalist.  This would give me the opportunity to plagiarise your ideas in the next blog post.

Update 20/11/2011 – 25/11/2011: Well, it seems that ‘#lazyEUjournalism’ is indeed a pan-European issue.  Consequently the ‘short guide’ was translated into several European languages! Thanks to all bloggers and translators!

DE: Ein kurzer Leitfaden zu faulem EU-Journalismus – Vielen Dank, opalkatze!

FR: Comment faire du journalisme européen paresseux, en 20 points – Merci beaucoup, Fabrize! 

IT: Short guide to lazy EU journalism ovvero come fare del giornalismo europeo di pessima qualita – Grazie, Francesca!

RO: Cum să scrii despre UE când ai o maximă lene …   - Mulțumesc, Roxana!

ES: Kosmopolito denuncia el periodismo basura europe |europa451.es

NL: Korte handleiding voor luie EU-journalisten | Presseurop

HR: Kratki vodič za komotno novinarstvo o EU - Hvala, Srdjan!

Inspired by this post there are several adaptations which discuss in how far the guide applies to different national public spheres:

NO: EU for late journalister | europabloggen

CZ: Příručka pro líné EU novináře | respekt.cz 

1. Most people do not understand economics, monetary politics or EU politics – including journalists.

2. A lot of investors and market participants  don’t understand politics – let alone EU decision-making. (hint: it is a long process…)

3. The media system has a tendency to simplify and sensationalize – both: economics and EU politics. Plus there is a 24h news cycle which increases the need for new and exclusive stories. And social media does also not contribute to a more thoughtful debate. In fact the more sensationalist a story is the more relevant it becomes for twitter etc. And nobody seems to care whether it is an outdated story or not!

4. Journalists read English-speaking newspapers because it is the language of the ‘markets’.

5. Many UK journalists have a problem understanding the EU. Some of them do not want to understand it. But most of them work in  ‘market -relevant’ media outlets.

6. Markets operate in English: Investors tend to read English papers and analysis. They don’t understand EU politics and read stuff from people who don’t understand it either.

7. The evil cycle begins: Something happens – uninformed journalist report about it, be it EU or Euro or both  – the media system sensationalizes  it – analysts and ‘markets’ read it and act upon it – crisis deepens – politicians have no chance to influence the cycle because whatever they say – they tend to meet uninformed and ignorant journalists who willfully sensationalize the story in order to please the 24h news cycle…

* Please note: Text includes sarcasm, exaggerations, untrue statements and general insults.  However, over consumption can cause severe depression and the desire to emigrate. Just to clarify: there are many good journalists out there.

Anyway, it was a world premiere:  The  first time ever that bloggers were accredited (as bloggers!) to an official EU institution! OK, it was just a pilot project but nevertheless a very interesting endeavour – now a lot depends on whether the EU institutions continue the process and whether there are actually enough bloggers that would be interested.  At the moment I am quite optimistic for the former but not for the latter.

If you have not followed the story: The idea of getting a press accreditation for bloggers at EU institutions has been discussed for quite a while in the blogosphere and within the institutions.  The #EUpilot however would not have happened without the Hungarian Council Presidency.  As part of their “Blogger outreach” (also a novelty in the institutional machinery in Brussels!) they organised several background briefings with Bloggingportal.eu editors and other bloggers (unfortunately I missed all of them so far…) Anyway blogger press accreditation would have not been possible without these meetings and the determined officials of the Hungarian Council presidency.  Thanks a lot for this – and let’s hope other presidencies and other institutions (!) learn from this pilot project! (It is actually a weird twist that the most secretive EU institution was involved in the pilot project – and not the most obvious one: the European Parliament!)

What happened in the Council you might ask? Well, this week there were two bloggers that covered the EU Competitiveness Council (and parts of the Foreign Affairs Council). But you should really read the original stuff including the preparatory blogging and the live tweeting:

Preparatory blogging: I, II (and a  German translation!)

Live blogging day 1

Live blogging day 2

#EUpilot on twitter

So, thanks a lot @ronpatz and @europasionaria for a great blogging and tweeting coverage! Let’s hope that some journalists read the stuff and re-consider their strategies on how to cover council meetings – and how to make it more interactive and interesting. It is really not rocket science

But why is this pilot project so important?

My two basic (and possibly naive) cents:  Treating bloggers like journalists is important because of two reasons. First of all, bloggers are citizens and basically every citizen can become a blogger without much effort. (ok, you need to open a blog and start writing…) The point is that not only journalists but also non-journalists have access to formerly restricted institutional environments. You don’t need to work for a newspaper or have a press pass to have access. Second, it can be a (small and symbolic) step for  institutions to open up to normal citizens. Not because it is that exciting to cover press conferences and do some doorstep interviews – no because it can help demystifying  institutional practices and it can become useful in challenging myths. It might even improve press coverage and can increase public scrutiny (at least theoretically). Obviously if we think about transparency in EU institutions this is hardly enough – a lot of other stuff remains to be done!

Now, what is the the way forward?

First of all, I think, we need to spread the word a bit. For the EU institutions it was quite an achievement. At the same time it is good to know that with a bit of determination a handful of officials can make things happen. So please spread the word.

The aim is to get a permanent, institutionalised and easy procedure that would allow bloggers to have the same rights as accredited journalists within the EU institutions.

But we also need to get more bloggers on board. Not only ‘eurobloggers’ but also subject specialists. Most EU policies are sector specific, so coverage is often difficult for generalists – and generalists do not necessarily contribute to a better media coverage. We hope there will be similar opportunities so if you are a blogger and you want to get involved in future events and campaigns do follow bloggingportal and/or contact us!

The problem is obviously Brussels. Most bloggers that might consider participating in such a process do not live in Brussels. Travelling to some EU meeting is out of the question – it is a budget and a time issue. Most bloggers do have proper jobs. So even if the EU opens up for bloggers I suspect that not many will take advantage of this.  Somehow a blogging link between the EU level and the national and subject spheres needs to be established. Any ideas are most appreciated – although there are enough ideas but not enough people that get involved.

Now BrusselsLeaks is back with a new website and a new logo!  Well, the logo is rather basic and it looks like the Ukrainian flag turned upside down.

A couple of weeks ago we wrote a lenghty post about brusselsleaks in which we critisised some of its  features. As far as I can see it the most crucial problems have not (yet) been addressed. (https is nice, but not using tor remains a security flaw!)

The new website  is based on the wikileaks theme (not sure whether that is such a good idea as it looks like a copy cat now) and the first item is a mirrored cable – originally published by wikileaks (not sure why it is there). Let’s hope this is just a test and the real stuff is coming soon…

More problematic for a website dedicated to leaking documents is the usage of google analytics. Google analytics   can be used to trace back visitors and it generates very  detailed (some might say too detailed!) user reports. The problem with Google Analytics can be practical (if someone hacks into your GA account or gets hold of the google account password) or indeed legal (you might be required to hand over the logs, or google might help some investigators without telling you …you never know!) – both scenarios are certainly no good news  for any potential whistle-blower.

If you’ve seen, heard or read an outstanding report on the European Union that deserves wider recognition, then we’d like to hear from you.

The Reporting Europe Prize honours outstanding critical or supportive journalism on any aspect of the European Union.

Nomination deadline: 4th March 2011

Previous winners include Allan Little (BBC) James Kanter(International Herald Tribune) and David Rennie, (The Economist). It is worth noting that David Rennie got the award for his Charlemagne blog/column.  A couple of years ago Nosemonkey was also nominated for an award.  It seems that the jury considers blogs  – so if you remember any outstanding blog post/blogs do not hesitate to nominate a blog!

OpenLeaks 101 from openleaks on Vimeo.

Update: Technically it is not a leak at all as the content is freely available on the OpenLeaks server, it is not password protected and not linked to the main page (the link is also provided in the pdf file) (via netzpolitik)

If you want to read more about openleaks also have a look at this  interesting interview with Daniel Domscheit-Berg over  at techpresident. Daniel also gave a presentation on openleaks at  27C3 in December 2010:

In the meantime the European Commission started reviewing the controversial Hungarian media law and it just happened that the official letter of Neelie Kroes has been leaked to the Hungarian daily Népszabadság.

The letter (pdf) can be found here.

In the letter the European Commission asks the Hungarian authorities for “clarifications” on several issues:

• Obligation of balanced coverage applicable to all audiovisual media services
• Country of origin principle
• Registration requirements

It concludes with the statement that “Commission services have serious doubts as to the compatibility of the Hungarian legislation with Union law” . Furthermore, the European Commission “invites the Hungarian government to submit within two weeks observations on how these serious doubts may be addressed ”

A couple of bloggingportal editors will be meeting with some representatives of the Hungarian Council presidency later this week. If you have any questions you would like us to ask – feel free to use the comments below or contact bloggingportal (email, twitter, facebook)!

A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother’s basements and ranting.They are very angry people.

OK – the country is full of very angry people. Many of us are angry people at times. Some of us are angry and drunk.

But the so-called citizen journalism is the spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night. (…)  Terrible things are said on line because they are anonymous. People say things on line that they wouldn’t dream of saying in person.

So, what if political scientists covered EU news in newspapers in that way?

(no, unfortunately I don’t have time to write something…possibly something for my to-do list

and while we’re at it:

1. There is a difference between the European Council, the Council of the EU and the Council of Europe – just look it up! Try to get your facts straight about the rotating presidency and EU terminology in general.

2. The Polish and  Czech parliaments approved the Lisbon treaty already! Only 2 signatures are missing.  So, please don’t write that both countries  still need to vote on the treaty…

3. And while we are at it: Do your research on the competences of the Czech president (hint: Czech constitution, some basics on parliamentary vs. presidential systems)

4. There is no actual link between the Irish Yes and a European Council President Blair – The treaty merely creates the position of a European Council President and not, I repeat: NOT: EU president, President of Europe etc.) Actually, the position is more like a permanent chairman… Tony Blair seems to be one of the people that are interested in getting the job. So try to get hold of other nominees as well! If you write a opinion piece you might want to check the issue of open nominations and the stopblair petition (more arguments against Blair here).

5. Anyway, forget about the “European Council president” for a moment.  It is much more important who will be nominated for the new Commission. And who will be the next High Representative for Foreign Affairs. All of these jobs are actually more powerful than the European Council president.

Thank you!

Not only acronyms are an art form but also normal EU terminology can be tricky. Language plays an important role in constructing a certain image of the EU and journalists and bloggers should be aware of that.  The correct use of terms is a necessity for understanding  political processes in the EU and a basis for every interpretation of “the beast”.  The following list is a first step to clarify some confusing terms. So let’s start with some basic terms which caught my eye in the last weeks:

- The right term is “President of the European Council” – not EU president, not President of Europe, not Council President. The European Council is one EU institution and its president only presides over this particular institution. (Obviously the European Council should not to be confused with the Council of Europe or the Council of the EU!) Journalists should also mention the (unfinished) job description and the possible lack of power of the post when writing about certain personalities… Anyway, another fact is that probably every other top position in the EU has more power that this new European Council President.

- The (6-month) rotating presidencies of the Council of the European Union will not be abolished with the Treaty of Lisbon, they will merely be transformed. The rotating presidencies will still be in charge of all Council of the EU meetings (which is another institution!). The ‘European Council President’ will only chair the ‘European Council’ (“EU summit”) which happens 4 times a year. The only thing that the rotating presidencies will not be able to do seems to be connected with foreign policy, as the new “President” and the new “Foreign Minister” will set the agenda there. So, I guess the danger is that the media might ignore the (less political) rotating presidencies in the future!

- The Council of the European Union (the institution with the rotating presidencies…) consists of national ministers (shocking!). Depending on the policy area, the respective national minster (or ambassador) has a veto during the EU decision making process. Journalists and Bloggers often forget that national representatives are at the heart of EU decision making. EU bashing from national politicians that were present in the respective Council meeting  should be exposed more regularly! And don’t think that the various national ministries are not involved from a very early stage of a EU policy initiative… So, any article with a headline like “EU imposes [law x] on [member state y] ” is wrong and misleading!

- “Brussels” is a city and not a political system.  However “Brussels” seems to be the term for all journalists that (sometimes deliberately) do not care about which EU institution  is actually involved. Often used as a substitute for the EU as a whole.  Most of the time however, news labeled with “Brussels decides…” involves only decisions by the European Commission or the Council of the European Union, usually neglecting the influence of the European Parliament.  “Brussels” as a term comes with a notorious EU-skeptic connotation. So be aware of it if you use it in an article. So, better check which institution you mean and at what stage of the policy making process a certain proposal is!

- Federalism – If you think federalism equals centralism which leads to some sort of EU super state, think again and get your facts straight:

Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two authorities. (more)

I know federalism is a controversial term in the UK and I think most of the confusion comes from a wrong understanding of the term. (the infamous “f-word”…) Generally, people that live in federal states seem to have a better grasp of the concept (examples: Australia, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, USA). The thing is that a federal system is only a description for a structure (and not necessarily an ideology). The problem is not whether something is federal or not, the real (ideological) problem is what should be decided on which level.  A lot depends on the distribution of authority. But this distributional debate should not be called ‘federal’.’ [Anyway, on a EU level it seems that the debate between intergovernmentalism and federalism is pretty much outdated and new multi-level governance (MLG) or network approaches are more useful to explain EU politics. - OK, this is rather academic - but also journalists should be aware of these debates to be able to report EU politics more clearly!]

More explanations for EU-Jargon can be found here. If you are not sure how to translate a certain piece of EU terminology in your native language why not check this database (which is called IATE – Inter-Active Terminology for Europe)? Buying a EU textbook could also be a good idea…

…to be continued…

• First page (1 page)
• Topic of the day (1 page)
• 3rd page (1 page)
• Domestic Politics (1 page)
• “Landespolitik”  (politics on the state level – here: Baden Württemberg )
• Foreign policy (1 page)
• Glossy news from around the world (2 pages)
• Letters (1 page)

• Economy (7 pages)

• Stuttgart (5 pages)
• Stuttgart Region (1 page)
• Baden Württemberg (2 pages)
• Letters/Stuttgart (1 page)
• Discoveries (1 page)
• Reportage/ feature (1 page)

• Culture (2 pages)
• Film (1 page)
• Media (1 page)
• Agenda (1 page)
• Sport (3 pages)

Hmm, ok it is a typical newspaper structure baring in mind the local/regional approach. So what happens with important EU news? If there is a EU summit – topic of the day or first page maybe, the rest of EU news can sometimes be found in the economy or foreign policy (which should be called “international”…) sections. The question I have is the following:

Why not include a daily EU politics page in the first part of the paper?

One page every day (or at least every other day)? It could be the perfect newspaper structure looking at local-regional-national-European-International dimensions! Considering how much is decided on a EU level I find it shocking that newspapers do not report regularly about the EU. And with ‘regularly’ I mean daily – not only during EU summits and EP plenary sessions! And only a change in the structure of the newspaper can introduce a constant reporting. Nowadays, the media happily neglects day to day EU politics. ( Did I hear “fourth power” somewhere?)

I know there is a whole issue whether regional newspapers can afford a journalist based in Brussels? Then again, most press conferences are streamed online, most documents can be found online,  EU institutions are responsive to phone calls and emails. And there are a lot of freelance journalists in Brussels that are desperate for jobs… And let’s not forget: EU funding, EU projects and EU policies have a regional dimension. Only if there is a constant flow of EU news, people become aware of what is going on in the EU institutions. An EU page would also “force” journalists to come up with stories more regularly. There would also be a forum for the local MEPs to be present in the public debate. If you (as a newspaper editor) want to change something and get EU news in the paper there are many different possibilities!

I have written about the EU ignorance of newspaper editors before and I will keep an eye on it.  But as long as regional newspapers like the Stuttgarter Zeitung refuse to include the EU in the structure of the paper nothing will change regarding knowledge and ignorance of citizens (and journalists). The relaunch of the StZ is therefore a missed opportunity to address this problem. (Well, the main problem is probably that this was not even an issue when they thought about the relaunch…)

I would be interested whether there are newspapers with a regular “EU page”? (not a ‘Europe page’ with random stories from different European countries!) Comments are open…

The German Marshall Fund  of the United States (GMF) also published a ‘Moldovan NGO statement’: A Sustainable Solution to Political Crisis in Moldova Due to security concerns, the organisations behind it are not named.

One of the worrying developments in Moldova seems to be the deteriorating situation for journalists. Reporters without Borders “is very disturbed that the Moldovan authorities have been arresting journalists and even using violence against them.”

According to Nicu Popescu, several cyber attacks were carried out against Moldovan news sites. He also reports about FT and BBC journalists that were not allowed to enter the country.

At a panel with the ‘traditional’ media the question came up whether established media cover EU affairs in-depth enough? The question was primarily directed to the chief editor of De Standaard, one of the biggest Belgian newspapers (based in Brussels) but with quite a poor record of EU coverage and with only one (!) journalist covering the EU.

So what did Peter Vandermeersch, chief editor of  De Standaard answer? Basically he avoided answering the question (“don’t think we have a poor record…hahaha”) and instead compared the EU with the ‘obscure’ topic of Latvian poems claiming that an editor has to make editorial decisions and needs to listen to the customers (not readers or citizens!) – And he continues: “Latvian poems can be beautiful but are not relevant…”

In that moment Hans Laroes, head of news and editor in chief of NOS Niewus, one of the Dutch public broadcasters, jumped in to ‘help’ his colleague by saying that “the media does not like free trips by the EU”.. obviously a comment that neither answers the question nor shows a huge deal of professionalism.

So, first of all, both journalists clearly fail to understand the significance of the EU. Furthermore it is questionable if such an arrogant and ignorant behavior towards the EU can be justified with any journalistic ethos.

At the same time I am wondering whether this attitude is widespread among editors of newpapers/broadcasters? If it is a common thing it is hardly surprising that we are faced with poor EU reporting and a lack of public debate/knowledge about the EU!

• Half of the reporters covering European affairs have been doing it for less than 5 years.
• Only 10% read EU blogs
• Many journalists say their audiences are interested in the EU but not well informed about it, and that journalists’ bosses are hardly any better informed than their readers, viewers and listeners.
• 43% of the polled journalists would like to learn more about “The balance of  power between EU institutions”, only 13% want to learn more about the Single Market, the budget and trade issues.
• A relative minority of journalists cover issues related to business regulation, fisheries, development and humanitarian aid.
• Almost half of the journalists produce one or more stories a day.
• What are the most important sources for story ideas? Blogs are seen by  3% as “very important”, by 4% as “often important”, 30% say Blogs are “sometimes important” and the majority of 63% say they are “not important”.
• European Institutions get quite good grades for the quality of the information they provide.
• Webcasts and podcasts as well as conference calls are relatively unimportant for EU journalists.
• The best communicator of European affairs is… the European Commission, but at the same time a solid majority of journalists surveyed feel it does a poor job of communicating with the public.

Click here for more results of the survey (pdf).