Global Eyes

On Friday I was in Vienna to pick up an Erasmus EuroMedia Award for an e-magazine I edit on EU communications issues. It’s called Opinion Corner and is published by Mostra, a Brussels-based communications agency.

The latest edition of the magazine focuses on how the rest of the world views the EU and features interviews with Balkan musician Goran Bregovic, branding guru Simon Anholt and journalists, politicians and analysts in Moscow, Istanbul, Ankara, Washington DC, Brussels and London. We also carried out street interviews in Burkina Faso, Mexico, China and Egypt to find out what ordinary people make of the EU.

It may come as a surprise to Europeans – many of whom are lukewarm about the EU project and gloomy about its future prospects – to learn that the European Union is viewed in an overwhelmingly positive light across the globe.

In a poll carried out by Globescan for the BBC World Service in April 2010, citizens in all but two of the 28 countries surveyed said they had a mainly positive opinion about the EU’s influence in the world. Only Germany was judged more benignly in the poll, with 53% of respondents saying the EU had a ‘positive’ and 18% saying it had a ‘negative’ influence in the world.

A more recent poll conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2009 confirms the EU’s popularity worldwide – although public opinion is not as positive as the Globescan survey. Majorities or pluralities in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed said they had a favourable view of the European Union.

Before EU public relations folk crack open the champagne, they should remember that:

• This enthusiasm is coupled with widespread ignorance about what the European Union is and does.
• Much of the fuzzy feeling towards the EU is due to the fact that people see it as synonymous with the continent of Europe – which evokes images of wealth, beauty, culture and history.
• Support for the EU is haemorrhaging in the Wider Middle East. The five countries that view the Union most unfavourably – Pakistan, Egypt, Palestine, Turkey and Jordan – are all predominantly Muslim countries. In Pakistan, only nine percent of respondents said they had a positive opinion of the Union, according to the 2009 Pew poll. 72% of Jordanians and 57% of Palestinians said they viewed the EU unfavourably, despite the billions of dollars Brussels has pumped into the West Bank.

Foreign policy experts we interviewed in Washington DC, Moscow, London, Brussels and Turkey also had a much dimmer view of the EU than citizens. Among the criticisms levelled at the bloc are that it is obsessed by internal issues, projects a weak and ineffectual image, fails to live up to its high ideals and is incapable of communicating what it actually stands for. “The ability of the EU to project itself as a brand is quite pitiful,” says Martin Walker, Senior Director of the Global Business Policy Council.

There was also a quasi-unanimous view that the Lisbon treaty has created more, not less confusion and that the appointments of EU president Herman Van Rompuy and foreign policy chief Cathy Ashton – two “unknown, uninspriring entities” according to the European Policy Centre’s Shada Islam – was a missed opportunity for the EU to raise its international profile. “The hope was that Lisbon would make the EU role in the world clearer,” says Tomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform in London. “That hasn’t happened.”

The EU still remains a good global brand. It is viewed positively by most citizens in most states. It is envied for its relative peace and prosperity and provides a model for regions seeking closer economic integration. Unlike Russia, China and the United States, it is viewed as a non-threatening actor on the international stage.

However, in recent years, the EU’s image has taken something of a knock as a result of the navel-gazing leading to the adoption of the Lisbon treaty and the confusion following it, the global financial crisis, Greece’s economic meltdown – and the EU’s belated attempts to rescue it – and the Union’s continued inability to punch its weight on the world stage. This lack of confidence is reflected in opinion polls, with the latest survey by Globescan showing a four-point drop in positive views towards the EU.

So what can be done to polish up the EU’s image abroad and improve the way it conducts public diplomacy? As the European diplomatic corps sets up shop, the experts we spoke to offered the following advice:

• Don’t be afraid to take hard decisions and use hard power. Says Valasek: “Foreign Policy is not a Eurovision Song Contest.”
• Align brand EU (boring, bureaucratic) much more closely with brand Europe (beautiful, buzzing.)
• Focus less on process and more on action.
• Communicate better abroad – send diplomats abroad who can engage with locals not just talk tariffs and quotas.

Ultimately the EU will be judged around the world for what it achieves, rather than how it communicates. But until the European Union learns to engage with citizens in language they can understand and relate to, few people will ever know what it does and stands for.

 

 

Soot, sweat and sausages

I have spent most of the week in Belgrade media training officials from assorted ministries and regional authorities. Of course, slick communications skills are no substitute for sound policies. But if ever there was a European country in need of better PR it is Serbia.

Tell anyone you’re going to this land-locked state and they will warn you to ‘be careful’ – as if it was still at war. In most people’s minds the former Yugoslav republic conjures up images of Balkan mayhem, riotous music and former dictator Slobodan Milosevic, who was ousted 10 years ago this month. One ministry official told me that on a recent visit to the United States a woman asked her what country she was from. When she said ‘Serbia’ the American replied: “I’m so sorry.”

Some of Serbia’s lousy PR is self-inflicted. It did cause havoc in the Balkans in the 1990s. It could have done more to bring alleged war criminals Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic to justice. And its refusal to accept Kosovo’s independence – supported by an overwhelming majority of Kosovars – is seen by many as a refusal to accept reality.

Sunday’s bloody scuffles between neo-fascist thugs and police on the margins of Belgrade’s first gay pride parade in almost a decade will have reinforced many people’s beliefs that this volatile corner of south-east Europe is simply not ready for EU membership. The cancellation of a football match between Italy and Serbia Tuesday due to loutish behaviour by Serb hooligans has also not helped matters. “This is the Balkans, not Europe,” explained my taxi driver apologetically after talking at length about the incidents.

Well, yes and no. Serbia certainly is a Balkan country – and very proud of it. A T-shirt for sale on the Kneza Mihailova drag – Belgrade’s Ramblas – proclaims: “Fuck Coke, Fuck Pizza, We drink Slivovice.” On a street nicknamed ‘silicon valley’ peroxide women with too much make-up and too little clothes parade themselves in front of guys with bulging wallets and biceps. Turbo folk blasts out of the riverside barge clubs and mournful gypsy music from the tourist traps on Skadarska Street. Everywhere there is the same sweet smell of sweat, soot and sausages you find across this corner of Europe. Horns are beeped, arms are waved and decisions are delayed. “We still have a Turkish mentality,” says one woman, referring to the centuries of Ottoman occupation.

Serbia’s recent past has also cemented the idea that this country will be forever revolting, splintering, invading, sulking and scheming. “The Balkans produce more history than they can consume,” said Winston Churchill. In the last 20 years Serbia alone has witnessed conflicts with three of its neighbours, a civil war pitting Serb against Kosovar, NATO bombings – the effects of which are still very visible in downtown Belgrade – international isolation, hyper-inflation, the communist dictatorship of Milosevic, a quiet revolution to oust him, the assassination of its first prime minister and the break-away of Kosovo and Montenegro. “I survived two wars by my mid-twenties, so of course we’re happy to be at peace” my interpreter tells me.

So Serbia is very much part of the Balkans. But it is also a distinctly European country. Belgrade has a very central European feel to it with its grand boulevards, Habsburg buildings, Austro-Hungarian cuisine and pot-pourri mix of peoples. The people look European and act European, spilling out of cafes and clubs, smoking and drinking coffee, heading for trams and metros while arguing about the past. I certainly felt more at home in Belgrade than in Bucharest or Sofia – two existing EU capitals.

As Serbia busies itself for future EU membership – its application was tabled in December and candidate status is expected within a year – it deserves to be embraced by the international community, as Hilary Clinton did during a visit to Belgrade this week. “The U.S. appreciates Serbia. Not only because of its outstanding history but, what’s more important because of its enormous potential,” said the Secretary of State. “We are absolutely convinced, not only that Serbia can become a member of the EU but also a leader in Europe.”

Of course there are potential roadblocks over the future status of Kosovo and the capture of Mladic. But these should not be insurmountable obstacles and they are much more likely to be solved by a Serbia on route to EU membership than by a country with its back turned to Europe.

 

“Europe! Europe! Europe!”

I don’t watch much golf but I always make an exception for the Ryder Cup – the biennial tournament that pits Europe against the United States.

Most of the commentary this year has been about the lousy weather – although one wonders what the organisers were expecting when they decided to stage the competition in a river valley at the foot of a barren Welsh mountain in the beginning of October. I am from Swansea, 50 kilometres to the west. It is the wettest city in Britain. Living in Brussels feels positively balmy in comparison.

On one level the Ryder Cup is about a bunch of middle-aged men from one side of the Atlantic trying to put balls in holes in less shots than a bunch of middle-aged men from the other side.  But on another, slightly more nerdy level, it makes an absolutely fascinating political spectacle.

For a start the European side has adopted the EU flag as its symbol – conveniently forgetting that almost half the countries of Europe are not are in the Union. Usually the only people you’ll see waving the EU flag voluntarily are young federalists and kids attending the European School in Brussels. But during the Ryder Cup, alongside the occasional Welsh, English or Spanish flag, the dominant symbol is dark blue with 12 gold stars on it. It is everywhere – on adverts, insignia and scoreboards and on players’ sweaters, baseball caps and jackets. The only times I’ve seen more European Union flags emblazoned on more people is on EU electoral observation missions in dodgy countries.

“Europe! Europe! Europe!” hollered fans at the Celtic Manor course outside Newport. OK, it doesn’t have quite the same ring to it as “U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!” but it is quite staggering nonetheless. Although Wales has benefited mightily from EU largesse it is still in Britain – the EU’s most eurosceptic state.

One of the reasons former French president Charles de Gaulle vetoed UK membership of the then EEC in the 1960s was because he thought Britain would be a Trojan horse for the United States. And most continental Europeans I know still suspect that when push comes to shove Britain will instinctively side with America. They should watch more golf.

Another reason the Ryder Cup is intriguing is because it is the only sporting competition I can think of where Europe and the United States go head to head. Every Olympic Games, the European Commission puts out a rather redundant press release pointing out that EU states collectively win more medals than any other country. The problem is the EU is not a nation state but a collection of 27 of them all playing under different flags.

And so it should be. No one is seriously suggesting that Germany, Spain and England merge their football teams – although England may have more of a chance of winning a major tournament if they did. The UK can’t even manage to field a national rugby or football team, instead splintering into England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

There is nothing wrong with national pride  – in sporting arenas or elsewhere. But just occasionally it is comforting to see that sport can unite Europeans as well as divide them. I always giggle when I see English football fans – not renowned for their love of the EU – cheering on ‘local’ teams like Chelsea and Arsenal that are almost entirely composed of European players (itself made possible by an EU ruling.) In terms of incongruity it reminds me of the 1990s when Man Utd fans would fly the French flag at Old Trafford in honour of Eric Cantona.

The Ryder Cup is the only major sporting competition where Europe plays as one and often wins as one – Monday’s narrow victory for the Europeans makes it six out of the last eight for the old continent. I don’t want to labour the political point here – it is just a game of golf after all – but it does add weight to the argument that when Europeans club together they can be world-beaters.

The Trouble with Ed

You could almost hear the sound of champagne corks popping in Conservative Campaign Headquarters when the Labour Party elected Ed Miliband its new leader Saturday.

After all, Prime Minister David Cameron had reportedly told friends he feared Ed’s older brother – former foreign minister David Miliband. According to the Guardian, private Tory polling suggested 53% felt he was fit for the role of Labour leader, compared to a clear majority of people – 64% – who said his younger brother was not up to the job. Shortly after the result was announced a Conservative friend of mine told me, with barely concealed glee, she was “very happy Ed won.”

The Tories will also have been delighted by the manner of Ed Miliband’s victory. His elder brother was the preferred choice of the public, MPs and MEPs and rank and file Labour members like myself. He won the first three rounds of voting on Saturday and was only beaten – by the slimmest of slim margins – due to the backing of the trade unions. No wonder the tabloids had a field day with headlines of ‘Red Ed’ being in the pocket of the unions.

Of course it is not the job of Labour leaders to be liked by Tories – or the tabloids. But it is their job to be feared by them – as Tony Blair was for over a decade.

The Conservatives had every reason to fear David Miliband. Like his younger brother he is young, smart and charming. But unlike Ed he is a political heavyweight with that rare combination of gravitas and affability. At a meeting in Brussels during the summer he struck me as having the brilliant communications skills of Blair with none of the self-importance and actorly affectations of the former prime minister. Colleagues held him in such high esteem that when the Lisbon Treaty was adopted last year, European leaders pleaded with him – unsuccessfully – to become the EU’s first foreign minister.

So what about Ed? The new opposition leader also courted Labour members in Brussels over the summer and it was difficult not to be impressed. The 40-year old is confident, passionate, and blunt about Labour’s failings in government. But he has three serious flaws:

Firstly, he is inexperienced, having been an MP for only five years. Despite a brief stint as climate secretary he appeared ever so slightly out of his depth on the leader’s podium Tuesday.

Secondly, he is an opportunist. It is easy to say the Iraq war was wrong in retrospect – as he did in his maiden speech to the party faithful. It is easy to criticise a cash-strapped government for making budget cuts. And it is easy to say the previous government should have been tougher on immigration. Much harder, and less popular, is telling delegates how he would increase investments in public services while cutting Britain’s ballooning deficit. Or outlining how he would deal with another Middle East dictator with potential weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, Ed Miliband appears to believe that Labour lost the last election by not being left-wing enough and that its only chance of winning again is to court its working class base. Labour made this mistake after losing to Margaret Thatcher in 1979 when it veered to the left under Michael Foot. In his recently published autobiography, Tony Blair recalls a meeting in the early 1980s in which one participant blamed the election defeat on Labour for trimming to the right and betraying its roots. “If the public thought Labour wasn’t left wing enough, why on earth would they vote Tory?” replied Blair.

It is a question the new Labour leader, and his union backers, would do well to ponder today, before the party again lurches to the left, loses the centre ground – where all elections are won – and endures another 18 years in the wilderness.

Europe seen from America

This morning I was one of the guests on Global Journalist – a weekly radio show produced by the Missouri School of Journalism: http://www.globaljournalist.org/radio/2010/09/23/

The topics raised under the headline ‘Europe’s tumultuous summer’ were France’s mass expulsion of Roma, the Greek bailout package and the failure of Belgium and the Netherlands to form governments months after general elections.

This accurately reflects many of America’s obsession with Europe’s problems, which generally fall into five categories;

1. Europe’s failure to integrate immigrant and minority groups – particularly Muslims
2. Its inability – and unwillingness – to tackle terrorism and project force on the world stage
3. Its flaccid economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment
4. Its refusal to let Turkey into the EU
5. Its falling population and bloated welfare state

Time and again over a week lecturing here the same topics crop up – as they did during the five years I covered the EU for United Press International, the Washington Times and other US papers.

What is interesting is that Europe exists in the American mind – and media – as a kind of polar opposite of the United States, which believes it has successfully integrated its immigrants, fights terrorism forcefully, is ready to fight for its beliefs, has consistently higher growth and lower unemployment, champions Turkey’s EU accession, has a growing population and a pared back welfare state.

This is, of course, largely baloney. The aborted Koran burning in Florida and Ground Zero controversy in Manhattan prove that the United States still has huge problems coming to terms with its Muslim population, which is significantly smaller and richer than Europe’s. Its unemployment rate is now the same as the European Union’s and growth is almost as anemic. Its muscular foreign policy since 9/11 has not made America more loved or more secure. Finally, the US government spends twice as much on healthcare than European countries do.

So much for the gaping transatlantic divide.

Bumper sticker identity

Lecturing at the University of Missouri I am struck by the number of students wearing trackpants, sweatshirts, shorts, T-shirts and other clothing apparel with ‘MISSOURI’ or ‘MIZZOU’ emblazoned on them – as if they need to remind themselves they are studying in the school of that name.

I am also struck by the constant need of US politicians to wrap themselves in the American flag. President Barak Obama does it just as brazenly as George W. Bush did it. Senators and Congressmen wear Stars and Stripes lapels on their suits and campaign ads on TV always end with the flag fluttering in the breeze.

Even journalists are at it. Watch CNN or Fox News and there is always the Stars and Stripes flying somewhere, usually with bombastic, military music segueing between programmes.

Why do Americans feel the need to do this?

Pride is certainly a factor. My students are no doubt proud of their university – and quite rightly so. But why the need to wear it as a badge of identity?

Likewise, polls show that Americans are among the most patriotic people on the planet. Again, rightly so – they live in an extraordinarily rich, powerful and beautiful country. But why the need to define oneself by nationality?

Of course, Americans are not alone in this respect. In Turkey, the flag is as ubiquitous as pictures of founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. In Norway – where I lived for a while – it flies from motor-boats, country huts and balconies. And in France the tricolor flutters proudly from every public building.

The flag can be seen as an expression of superiority – my country is better than yours. Or simple pride – I love my country. But more often than not its constant brandishment appears to me as a sign of insecurity.

Constantly having to remind yourself what country you live in by the presence of a flag – or what school you go to by the symbol of your university on your chest – strikes me as lacking confidence in yourself as a free individual with often multiple identities.

Several years go someone gave me a Wales bumper sticker. Now I’m proud of coming from Wales but I hesitated to stick it on my car. Do I need to define myself to others by proclaiming what country I am from? Is this how I want to be identified?

In the end, after much hesitation, I decided not to stick it on. I’d prefer not to be identified by where I am from but for who I am. This strikes me as the true definition of liberty.

.

Are American Journalists from Mars and Europeans from Venus?

Differences between European and American reporting have fascinated me for over a decade. I guess its only natural. I was educated in Britain, have written for The Independent and Guardian and follow UK papers and TV news assiduously. However, most of my career has been devoted to reporting about Europe for an American audience. I was Chief European Correspondent for United Press International for four years, have been a stringer for Time Magazine and Washington Times and had articles published in the Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune and New York Times. I now teach American journalism students in Brussels so witness the clash of media cultures on a daily basis.

So are American journalists from Mars and Europeans from Venus? Of course, the short answer is ‘no.’ Both continents have relatively free, prosperous, established and high quality media – at least compared to the rest of world.

But there are big differences. These are some of the ones I talked about with an audience of Missouri School of Journalism professors yesterday:

Health

European media is in better health than its American counterpart. There have been no major casualties of the economic downturn, as there have been in the States. Partly this is due to state subsidies – see below – but also because European newspapers rely more on subscriptions than advertising for their revenue base.

Seriousness

America takes journalism and the study of journalism much more seriously than Europe.

• Politicians take journalism seriously. Just look at the first amendment of the US constitution protecting press freedoms and Thomas Jefferson’s famous dictum: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
• Journalists take journalism seriously. One of the core text books at the Missouri School of Journalism is called ‘Elements of Journalism’ (‘What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect’) by Bill Kovach (Committee of Concerned Journalists) and Tom Rosentiel (Project for Excellence in Journalism) Flip though the book chapters: ‘journalism as a public forum’, ‘the rights and responsibilities of citizens’, ‘journalists have a responsibility to conscience…’It is all very serious, weighty, worthy…and just a bit pompous.
• US Presidents take journalists seriously – even turning up at their annual correspondents’ dinner, alongside Hollywood stars, celebrities and comedians
• Hollywood takes journalism seriously. Citizen Kane, The Front Page, All the Presidents Men, The China syndrome, The Killing Fields, Goodnight, Goodluck, Reds, The Insider, Broadcast News, Roman Holiday…Even Superman was a journalist!

Compare this self-importance with the more down-to-earth British attitude. In ‘My Trade,’ former BBC political editor Andrew Marr describes a journalist as quite simply “anyone who does journalism.” It includes people who “think of themselves as part of a noble elite of truth-sayers and secular priests. It includes drunks, dyslexics and some of the least trustworthy, wickedest people in the land.”

Celebrity Journalists

Journalists as celebrities – with the power, pay-packets and personality cults to match – is more of an American than European phenomenon. It is impossible to imagine the pulling power of Fox’s Glenn Beck – who recently got tens of thousands to protest against the government – in Europe. Or the polarising effect of Fox News’ Hannity or O’Reilly. Or the hysterical admiration – among the young anyway – for Jon Stewart or Cobert. Or the first name familiarity of world leaders with the New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman. Or the three minders and million-dollar paypacket Dan Rather had in his prime at CBS.

In Europe some top journalists are very well known – but with the possible exception of BBC World Editor John Simpson – only in their own countries.

Investigative reporting

There is a greater tradition of investigative reporting in America than Europe. Almost 40 years after the Watergate scandal the most famous journalists in the world are still probably Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. It is not uncommon for Wall Street Journal and New York Times journalists to spend months working on one investigation – although less-so nowadays.

That said, there is some very good investigative journalism in Europe: Der Spiegel and Stern news magazines in Germany, the satirical magazines Canard Enchaine and Private Eye in UK and France and TV documentaries like Panorama in Britain and Envoye Special in France. But the cosy, often incestuous relationship between politicians and the press often makes this difficult.

State intervention

In the United States there is less government intervention in the media – and fewer state subsidies – than in Europe.

America has no public broadcaster comparable in size or quality to the BBC or German broadcasters ZDF/ARD. There are few public subsidies to the press and little government intervention in the media.

In Europe state-owned public broadcasters are often the biggest and richest broadcasters. The BBC receives over $5 billion a year from taxpayers. State interference is also more accepted. “My enemies have the press so I keep television,” said former French president Charles de Gaulle. You can imagine Italian premier Berlusconi – who controls 90% of Italian broadcasting – or French President Nicolas Sarkozy saying the same today.

Technology

US media is more driven by new technology. Most of the innovations in journalism in the last 20 years have come from America. 24/7 satellite news reporting starting with CNN, internet news aggregators and portals like Google, Yahoo and AOL news, mobile phone news and apps, blogs, news relayers like Facebook and Twitter and now the i-pad a possible solution to the newspaper’s industry’s decade of self-destruction.

Despite inventing the World Wide Web, Europe has largely followed US trends.

Ethics

American journalists learn more about ethics and operate to stricter ethical standards than European.

US journalists are not supposed to accept paid trips and presents. I know of one American hack who even refused water because he felt it might compromise his reporting. Personally I have signed code of conducts – some running to 10 pages – with the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, United Press International and International Herald Tribune.

In Europe, gift giving – and taking – is more accepted. At EU summits, the country holding the rotating presidency of the Union routinely gives out bags of goodies to journalists. When the Belgians held the presidency of the EU in the mid-naughties I remember receiving a box of erotically-shaped chocolates and a garden gnome. Merci La Belgique!

In Britain, there is a tendency to downplay the theoretical, ethical side of journalism. Asked what he though of journalist ethics, former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie wrote: “Ethics is a place to the east of London where the men wear white socks.”

Journalism schools

The United States takes the study of journalism more seriously than Europe. The first journalism school in the world was in Missouri in 1908 – although Paris also has a claim. The oldest in Spain was in Pamplona in 1958 and in Britain in Cardiff in 1970.

Andrew Marr makes light of the differences between American and British journalism in a brilliant passage in ‘My Trade’. “Certainly British journalism is not a profession. Over the years they have tried to make it one. In the United States they have mostly succeeded. There, every year, tens of thousands of journalism graduates are turned out in a sophisticated production process – Squish, gloop, plonk journalist! Squish, gloop, plonk journalist! They are taught about the technical skills and the ethics, the heroes of American journalism and its theory. In the process they are moulded and given a protective gloss of self-importance. They have Standards and, in return, they get Status. In Britain it isn’t like this at all. Journalism is a chaotic form of earning, ragged at the edges, full of snakes, con artists and even the occasional misunderstood martyr….Outside organised crime it is the most powerful and enjoyable of the anti-professions.”

Writing style

The stylistic differences between American and European journalism are often exaggerated. The odd colour/color issue aside, there are few grammatical differences between writing in British and American English.

It is more a question of differences in style. American reporting is more folksy. It attempts to personalise the news and hook readers with stories before entering into wider issues. For example, this is a New York Times lead about Andalusians battling immigrants for jobs in Spain: “Jose Maria Gomez Jimenez thought his days of toiling in the Andalusian countryside were over. For much of the past eight years, Mr Gomez, 29, earned about $1,900 a month plastering walls and working weekend shifts as a chef in this prosperous, strawberry-farming town. He bought an apartment, often went to parties and splurged on trendy sneakers.”

It’s all very colourful – or colourful – and highly personalised but after one paragraph we still don’t know what the story is about. It is also a tad schmaltzy.

Objectivity

There is less blurring of the boundaries between news and opinion in US newspapers – although the inverse is true for TV.

In European publications like Bild Zeitung, The Sun, The Economist and Liberation – news is mingled with analysis and commentary. There is no shortage of attitude, invective and even humour in the writing. The headlines are punchy, provocative and often very funny. Contrast this to the staid, straight-up reporting in most of America’s grand newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post.

However, European TV news is often more objective than American. There is certainly nothing to equal Fox’s political partisanship – although Italy comes close.

TV vs. papers

Americans rely more on TV for news; Europeans on papers.

Newspaper readership is much higher in Europe than the US. The three biggest papers in the States – The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and USA Today – all have a circulation hovering around two million. Bild Zeitung in Germany had four million and The Sun in Britain three million readers. In Austria, The Neue Kronen Zeitung has a circulation of one million in a country with only eight million people.

Another difference is that the biggest papers in Europe – The Sun, Bild, Ouest-France – are usually popular tabloids (with the exception of El Pais in Spain, which is the country’s biggest and best newspaper). In America the three largest papers are all quality broadsheets.

Foreign Reporting

European media has much more foreign reporting than US media.

In the States, the time devoted to international issues on TV has slumped from 45% to 13% and column inches in newspapers from 20 to 2%. Foreign correspondents have also been slashed. In Brussels – capital of the EU and HQ of NATO, there is no correspondent from CNN, Washington Post, NBC, NPR, Fox News or USA Today.

The only caveat is that abroad for Americans is a long way; for Europeans it is on their doorstep. Also, American media such as CNN, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine still do some of the best global reporting.

There has been a decline in foreign reporting in Europe too, of course, but it has not been as precipitous.

The moment you decide, you divide

Reading Tony Blair’s autobiography ‘A Journey.’ Its every bit as good and bad as the critics say. The prose is at times excruciating, the arrogance overwhelming and the folksy familiarity irritating. But as a modern-day guide to power and how to wield it, manipulate it and communicate it, only ‘The Prince’ by Machiavelli comes close.

Here’s an interesting passage that President Obama and his lieutenants could probably sympathise with as they face the collective onslaught of the Tea Party brigade:

“They get after you. They abuse your argument; they misrepresent your motives; they deride your sincerity and your protestations of good faith and the commonweal. For progressive politicians coming to power that is always the biggest shock. The right get after you, from the off, with a vigour, venom and vitriol that has you reeling…You think you have come to a debating society but suddenly you’re in a cage with a bare-knuckle fighter and a howling mob outside laying bets on how long you’ll last.”

Blair lays down three lessons of for leaders. Obama can tick off numbers one and two: think anew and be prepared to lead. But the third contains some advice he has yet to take to heart: at some point you will have to alienate some people, like it or not. Or as Blair puts it: “The moment you decide, you divide.”

Time to get into the cage and fight Mr Obama.

Scrambled story

More UK tabloid lies about the EU exposed:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/scrambled-ndash-the-eu-threat-to-british-eggs-2015264.html

Welcome

Welcome to Eye on Europe