South Carolina, Hungary and the EU
Published in Berlingske Tidende
(Denmark) on 16 January 2011
by Hans Mouritzen (link to original)
(Denmark) on 16 January 2011
by Hans Mouritzen (link to original)
Translated from
by Anne Thye.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
The media prioritizes the U.S. primaries over European parliamentary elections. So it really is no wonder that we do not have a common “European public.”
Now the wild chase has begun, over hill and dale from Iowa’s sprawling plains, the pine forests of New Hampshire and now on to the mild winds of the South. All well and good. However there is something deeply wrong with the media’s coverage and priorities. A single American primary gets coverage in line with a French presidential election. On TV2News for most of the night there is pre-election coverage with sociological analysis, vote count and post-election evaluations — almost to the same degree as CNN. Actually, it is a sort of noncommittal political Disneyland — everyone gets a free ride to please the grassroots. The extensive coverage is probably a remnant of the time when the United States was the “leader of the free world.” And, without this being interpreted as anti-Americanism, both the time for and [the United States'] time as the sole superpower are definitely over. Without actually having contacted the Danish media for exact information, it is clear that the primaries receive much more attention than, let's say, parliamentary elections in Portugal, Slovenia or Hungary. Elections that will in fact determine who will be in power for years to come — something substantial — and, furthermore, who will get a spot on the European council and therefore, in theory at least, be able to influence conditions in Denmark.
The tendency is certainly not reserved for the Danish media. It is a general European (and international) phenomena — but that doesn’t improve the situation! In light of this, one understands why a “European public” does not exist (except when the European Song contest or Champions League football is on). Again, it is the story of the hen and the egg — the media prioritize as they think their audience does, and audiences in turn prioritize as they do on account of the media's portrait of their surroundings. But what are the consequences? There have been rumors of a vote count error in Iowa, and many Europeans have reached their boiling point. But when, for example, Hungary violates the fundamental values of the E.U., it is up to the experts from other countries to react: There is no European popular commitment to correct Victor Orban’s behaviour (except maybe in Slovakia and Romania). Who is he really? What are the factors behind recent developments? What does his party Fidesz stand for and what made Hungarians vote for him in big numbers? We simply do not know. The attitude has become: Well, let them figure it out for themselves! They don’t meddle in our politics, so why should we meddle in theirs? “On to South Carolina!”
Now the wild chase has begun, over hill and dale from Iowa’s sprawling plains, the pine forests of New Hampshire and now on to the mild winds of the South. All well and good. However there is something deeply wrong with the media’s coverage and priorities. A single American primary gets coverage in line with a French presidential election. On TV2News for most of the night there is pre-election coverage with sociological analysis, vote count and post-election evaluations — almost to the same degree as CNN. Actually, it is a sort of noncommittal political Disneyland — everyone gets a free ride to please the grassroots. The extensive coverage is probably a remnant of the time when the United States was the “leader of the free world.” And, without this being interpreted as anti-Americanism, both the time for and [the United States'] time as the sole superpower are definitely over. Without actually having contacted the Danish media for exact information, it is clear that the primaries receive much more attention than, let's say, parliamentary elections in Portugal, Slovenia or Hungary. Elections that will in fact determine who will be in power for years to come — something substantial — and, furthermore, who will get a spot on the European council and therefore, in theory at least, be able to influence conditions in Denmark.
The tendency is certainly not reserved for the Danish media. It is a general European (and international) phenomena — but that doesn’t improve the situation! In light of this, one understands why a “European public” does not exist (except when the European Song contest or Champions League football is on). Again, it is the story of the hen and the egg — the media prioritize as they think their audience does, and audiences in turn prioritize as they do on account of the media's portrait of their surroundings. But what are the consequences? There have been rumors of a vote count error in Iowa, and many Europeans have reached their boiling point. But when, for example, Hungary violates the fundamental values of the E.U., it is up to the experts from other countries to react: There is no European popular commitment to correct Victor Orban’s behaviour (except maybe in Slovakia and Romania). Who is he really? What are the factors behind recent developments? What does his party Fidesz stand for and what made Hungarians vote for him in big numbers? We simply do not know. The attitude has become: Well, let them figure it out for themselves! They don’t meddle in our politics, so why should we meddle in theirs? “On to South Carolina!”