In the year of the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, and the 15th year after the (legal) creation of the European Union by the Treaty of Maastricht, European Integration slowed down considerably due to certain hindrances such as the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, a low turnout at the last election to the European Parliament, and also the necessary revision of the main ‘future project’, the Lisbon Agenda. However, over the last 15 years we have witnessed a successful process of integration. Notwithstanding this successful story of economic integration and peace and security – one of the most important, but today often neglected attainments of the EU – the process of constant integration seems to have been too fast for the citizens of the European Union: although being legally ‘Europeans’ since 1992, the demos of the Union does not seem to feel connected to its newly gained political entity. Thus, the Union suffers from considerable democracy, legitimacy and ac-countability deficits. One reason - and characteristic at the same time - is the low participation and involvement of the Europeans in the political system of the Union. This assumption is the real starting point of this work. People need to participate to a greater extent in order to gain a more democratic political system in the EU and thus lay the basis for further integration, which is needed to cope with the arising challenges of the 21st century.
But people can only participate in a system they know and knowledge about the EU is quite low. And there is no media attention and therefore a lack of European Publicity.
This work analyses what kind of influence the European Commission can have on this sphere of problems, either by its media policy, or by its communication strategy.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
I.1. Research Motivation
I.2. State of the Art in Research
I.3. Research Question, Methodology, Preliminary Remarks
II. The Framework
II.1. Fitting ‘European Publicity’ into a Framework
II.1.a. Sources of (European) Publicity
II.1.a.1. The Media
II.1.a.2. The Communication
II.1.b. Developing the Framework
II.1.b.1. The Actors
II.1.b.2. Types of European Publicity
II.2. Conclusion: The Publicity-Framework
III. Media Policy
III.1. A European Media System?
III.2. Development of European Media Policies
III.3. Media Concentration and Pluralism
III.4. Conclusion: The actual role of Media Policies
IV. Communication Strategy
IV.1. The Aims and Ways of Communication
IV.2. Development of the Communication Strategy
IV.3. Communicating with the Citizen?
IV.3.a. ‘Commission‘s contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate’
IV.3.b. ‘White Paper on a European Communication Policy’
IV.4. Conclusion: Communication Strategy
V. Recommendations
V.1. Completing the Framework
V.2. Appraisal of Findings
V.2.a. The Influence of Media Policies on Awareness
V.2.b. The Influence of the Communication Strategy on Awareness
V.2.c. Conclusion of Appraisal
V.3. Recommendations
V.3.a. …for Media Policies
V.3.b. …for the Communication Strategy
V.4. Conclusion: Recommendations
VI. Conclusion
Objectives & Research Themes
This thesis examines the role of the European Commission in shaping European publicity to raise citizens' awareness of the EU. It explores how media policies and communication strategies act as mechanisms to connect the EU's institutional level with its citizens to address the perceived democratic and legitimacy deficits.
- Analysis of the European Media System and the Commission's regulatory influence.
- Evaluation of the Commission's evolving communication strategies, specifically "Plan D" and the White Paper on a European Communication Policy.
- Assessment of the correlation between public discourse and citizens' political awareness.
- Formulation of recommendations for institutional action to improve EU-wide citizen engagement.
Excerpt from the Book
I.1. Research Motivation
In the year of the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, and the 15th year after the (legal) creation of the European Union by the Treaty of Maastricht, European Integration slowed down considerably due to certain hindrances such as the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, a low turnout at the last election to the European Parliament, and also the necessary revision of the main ‘future project’, the Lisbon Agenda. However, over the last 15 years we have witnessed a successful process of integration: the creation of the single European market was completed by the introduction of the common currency, the Euro, and the Union has been enlarged to 27 member states.
Notwithstanding this successful story of economic integration and peace and security – one of the most important, but today often neglected attainments of the EU – the process of constant integration seems to have been too fast for the citizens of the European Union: although being legally ‘Europeans’ since 1992, the demos of the Union does not seem to feel connected to its newly gained political entity. The most recent Eurobarometer survey at the time of writing - Eurobarometer No. 67, July 2007 – revealed that on average only 57 percent of all Europeans support the membership of their country in the European Union. Also voter participation in the European Parliamentary elections in 2004 was below 50 percent in almost all EU member states.
Thus, the Union suffers from considerable democracy, legitimacy and accountability deficits. One reason - and characteristic at the same time - is the low participation and involvement of the Europeans in the political system of the Union. This assumption is the real starting point of this work. People need to participate to a greater extent in order to gain a more democratic political system in the EU and thus lay the basis for further integration, which is needed to cope with the arising challenges of the 21st century.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Presents the research motivation, identifying the EU's democracy and legitimacy deficits, and introduces the key research question regarding the Commission's potential to foster citizens' awareness through publicity.
II. The Framework: Establishes an analytical model defining European publicity as a link between the Commission and citizens, mediated by media systems and discursive communication.
III. Media Policy: Investigates the European Media System and the Commission's attempts to influence it, specifically focusing on the Television without Frontiers directive and initiatives regarding media concentration and pluralism.
IV. Communication Strategy: Analyzes the evolution of the Commission's communication approach, from early "Arcane Policy" to recent initiatives like Plan D and the White Paper on a European Communication Policy.
V. Recommendations: Assesses the efficacy of current policies in driving awareness and provides recommendations for strengthening the Commission's role in media regulation and communication strategy.
VI. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, acknowledging that while the Commission has tools to influence publicity, systemic obstacles and the difficulty of reaching uninterested citizens remain significant challenges.
Keywords
European Union, European Commission, European Publicity, Media Policy, Communication Strategy, Democratic Deficit, Public Sphere, Citizen Awareness, Media Pluralism, Information Society, Plan D, White Paper, Integration, Political Discourse, European Media System.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work investigates the Commission's ability to influence "European Publicity" through its media policies and communication strategies to ultimately increase citizens' awareness and participation in the European political system.
What are the primary thematic fields examined?
The thesis centers on two main pillars: European Media Policy (regulation of television and media concentration) and the European Communication Strategy (public outreach, transparency, and engagement initiatives).
What is the central research question?
The research asks: How can the Commission’s activities related to European Publicity raise the awareness of the citizens about the EU?
What methodology does the author employ?
The work utilizes a combination of political science, legal, and communication studies to analyze official Commission documents, directives, and existing academic literature to build an analytical framework.
What topics are covered in the main body of the text?
The main sections evaluate the development of EU media directives, the shifting Commission attitudes toward citizen communication (from non-communication to dialogue), and the challenges of achieving media pluralism.
Which key concepts characterize this thesis?
Key concepts include the "Democratic Deficit," "European Public Sphere," "Europeanization," "Media Pluralism," and the distinction between "Arcane" and "Transparent" communication policies.
Why is "Plan D" significant in this context?
Plan D (for Democracy, Dialogue, and Debate) represents a pivotal shift where the Commission actively moved toward a two-way communication model to address the stagnation following the Constitutional Treaty rejection.
How does the author view the role of the Commission in media content?
The author argues that the Commission lacks direct control over media content due to the democratic imperative of press freedom, and thus must focus on regulatory frameworks like competition policy to support diversity indirectly.
What does the thesis conclude about the efficacy of these measures?
It concludes that while the Commission has potential influence, its current efforts are often undermined by a lack of clear competences and the difficulty of engaging citizens who are not already interested in EU affairs.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Hannah Cosse (Autor:in), 2007, Increasing the Citizens' EU Awareness, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/115317
