Love the transparency

As we all know the EU has a whole host of official languages, and a few others tacked on the side. The Parliament operates in as many of them as it can, and if you go to the Parliament's website, you can normally watch the debates in any one of the 22 languages in which simultaneous translation is available.

However there is a disclaimer on the translation which of course is reasonable,

The interpretation of debates serves only to facilitate communication amongst the participants in the meeting. It does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings.

Only the original speech or the revised written translation of that original speech is authentic.

OK, so that makes sense, you have to wait for the Hansard for the definitive vesion, fair enough - despite the fact that it is often edited. But the next sentence is slightly chilling.

The use of the recording of the interpretation for other purposes than the one formulated above is forbidden unless an explicit and specific authorisation has been granted by the European Parliament.

The thing is, the Hansard takes at least 24 hrs to arrive, so what they are saying is that any reporting of the Parliament (by people who do not speak the speakers language) is functionally illegal, or at best, can only be done by those granted permission by the Parliament. Or those already in the room.

Balls to that. Come on then chaps sue us.

Going, going...

New Europe reports on the slow demise of EUX.TV. As it says,

It is absolutely ridiculous to watch millions dished out to Europarl TV, Euronews, the infamous MyParl, countless think tanks, European foundations, etc etc etc, while projects with a future such as EUX.TV go under.

With the report is a letter from Raymond Franken which explains what is happening to independent media outlets that cover European Union affairs, it bears reading the whole thing.

EUX.TV Service Reduced, Future in DoubtBRUSSELS/MAASTRICHT --
Since September 2006, nearly two million EUX.TV videos have been watched on the nternet. Nevertheless, EUX.TV, the Europe channel, has decided to significantly reduce its output as of October 2008 because the advertising income simply can't support the channel as an independent business. Without fresh financial support, EUX.TV* will not be able to continue in 2009 as a digital them channel bringing independent video news coverage of European affairs and EU politics.

In the summer of 2006 we started as a new pan-European channel whose ambition it was to position itself as the leading European affairs channel, covering EU politics for an international audience. At our launch in Brussels, we stated that we envisaged income from advertisers and sponsors in order to stay independent from the European Union institutions. A risky venture, but encouraged by a new generation of production methods and distribution technology. A lack of funds forced us to use the Internet, rather than cable and satellite TV, as our main distribution channel.

But banner advertisements and WebTV commercials in the end proved unable to sustain even relatively small costs like that of a new hard-disc or a box of videotapes. There's no real business model in WebTV on its own. WebTV, we've learned, simply can't exist on its own; the only value in WebTV is marketing value. If you have a product to sell, WebTV can be part of your marketing mix. We at EUX.TV don't have a product to sell, we're about news and information in the field of European affairs. But our WebTV did help us 'market' and build our brand. In the European affairs arena, the EUX.TV brand is widely known.

Our venture inspired staff at the EU institutions to start projects like EUtube (EU Commission) and EuroparlTV (EU Parliament). These channels now compete with us for viewers on the web, and can do so only because these are projects funded indirectly by taxpayers. EuroparlTV, for example, has a budget of 9 million euro per year; it's content is controlled by the parliament's bureau, not its newsroom. EUXTV's budget is a fraction of what EuroParlTV gets.

We thought about sending a state-aid complaint to EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, but we understood she would not take our complaint seriously. The European affairs advertising market proved a very difficult, conservative, twisted and artificial market to break into. Political sensitivities play up everywhere, lobbyists in Brussels are not used to working out in the open, and advertisers-lobbyists prefer to put their messages in media that they know are favorable to the European institutions, including the Euronews tv channel, the European Voice weekly and the Euractiv website.

All these media get direct or indirect financial support from the EU institutions. However, thanks to the concept of video journalism, lower-cost broadcast technology (Thank you Apple, Sony and YouTube) and about a dozen volunteers in total, we were able to maintain a basic service. In the end, it still proved not possible to make ends meet as a channel with a small but dedicated newsroom, volunteers and trainees. Honesty bids to say that we made mistakes at some stages.

EUX.TV was not careful enough when choosing some of its partners; a marketing firm proved incapable of working in Brussels; a webTV hosting company lost interest after one of their competitors won the EuroparlTV project. This led to a severe waste of time and energy. It has made the EUX.TV project an expensive lesson. But would EUX.TV have fared any better if these mistakes were not made? Maybe, but it's unlikely. Bottom line is that WebTV as a business strategy simply does not work.

Maybe in a decade, but certainly not now. We're still in talks with a small number of potential new partners but don't hold up your hopes. Only with serious financial support, EUX.TV can restart to deliver on its ambitions. It's becoming very difficult. The financial crisis means funding for several potential partners is drying up. Unless a miracle happens, EUX.TV, the Europe channel, will be no more in 2009. In the meantime, we have nearly 600 videos, interviews, debates and news reports, out on YouTube and other webtv platforms, still drawing more than 4000 video views per day! Even if we have to close the EUX.TV website, these videos will stay up, whatever happens.

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso talking about a European empire, hard-hitting news reports on the Lisbon Treaty, the EU's absence in war in the east of Congo, various reports from across Europe. These all to remember the channel that once was.

Thanks for watching us.

Raymond Frenken
Founder & Editor of EUX.TV
rfrenken (at) gmail.com

BBC gives BBC backing

So we now have the UK winners of this years most pointless, and may I say invidious prize. The European parliament's own journalism prize (UK chapter) have selected for this coveted award someone in each of the four categories - TV, Radio, Internet and print. They will now do battle with the same number from all 26 countries.

What is fascinating to note is that two of the four British entry's are from the BBC. And who was on the judging panel? Yup you guessed it, the BBC…

The UK judging panel

There were three members of the UK judging panel, from BBC Radio, the Association of European Journalists, and the Reuters Institute for Journalism.

According to the prizes rules
Rule 4 – Admission procedure
1. The European Parliament shall post a call for applications on the internet site of its information office in each European Union Member State and, if necessary, advertise it.
2. The call for applications for the 2008 edition of the European Parliament Prize for Journalism shall be deemed open on 15 March 2008, and shall be closed on 15 May 2008.
3. The application form will be available on the internet sites of the above European Parliament information offices. It must be duly completed either by the entrants themselves, in their own names or on behalf of the teams of which they are members, or by an authority representing the medium that employs them, or by a member of the general public recommending a published article or broadcast programme.
4. Only one entry per entrant or per team shall be admitted, but a single medium may submit several entries.
5. There shall be no entry fee, provided the requirements set out in Rule 5 are met.
I have written to discover how many nominations there were for the four categories. And how many were nominated by the public and how many by themselves, and how many by their own organisation?

I will of course keep you updated on the response.

Update
There were 15 entries. 3 TV, 1 radio, 6 internet; 5 written.

None were nominated by the general public, indeed they were all nominated by themselves. Which is no real suprise when you come to think of it.

European Sycophancy Prize.

Sometimes the transparency by which the EU Institutions attempt to dominate reporting of their activities gets thrown into sharp relief. Today is one of those times. For today sees the launch of the European Parliament Prize for Journalism. Just by thinking about it one is struck by how badly inappropriate it is.

The prize is divided into four sections, print media, television, radio and internet, (C'mon guys and gals do your worst, and that means you, and you, and you, and you, and you and definitely you). Each of which will be eligible for 5,000 euros. This of course means in this multifunctional world Mark Mardell could go in for 3 prizes, Bruno Waterfield could bid for two. And so on and so forth.

The point is of course that this idea is simply appalling. Journalism, like almost every other section of our society already has a bunch of prizes to slap itself on the back, but as in the other parts of society this is normally done from either a peer group perspective, such as the British Press Awards sponsored by the Press Gazette (or here in the eurobubble there are awards such as the one run by the European Voice), or by another industry keen to persuade journalists to report on their subject area.

It is this style of award that the Parliament is trying to replicate, but of course there is a fundamental difference. They are not funded by the taxpayer, whilst this is. So what is the award for?

The first European Parliament Prize for Journalism will be awarded in 2008. It will be given to journalists who have dealt with major issues at a European level or have promoted a better understanding of the EU institutions and/or EU policies.

Oh yeah right, so those journalists who were involved in breaking the story of the Parliamentary expenses scandal will be in the running then? After all they have indeed contributed to promoting a better understanding of an EU institution. Somehow I doubt it. Why you ask? Well look at the jury,

Rule 7 – Decision-taking bodies

1. European Parliament Prize for Journalism prize winners shall be selected by a sole and single award jury, separate from the shortlist juries, formed under the aegis of the European Parliament information offices, to shortlist entries.

2. The award jury:

a. shall be formed by nine members, composed of three Members of the European Parliament and six representatives of the journalism profession, including representatives of European associations of journalists.. The award jury shall be chaired by the European Parliament Vice-President in charge of information and communication policy. The secretariat shall be provided by the European Parliament's Communication Directorate-General.

b. shall select prize winners from the shortlist drawn up by the shortlist juries. The vote shall be secret. Prize winners shall be selected by an absolute majority vote in the first two rounds, then by a simple majority in the following rounds.

c. shall have the option of naming prize winners ex aequo.

3. The shortlist juries:

a. shall be formed in each European Union Member State under the aegis of the competent European Parliament information office;

b. shall be formed by three to five members of the journalism profession, including representatives of national associations of journalists. The secretariat shall by provided by the European Parliament information office in each Member State;

No suggestion of who shall decide which journalists, both at a national level and at the European supranational level will be invited to take part. Apart from the thought that the Parliament offices will be providing secretarial services, which covers a multitude of sins.

Here are some comments from Brussels based journalists to the plans,
"these people are so unbelievably clueless!" - Broadsheet

"I'm going to do a series of packages on - "At the Cutting Edge of Democracy: How the EP Sets An Example All Around The World"

fuck it, for five grand it's got to be worth it..." Electric media

"I've heard of two instances recently where a cameraman and a sound engineer, in separate incidents, have had official complaints made against them, in one case for requesting that a door be left open because various other media people were expected and in the other case - bizarrely - because a cameraman had the temerity politely to ask a security guard to move out of shot during an interview. He insisted on remaining visible in the background and complained about the "rudeness" of being requested to move! Last week, one prevented (a) cameraman from filming Den Dover crossing the passerelle but wouldn't say why. Who gave these guys the idea that they now have similar powers to the Stazi, the KGB or the Gestapo?" Electric media

And finally someone from Fleet Street,
"Well I suppose it's cheaper than a press officer".

Comment Forum here

Scared yet?

Today the European Parliament ratified the Lisbon Treaty. It did so by a large majority but 115 voted against and 160 failed to register a vote at all.

As a demonstration against the Treaty some of the UKIP staff were dressed as chickens to point out the cowardice of the European Elite. They want to foist the Constitution upon the people, but they do not dare to ask the people whether they want it.

The Head of Security and a pack of security guards chased us around the building until there was a stalemate. He informed me that "costumes are against the rules of the Parliament". I demanded to see the rule where this was stated. He could not provide any proof of his claims.

Nigel Farage appeared and was interviewed by a freelance journalist. As that interview finished a woman called Anne-Margrete Wachtmeister, who is the Head of the Audio Visual Unit in the Parliament which describes itself thus,

Audiovisual Unit, which provides services and products to the audiovisual media in order to facilitate its coverage of the EP

Wachtmeister to the journalist,

"You should not broadcast that interview".
"Why?" said the shocked hack.
"Because the film crew are employees of the Parliament and they should not be used to film dissent".

This exchange was overheard by Shireen Wheeler, the presenter of the BBC World "Record" program that covers the Parliament.

She threatened to block all further BBC coverage of the Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg if this attitude was not corrected.

The Parliament backed down.

But the thought that the Parliament even considered this is scary. Remember that the European Commission are planning to vet journalists. The European Parliament is building a TV station over which they have editorial control.

Recently in the chamber Danny Cohen Bendit (President of the Greens) has described Eurosceptics as "mentally ill", the leader of the Socialist Group Martin Schulz described Eurosceptics as followers of Adolph Hitler. Graham Watson described Euro sceptics as both Communist and National Socialist in the same sentence.

The President of Parliament has gifted himself arbritary powers over the rules of procedure.

Does all this remind anybody of anything?

(The picture shows your correspondent relaxing before the confrontation)

Update
A correspondent has just sent me a copy of the rules governing the use of the TV crews in Parliament. Section 3 seems to be the imporetant bit.

3. The provision of facilities shall not be subject to any editorial directives or guidelines.
However, facilities shall not be used for advertising, promotion or publicity purposes for third parties nor undermine the dignity of the European Parliament.

Thus maybe opposition to the European Institutions, particularly whilst wearing a chicken suit may well indeed be in breech of the rules. Undignified you see.

How could anybody suggest that I was undignified?

EU Journalist or propagandist?

Yesterday I received a copy of an open letter from Aidan White, the General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). And very odd it was. It talked about the idea of a new journalist registration system, with Mr White pointing out that such a thing already exists in the shape of the IFJ card.

I write on behalf of the International Federation of Journalists and the European Federation of Journalists concerning a current discussion within European Union circles over the issuing of a specific European Press Card.

You might like to know that there is already an accreditation in circulation which is recognised by the major organisations of journalists throughout the European Union -- the International Press Card of the IFJ.

The IFJ International Press Card (IPC) is the world’s oldest and most reputable press accreditation and provides instant confirmation that the bearer is a working journalist. It is only issued to genuine journalists who are committed to ethical standards and solidarity between media professionals.

Despite his job Mr White is no radical, and often seems pretty tardy on issues relating to press freedom, however here he is bang on. I immediately picked up the phone to the IFJ and spoke to them.

Indeed this letter seems to be a shot across the bows of the Commission. There are discussions going on in the Commission, (but at this point I and nor do the IFJ know how high up they go) about the creation of an European Press Card.

The ramifications of this could be massive. It could mean that it would be the Commission which could decide which journalist were 'proper' journalists and which were not. I know personally of journalists who have been threatened and arrested on the say so of European officials. They are accused of publishing inaccuracies, they are told that 'what they write does not represent the interests of their newspapers'. I know of newspapers that have had their advertisers phoned by the Commission's legal team with suggestions about how the Commission is represented in the paper, and how it would be helpful if they were to have a quiet word with editorial team. I remember when Alessandro Buttice the lawyer who represents OLAF as its press spokesman sent out a 16 page document to the Brussels' press corps advising them of how they should report EU news.

Access to Commissioners and officials could be restricted to those on the Commission list. Today there is European Institutional press accreditation, but any journalist who is vouched for by an editor is accepted. This new idea has a strong suggestion that the Commission itself will do the vetting not the news organisation and must be opposed as vigorously as possible.

I cannot emphasise how serious this could be.

Response to Enrico

It appears that my post about the way in which the media/lobbying nexus blurs the lines on the information that a citizen receives from the EU bubble has caused some debate over at Margot’s blog.

To his credit Enrico has had the decency to respond to my earlier post in the comments. Below I try to answer his points, (Long post warning)

Dear Elaib (???),

It’s a long story, but no that isn’t my real name,

I am really sorry that you think that I am fraud although you say that I was a
nice enough chap…

I am happy to repeat that you are a decent chap, however you represent in your professional life something that I regard as fraud. I do not suggest that you are alone in this. Indeed the problem of journalists moonlighting as consultants or lobbyists or vice versa is a huge problem within Brussels press corps. Your misfortune is that you were honest about it in the article, and thus became an example to illustrate a general malaise.

I am afraid there is a miss understanding from your side! The article was just a
try to describe Brussels in a not too serious and boring way…I did my best to
look funny!

Trust me I didn’t think that everything that you said was deadly serious, it was of course a light hearted piece. Frankly in that magazine it could hardly be anything else.

I can tell you that I am extremely honest and ethical.

This is a difficult one. I am certain that you believe yourself to be both of those things. Indeed mutual friends and acquaintances have confirmed it. But I still believe that in your professional life you are indeed dishonest. However it is, to coin a phrase institutional dishonesty, not personal.

The organization that I represent (unfortunately, I am not the director of the
Brussels office) is not the typical lobby, because our members are politicians,
we do not represent any industries or other unethical stuff, but just elected
people from peripheral regions… our topics are based on environment, energy,
regional development, maritime safety…and moreover it is an independent
organization which does not receive any money from the EU.

I am sorry if I promoted you to Director, Director of Communications would be a more accurate description. That is however a side issue.
Lets get this straight, the CPMR is a lobby group. Yes there are all sorts of lobby groups in Brussels. The article states that there are, “more than 1,000 organisations representing business or companies, 500 consultancies and law firms, around 750 NGO’s some 1,500 journalists as well as some 3,000 interest groups”.
I guess your organisation would count as the last. It doesn’t matter. It is in Brussels to influence the debate to the benefit of its members. No problem with that, it would be mad not to. (Your comment “industries or other unethical stuff” is quite revealing – industry is unethical, whilst working for public institutions is ethical. Where do you think they get there money from? They get it from taxing those unethical industries, which provide employment and so on.) None of this matters, it is still a lobby group.
As for receiving no money from Europe. Ok your website makes it clear that,
“The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions is independent of EU institutions”. However the Organisational Charter of the CPMR, a document I linked to, states,
“Supplementary budgets, covering expenses over and above the general resources of the Conference. The supplementary budgets are financed, either from supplementary dues fixed by the regions concerned (additional costs brought about by the operation of the Commissions or by specific actions in regard to a group of regions) or by research or assignment contracts concluded by the CPMR (with the EC for example)”. My bold.

If that comment is in your charter than it is a reasonable assumption that there are financial links between yourselves and the institutions. I am happy to accept that the CPMR does not receive central funding direct from the EU, but put it this way, it is funded by the members, who are regional authorities, who are in the main recipients of European Regional (and other) development budgets. The money comes from the same place in the end, the taxpayer. So the taxpayer funds the organisations, which fund you organisation, which lobbies the Commission and other EU Institutions to ensure that more taxpayer money makes its way to the taxpayer funded organisations that are members of your organisations.
The bottom line is that it would not be in the interest of your employer if you were to ask difficult questions when you wear your other employer’s hat.

Since I am a journalist and I have a passion for this job, I also work
occasionally for a really small regional Italian TV.

So you are primarily a lobbyist. Not the impression given by the fact that your access to the European Institutions is granted by the yellow press badge I have seen you wear. Nor indeed the impression given by the article that started all this where there is no doubt that you are a journalist first,
“Enrico Mayhofer is an Italian journalist who has been living in Brussels for nine years….and as a press officer”. Likewise the illustration accompanying the article is you conducting a TV interview, titled “Enrico at work”.

My work consists in diffusing European news connected to my region. I think I am
one of the few regional journalists in Brussels, contributing to better
communicating what the EU does for our territories. You must know that my
region, Puglia, is 2000km far from Brussels, and it is one of the poorest of the
EU and I can tell you that it is not one of the most informed regions of Europe…

As a journalist, or at least as an independent journalist I would suggest that your job is not to communicate “what the EU does for our territories”. That is the work of a propagandist. Your job is, as I understand it is to report on the activities of the European Union in a clear fashion, without let or favour. To do anything else is, I would suggest, selling your audience short.

Seriously, I cannot see any conflict of interest in these two activities!

That I think is the problem. You do not see that working for an organisation that lobbies for funding and legislative preference for your members, whilst posing as an authoritative source to your audience must be a conflict. Are they aware, for example when you interview a Commissioner on matters pertaining to the harbour and trade out of Taranto you may well have been involved in lobbying the self same Commissioner on behalf on small and medium sized trading ports. Is it possible that your interviewing of that Commissioner could be affected by the interests of what you describe as your main employer? Can you not see that this is a clear conflict of interests?

Which policymaker do you think I influence informing some citizens that live
really far about EU activities?

How about the MEPs that you boast about when you say, “Sometimes we’re ghostwriters”. If writingthe speeches for MEPs isn’t influencing them, please tell me what is.Why do you think that my articles are not independent? Independent from who or what?

I cannot pretend to watch your articles on AntennaSud, so I will freely admit that I cannot point an exact example. But knowing that your primary income is predicated upon giving a good impression of your lobby group, then it is reasonable to have doubts. It is possible that you are able to build Chinese walls between these aspects of your professional life. If so, I applaud you. But a reasonable observer would have questions about this.

During your "investigation", did not you ever think that if there was a real
conflict of interest I would have tried to hide it, instead of diffusing the
information so openly in an article???

This is an interesting point. I think the article was a piece of fun, 2o minutes with Martin Banks, between assignments. I doubt you prepared for it, or indeed thought about it a great deal. After al, who reads a magazine like “Together”. Only people deeply embedded in the EU bubble. Given that from my own, and others far more informed and experienced than me think that somewhere between ¼ and 1/3 of accredited EU journalists operate in a similar, opaque fashion I doubt it crossed your mind. After al it is so normal, so undisputed it is uncontroversial. The only reason that it is controversial at all of course is because somebody like me read it and made a fuss. Niaive maybe.

I do hope you will again think that I am a nice enough chap, and please stop me
next time we meet in the street because I do not know who you are!

Enrico, you are a decent bloke, not least for taking the trouble to respond to my anonymous assault. You personally are not my great beef. You, by agreeing to the interview merely made public one of the worst kept secrets of Brussels. Many of those who wear the yellow press badge are not journalists, or at least not in a traditional sense. How can the citizens of the European Union trust the information they receive if much of it comes from those whose critical faculties are compromised by employment within organisations that have an interest in keeping the institutions sweet? I believe that there should be strict rules governing accreditation of journalists to the European Institutions, rules that would preclude obvious conflicts of interest. That is not the case at present. It is the situation rather than the individual against which I rail.

Enrico Mayrhofer

PSJust a suggestion:during your next accourate "scoop" try to be more polite;
it is never elegant to offend or diffamate somebody you do not know...

Please excuse my anger, and thus perhaps my lack of grace. As I say I bear you no, personal ill will.

Commission accused of meddling in Belgian election

The Belgian Commissioner, Louis 'Le Gob' Michel is standing for election to the Belgian Senate on June 10th for the Mouvement Reformateur (Wallon Liberals) and is in the centre of a storm inside the European Commission.

Back in the end of January the Commission admin decided that, along with the European Voice and various news sources, to try a three month trial of dumping Belgian newspaper "Tribune de Bruxelles" onto official's desks. The idea was that there would be a three month trial, followed by a consultation with staff. Five months later the paper is still being dumped and this is causing ructions. The first complaints were naturally linguistic, it is in French, and thus the Flemish were upset. Then people began to notice that the paper's previous 'constructive critical' line of EU doings had been replaced with slavish obeisance to all things European. After all access to the officials is one hell of a selling point to advertisers.

That is bad enough but in the last few weeks things have become even more serious.

The Tribune is without a shadow of doubt a paper which supports the MR. In the current edition, prominent on the front page is a delightful ad for Frederique Ries, currently an MEP and also standing for the MR in the elections. Rumours abound that DG Admin has been under pressure from Mr Michel's team to continue the experiment.

Comments on the Commission's internal debate forum are getting pretty heated,

"If free press exists in Belgium, it would be my guess that it is temporarily nonexistent at the rue des Francs / Frankenstraat 79 in Brussels (Address of the Tribune)".

"free distribution of this paper is just not desirable"

"Are you an EC official working in Brussels and entitled to participate in the upcoming (June 10th) Belgian elections - and are you still undecided who to vote for? Then DG ADMIN has a suggestion for you! Why not consider bestowing your favours on Ms. Frédérique Ries (MR), whose portrait and electoral slogan adorn the front page of the latest issue of the 'Tribune de Bruxelles' – the commercial weekly which
(four months after the distribution of the infamous first issue, and almost one month after the expiry of the so-called "trial period") continues to be delivered to your doorstep through the tacit but very active complicity of our Administration…
Thank you, DG ADMIN, for having behaved from the very start and for continuing to behave, in the matter of the 'Tribune', with shameless disregard for even the most elementary ethical standards".

"I totally agree with the arguments put forward by our colleagues... on the political bias shown by "La Tribune de Bruxelles". Contrary to what some CenD readers might think, such bias doesn't stop at splashing Frédérique Ries's photogenic features on its front cover: anybody who's cast even a cursory glance at the Tribune over the last few months, if not further back, will know that its sympathies are, publicly and unequivocally, with the MR, and that it is very critical, sometimes virulently so, of both the CdH and (especially) the PS.
...I do not think it is the job of the European Commission to interfere in the electoral process by distributing propaganda of whatever type or colour inside its buildings. The Commission must remain above the political squabbles of our host country...The Commission must not only stay neutral, but, most importantly, be seen to stay neutral, when it comes to Belgian political life, and to elections in particular. It dismays me to observe that our Administration is now prepared to jettison such a fundamental principle, apparently at the behest of one trade union (to which admittedly it owes a couple of favours). This affair, moreover, goes beyond questions of abstract principle: let's not forget that Belgians (i.e. people who might be tangibly affected by the propaganda) represent quite a large percentage of staff in the Commission. There is also the not exactly irrelevant matter of our present Belgian Commissioner's political affiliation. What if at least a section of Belgian public opinion, the media and rival parties started accusing the Commission of trying to help M. Michel's political side? Does the Administration really want to become involved in this type of controversy? Is the mutual back-scratching with R&D really worth the potential embarrassment?"

Well, does it? If Michel, (who it is thought has recently had a balloon inserted in his belly to cut his own emissions) is encouraging the Admin to dawdle then this is a scandal of serious proportions. It could of course be cock up rather than conspiracy, but like most cock ups in the EU, it cocks up in the preferred direction.

Propagandist or Journalist? You decide

If the EU is to be our government then it is imperative that there is a free and independent press. A press that citizens can trust to give them full information with clear, accurate and honest reporting. Of course there can be an editorial line, but as a citizen I should be able to know what that line is and to judge the source accordingly. The problem is, is that the system is corrupted by incompetence self selection and dishonesty.

Take the example of Enrico Mayrhofer. Enrico is a nice enough chap, I have been on nodding acquaintance with him for a number of years. But to be frank I was disgusted to discover that he is a fraud. I was handed a copy of dire free glossy advertising puff magazine 'Together' as I wandered into work. In it we learn in a dribblingly cringemaking interview that he is a,
"Italian journalist who has been living in Brussels for nine years, working as a correspondent for an Italian regional TV channel and as Press Officer of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions"(in fact he is the Director of their Brussels Office) .
The CPMR is a large lobbying organisation in Brussels, constantly trying to direct Commission funding towards its members. It even holds contracts, (pg 6) with the Commission.
However, what are we told the day in the life of Enrico includes?

"10.30…He has to meet an MEP involved in maritime issues, who wants to be briefed before a speech. "Sometimes we're ghostwriters"
12.00 Press Conference in the Berlyamont, headquarters of the European Commission. President Barroso is presenting the EU budget to Member States. This topic cannot be missed by Enrico's TV channel…
Afternoon… Press release to prepare, speeches to translate, newsletter to edit, articles to write, position paper to circulate."

How can somebody boast about writing a politician's speech in one breath be expected to report on it in the next? This is a clear conflict of interest. Does his audience have a clue? I doubt it. How can he ask serious questions about the EU budget when he is getting wages from an organisation that needs funds from the budget. There is no way that he can produce anything other than propaganda, but his audience is utterly unaware. In the register of accredited journalists to the European Institutions he uses a yahoo email address, as a lobbyist he uses enrico.mayrhofer@crpm.org I note that his phone number is the same for both. I wonder which organisation pays for it, Antennasud or the CPMR? Or maybe both?

The awful thing is that Enrico is not alone, there are hundreds of journalists in Brussels, many of whom moonlight as lobbyists, or should I say that there are hundreds of lobbyists in Brussels moonlighting as journalists. It is a cosy existence, the Commission has much of the media in its pocket and they get dual wages. The only loser is the citizen who gets propaganda instead of news. This is a festering scandal , but who in this town would dare try to expose it? Not only that but he is a member of the International Press Association . The IPA was involved in the Developement of a Code of Conduct (in April 2004) along with the International Federation of Journalists and others which states clearly,

"The growth of new media services also provides a welcome opportunity to restate and reaffirm the values of independent journalism in a city where lobbying interests and political policymakers compete for influence.

All journalists groups and media working from and based in Brussels should,

declare

• Their commitment to maintaining the highest standards of journalism, freedom of the press and pluralism;...
• That the credibility of news and information depends on the highest ethical standards in the gathering, presentation and circulation of news material.

They should,

5. Implement internal standards for monitoring the personal interests of employees and owners that may compromise editorial independence and which must be made known to the Editor in Chief;

6. Make available information on the external interests and ownership profile of the organisation;

7. Make available information regarding any benefits providing a pecuniary advantage provided by public authorities, including information on engagement in projects or activities funded by international organisations;

Oh yes and the title of the column, featuring Enrico? "EU Worker", well quite.