Scriptie Irene de Pous

8/7/2019 Scriptie Irene de Pous

1/72

Are we watching?

On the role of the media in

European decision-making processes.

A case study.

Final paper for the Masters degree of Journalism and Media, University of Amsterdam.

February 2011

Author


2/72


3/72

Summary

The number of accredited journalists working at the heart of the European Union has dropped

dramatically in the past years. At the same time more power has been shifted from the national to the

European level in order to improve the decisiveness of the European Union. These trends raise the

question that forms the starting point of this paper: are the media fulfilling a watchdog function with

regard to the policy processes in Brussels?

The first part of the paper explores why precisely this question would be of help for future

discussions on European journalism. Ideas on the functioning of the media are influenced by ideas on

democracy. Research that assesses the functioning of the media in regard to the European Union, often

focuses on the function of providing information. This focus can be explained by the fact that the

model of deliberative democracy seems to prevail in research on media and Europe. According to this

model the future of European democracy lies in more popular participation and citizen engagement.

The media then should serve this cause by informing the citizens.

In this paper it is argued that the discussion on European journalism will benefit by less normative

ideas on democracy. Contrary to the declining interest of citizens, interests groups by and large did

find their way to the European Union. The pluralist model of democracy therefore seems more

accurate to describe the current functioning of the European Union. This model emphasises the wide

variety of power in society and the different forces that are in conflict over the distribution of and

influence on this power. The media are an important societal force themselves, that can either

reproduce existing power structures, or act as a countervailing power. The danger of unequal access toand influence over the policy process by certain interest groups asks for the presence of watchdogs.

Besides the media, advocacy NGOs are an important watchdog actor to which special attention is paid

in this thesis.

Watchdogs should see to the question: is the state/government acting legitimate and in the public

interest? In this paper four different features are distinguished that help fulfil this watchdog role:

monitoring, revelation, the wish for change and being present. The detailed study of the policy process

of proposals to change pharmaceutical legislation, that forms the second part of this paper, offers

insights into how both media and the NGOs are fulfilling their watchdog role, and what the conditions

are that hinder or stimulate the performance of the different watchdog features. The proposals that are

the subject of the case study were chosen because of their controversy, the suspicion of undue

influence of corporate interests and the involvement of advocacy groups


4/72

correspondents and national reporters, on the issue of the additional value of being present in Brussels,

and on the relation between NGOs and media.

This thesis demonstrates that media indeed canplay an important role in European policy processes

and that they should do so to a far greater extent than they do now. Therefore, to think of an

infrastructure for European coverage that takes into account the issues that are raised here, is a

challenge that is worth taking up.


5/72

Table of contents

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7

2 Theoretical framework ....................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Media and democracy ................................................................................................................. 11

2.1.1 Medias duties ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 The watchdog function ......................................................................................................... 15

2.1.3 Advocacy NGOs................................................................................................................... 17

2.1.4 Role perception..................................................................................................................... 18

2.2 Media and Europe ....................................................................................................................... 20

2.2.1 The institutions of the European Union................................................................................ 20

2.2.2 Decision making processes................................................................................................... 21

2.2.3 The flesh and blood of the European Union ...................................................................... 22

2.2.4 The democratic and public deficit ........................................................................................ 23

2.2.5 Medias duties ...................................................................................................................... 252.2.6 Advocacy NGOs................................................................................................................... 28

2.3 Conclusions for case study .......................................................................................................... 29

3 Case study .......................................................................................................................................... 31

3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 31

3.1.1 Chronology........................................................................................................................... 32

3.1.2 Content analysis ................................................................................................................... 323.1.3 Interviews ............................................................................................................................. 34

3.1.4 Determining the limits of the case- study ............................................................................. 34

3.2 Reconstruction............................................................................................................................. 35

3.2.1 The early stage: shaping of the problem and agenda setting (2001-2006) ........................... 35

3.2.2 Global competitiveness or patient empowerment: the industry and health frame................ 37

3.2.3 Reporting in the early stage.................................................................................................. 39

3.2.4 Second stage: policy shaping and intensifying debate (2007-2008) .................................... 40

3.2.5 Reporting in the second stage ............................................................................................... 42

3.2.6 Third stage: whos next? (2009-2010).................................................................................. 43

3.2.7 Reporting in the third stage .................................................................................................. 44

3 2 8 NGOs and media: partners in crime? 45


6/72


7/72

1 Introduction

With hundreds of correspondents wandering around at Place Schumann, the Brussels press corps is

still the second largest in the world, after Washington. But the number of accredited journalists

working at the heart of the European Union has dropped dramatically in the past years: from 1300 in

2005 to a current 800.1

Some Eastern European countries do not have any permanent presence in

Brussels at all, the big Spanish daily El Pais went from four to two correspondents, the Dutch daily

NRC Handelsbladknown for its international focus - went from three to two correspondents while its

specialized page on Europe disappeared quietly this autumn.2

At the same time, with the arrival of the Lisbon Treaty more power has been shifted from the

national to the European level, in order to improve the decisiveness and democratic base of the

European Union. An article in the New York Times from March 2010 summarizes well these current

trends with the headline: As the E.U. does more, fewer tell about it.3

The withdrawal of correspondents, mainly due to the economic malaise of European mediaorganisations and a (perceived) lack of market for European news, led to proposals by a Danish

Member of Parliament to found a taskforce of European journalists funded by the European

Commission (in summer 2010). As the market is not able to resolve the problem of insufficient EU-

coverage, another approach is needed, MEP Morten Lkkegaard states in the European Voice.4

The

role of this specialised group of correspondents would be to cover EU news in a more instructive

manner [emphasis added].

The proposals by Lkkegaard are the latest manifestation of a long history of worries from

European officials on how to communicate the European project to its citizens. These worries are

only increasing because of the low voter turnout at European elections and the negative outcomes of

several referenda on the European constitution. In October 2008 the European Parliament,

Commission and Council three institutions with a certain distance to each other signed a

declaration to join forces in improving the communication about the European Union, setting common

communications priorities on a yearly base.5 The underlying mantra of these communication efforts by

the European Union could be described as: to know it, is to love it.6

European politicians are not the only ones worrying about the European communication problem.

During the last decades dozens of scholars shed their light on the question of a (lacking) European

public sphere Research dwells around a chicken and egg problem: is the democratic deficit of the


8/72

carried to a large extent by the media. Again, the key for a better functioning Union is found in more

information: a well-informed citizen, will be a participating citizen and participating citizens are

needed for a well functioning democratic European Union.

Whilst politicians and scholars thus see a clear task for journalists to do something about the

perceived European communication gap by providing information, among journalists themselves the

subject seems to be barely discussed.7

For them, reporting Europe is just business as usual.8

Indeed,

traditional news media find themselves in circumstances that make other questions more urgent. They

are busy surviving. But unfortunately this leaves the discussion about European coverage to the EU-

officials (concerned with communicating the project) and scholars (concerned with constituting apublic sphere).

Although these issues are valuable in itself, I think for journalists another question should be of

concern. If we are to be the watchdog of democracy which we generally claim to be-, then we should

be where power is. And power nowadays largely lies in Brussels. The relatively small presence of

correspondents there, urges the question that forms the starting point of this thesis:

Are the media fulfilling a watchdog function with regard to the policy processes in Brussels?

Of course, journalism can have many functions in society besides being a watchdog. And of course,

the European Union is not a democracy, it is a set of institutions halfway a federation and cooperation

of nation-states that is continuously developing. In the theoretical framework (chapter 2) of this paper

I will therefore elaborate on the different functions media can have in a democracy, relating this to the

different views there are on democracy. I will then argue why precisely the function of watchdog is an

important one when looking at the European democracy.

Just as media have other functions besides being a watchdog, there are other actors than the media

that fulfil a watchdog function. To one of these, the advocacy NGOs, I will pay special attention in

this paper. The economic decline of traditional news media, with foreign reporting and investigative

journalism as its first victims, raises the expectation of growing importance of these actors in the

news ecology. In the theoretical framework I will further discuss this development. For now, I add asecond part to my question:

How does the role of the media in the policy processes relate to the role of advocacy NGOs?


9/72

rather than the general, relationships and processes rather than outcomes and end-products, holistic

view rather than isolated factors, and multiple sources rather than one research method.11

In this paper the instance I will focus on is the European policy process of the information to

patients proposals. In December 2008 the European Commission launched some long awaited

proposals to reform legalisation concerning medicines and the pharmaceutical industry, that became

better known as the pharma-package. Part of this package were controversial proposals to liberalize

the rules for pharmaceutical companies to supply information on prescription medicines directly to

consumers. This subject had been lingering with the Commission already since 2001, and until this

moment the proposals are still under review.In chapter 3 I will further describe this case, motivate why I chose these particular proposals and

outline the methods of research I will be using for the case study. Then the case will be presented in

the form of a reconstruction, followed by a number of observations.

A case study can be theory testing or theory building. In this thesis the latter is the case. In chapter

4, therefore, I hope to draw some conclusions based upon the case study and the theoretical

framework. With this research approach I do not aim to produce general statements or hard data. I do

hope this final paper will shed more light on the current role of the media in the policy processes and

the relation with advocacy NGOs. In addition, hopefully these insights will contribute to future

discussions, not least among journalists themselves, about what kind of business Europe is, or should

be.


10/72


11/72

2 Theoretical framework

Ideas on medias duties and criticism of media performance are influenced by the concept of

democracy. It is for this reason that I would like to start the theoretical framework with a number of

more fundamental considerations concerning the relationship between the concepts of media and

democracy. I will then explore the function central to this paper, the watchdog function. In the second

part of the theoretical framework I will relate these insights to the European situation and formulate

some expectations in regard to the case study.

2.1 Media and democracy

2.1.1 Medias duties

The concepts of media and democracy are strongly connected in everyday perception. Freedom of

press is regarded as an indispensable feature of a well functioning democracy and threats to it are seen

as threats to democracy itself.12

The media are sometimes even called the Fourth Estate, in addition

to the Trias Politica of Montesquieu.

When thinking about the connection between democracy and the media in more detail, however,

there seems to be a gap between the disciplines of political theory and media scholarship.13

Political

theory barely addresses the role of the media in more than general terms, such as the importance of

freedom of speech and the circulation of information, if the media are addressed at all. Media scholars,

on the other hand, do not hesitate to give media a role of central importance to democracy, but often

rely on an over-simple or outdated model of democracy.

Political communication scholar Margaret Scammell (London School of Economics) aims to bridge

this gap in her piece Re-thinking medias duties to democracy. Scammell does not present a new

model of democracy or a new set of duties for media, but she aims to organize the existing debates.

She links the different views of democracy to the different functions media can have. Scammell

challenges the classic liberal model that prevails in US media studies, and suggests that both criticism

of media performance and prescription for journalist practices would be enlightened by attending to

democratic theory14

Taking up this suggestion in this section I will draw on Scammells paper to see


12/72

Scammell categorizes the democratic theory of the 20th

century roughly into four main schools of

thought. These four schools have been termed competitive elitism, pluralism, legal democracy or the

New Right and participatory models or the New Left. I will shortly address the main ideas of each one

as explained by Scammell, and thereafter see what implications they have for medias duties.

Competitive elitism claims that there is an inevitable stratification of society between the rulers and

the ruled. It has a strong focus on leadership and it has little faith in the masses or such a thing as

public will. The democratic feature is not found in popular participation, but in the principle that

everyone is free to compete for leadership by peoples vote. In addition, democracy should ensure that

the leaders can be replaced regularly by peoples vote. Democracy, in short, becomes a method forperiodic and peaceful transfer of government between two or more groups of leaders.

16The entire

theory can be defined as a reduction of democracy to mechanisms for the prevention of tyranny.

Tyranny is not only to be feared from the government, but also from the bureaucracy, that can

develop its own autonomous interests and potentially despotic powers.17

Besides the free and regular

competition of leaders, a strong Parliamentary system is one of the means to prevent this tyranny.

Second, there is the school of thought that has been termed pluralism. Like competitive elitists,

pluralists do not believe in mass participation. But according to the pluralists, in the competitive elitist

theory an important stratum is missing: the intermediary groups. These pressure and interest groups

play an important role in politics. In modern society, the polyarchy (or pluralist democracy) is

deformed, because in the system of influence corporate business interests are privileged above others

and there is a tendency towards minority domination.

Scammell notes that, like elitism, pluralism is concerned with the real workings of democracy,

developing a descriptive method, which identifies the characteristics of societies, accepted by social

scientists, as distinct from totalitarian societies. Pluralists accept that democracy in practice fell far

short of the participatory citizenship envisaged by Rousseau or Marx.18

The third school of thought, the New Right, returns to the classic liberal model of democracy. It

regards individual liberty as the prime and prior right and democracy is preferable to other political

systems only to the extent that it is capable of protecting freedom. Individual liberty is the goal,

democracy the means. The New Right envisages minimal state dedicated to the protection of life,liberty and estate and does not strive for equality. Democracy, in addition, must be prevented from

becoming the tyranny of the majority.

Finally, the New Left, or participatory theory, is the only model that emphasises active popular

participation. Participation should not be left to a minimum just to ensure the legitimacy of the


13/72

rational deliberation. A legitimate government embodies this will of the people, which comes into

being by public discussion.

Now what do these different theories on democracy imply for medias duties? Scammell distinguishes

between three main democratic functions of media that feature in the text-book summary of most

media research: provision of accurate and important information, watchdog over the state/government

and representation of the spectrum of public opinion.19

The importance that is given to each of these

duties depends on the vision on democracy.

The New Right attaches great importance to the watchdog function. According to the libertariansthe state is the major threat to individual liberty, and must be watched closely. Furthermore, the

libertarians support the classic principle of a free press, founded on freedom of speech and private

ownership. This classic liberal vision of media is widely spread in US media scholarship. It became

more important in Europe as well throughout the last century, but never to the same extent.

In Europe, medias duties indicated by the New Left, and especially by Habermasian ideas on

deliberative democracy, overwhelm the primacy of the watchdog function. The deliberative

democracy model puts a public sphere at its core that enables collective discussion. Duties to citizen

engagement, by informing, representing and creating public opinion thus become the prime

democratic obligations of media. This vision challenges the libertarian idea that free press equals a

free market. The media have a public service, and need not only protection from the state, but also

from the market.

The key media questions thus shifted from the ideas of press freedom from the state, and became:

are the media representative of social groups, do they create a forum where there is a genuinerational public debate, and do they contribute to cultural diversity, on the one hand, and social

consensus, on the other.20

The competitive elitist model has less clear-cut indications for the function of the media. The model is

based on the idea of prevention of tyranny, which would implicate the importance of a watchdog

function. However, the model draws (among others) upon the idea of a strong Parliamentary

government, thus ensuring checks and balances within the system of governance itself. Information isessential for the free competition for leadership, but in elitist democracy popular will (and so the

informed citizen) is a thing to be feared and manipulated more than acted upon.21

The underlying

assumption of this fear is that the media have a significant influence on public opinion.

Pluralists, finally, address the role of the media directly. According to the pluralists, influenced by


14/72

This mechanism is enforced by a free market model, where the performance of media to guard against

the power of over-privileged interests groups, suffers from the lack of capacity within media

companies. Media, being considered a vehicle of corporate propaganda, thus do more damage than

good to democracy.

According to Scammell, only the New Right gives a clear primacy to the watchdog function of media.

I would argue that also pluralist theory has important implications for this duty. Empirical research

confirms the pluralist idea that traditional news media reproduce existing power structures. Not

because they are willingly spreading corporate propaganda, but because they tend to depend on official

sources and are constraint by both their professional culture and conventional wisdom.

23

In his piece Rethinking the media as a public sphere

24, communication scholar James Curran

(University of London) clarifies how ideas on democracy, the journalistic professional culture and

existing power structures are interrelated. According to Curran, underlying classic liberal thought is a

simple view of society as an aggregation of individuals, and the government as the seat of power. This

has the following implications for the idea on medias duties:

The key social relationship that needs to be policed by an ever-vigilant media is therefore the nexus

between individuals and state. Indeed, in some presentations of liberal theory, the media are onpermanent guard duty patrolling against the abuse of executive power and safeguarding individual

liberty.25

This classic liberal view has been criticized because it does not take into account the way power is

exercised through capitalist and patriarchal structures and the way interests have become organized

and collectivised.26

Also, it does not recognise the media itself as being part of societal structures.

Although this criticism may state the obvious, current professional culture is still largely influenced

by this classic liberal view, Curran notes. The value placed by liberalism on the role of the media as a

channel of information between government and governed led to the celebration of professional

objectivity, with its stress on disinterested detachment, the separation of fact from opinion, the

balancing of claim and counterclaim.27

This classic liberal view and professional culture is opposed by what Curran calls the radical

democratic approach. In this approach, media are not regarded as a neutral intermediary betweengovernment and individuals, but rather as a battleground between contending forces. Medias

response to this conflict of interests affects the social balance. Media thus are a force of power

themselves. The radical democratic approach resembles the ideas of the pluralist, recognizing the wide

variety of power in society and the different forces that are in conflict over the distribution of this


15/72

However, while the pluralists see the reinforcing of existing power structures as almost an inevitable

feature of the media, the radicals argue that the media can have a role as countervailing agency.28

With

this role in mind, the criticism of the professional culture of objectivity is as follows:

Disengagement encourages, it is argued, passive dependence on powerful institutions and groups as

accredited sources; it fosters lazy journalism in which journalist fail to ferret independently for

information and evaluate truth from falsehood; and, above all, the conventional stress on hard

news and factual reporting disguises from journalists their own unconscious reliance on dominant

frameworks for selecting and making sense of the news.29

The radical approach, opposing to this professional objectivity, is associated with partisan and

investigative styles of journalism. And as I would argue, also with watchdog journalism. To support

this argument, it is necessary to take a closer look into the concept of watchdog journalism.

2.1.2 The watchdog function

Watchdog journalism is not a clear-cut concept. The idea of the media acting as a watchdog seems to

be so self-evident, that it is often referred to without a proper conceptualisation. In this section I will

explore the term watchdog journalism, and make the concept operational for this paper.

In the classic liberal approach, as mentioned above, the watchdog function of the press means

watching over state and government to protect individual liberty. The underlying claim is that the state

is the most potent potential enemy of the peoples liberty.30

And although the pluralist and radical

approach emphasise the influence of (corporate) interest groups in society, according to Scammell it israrely proposed that medias watchdog duty should be over corporate power rather than the state.

This classical approach fits well with the metaphor of the watchdog. There is a house

(peoples liberty) that needs protection from intruders (governmental power abuse). In my view, this

is a very narrow definition of watchdog journalism.

Media scholar and investigative journalist Mark Lee Hunter offers a broader concept of watchdog

journalism. He calls the principal role of both watchdog and investigative journalism to protect public

goods and values from those who would appropriate, corrupt or destroy them.31

Relating this to the

watchdog metaphor, the house would be not only individual liberty but all public goods and values.

And the intruders are not only state actors, but also corporations or other actors.

The definition of Hunter demonstrates that the concepts of watchdog and investigative journalism


16/72

information that some implicated parties want to keep hidden.32

Of course, this is often by

investigation, but for example can also happen by revealing leaked documents.

The approach of this paper will be a combination of the before mentioned definitions.

Watchdog journalism in this paper means watching over the (European) state/government.33

However,

the underlying claim is not that the state is the most potent potential enemy of the peoples liberty.

By contrast, I view the state as an important actor in protecting public goods and values, and I think

ultimately it is their task to do so.

The key question of watchdog journalism in this approach therefore would be: is the

state/government acting legitimate and in the public interest? This question suits well with thedescription of the watchdog function of the press of sociologist Michael Schudson (Columbia

University): here nothing about journalism matters more than its obligation to hold government

officials to the legal and moral standards of public service.34

The main threats to these legal and moral standards of public service are the private interests of the

government officials, according to Schudson. Private gain, corruption and ultimately tyranny are the

abuses that should be watched for. With the pluralist and radical approach in mind, I would add

another threat to the standards of public service: the domination of certain (corporate) interests.

Watchdog journalism should pay special attention to the influence that interests groups exert over the

government.

To assess whether or not the media are fulfilling a watchdog function in the case study, it is useful

to distinguish further between different features of watchdog journalism that result from the concepts

presented above. I would like to highlight four features to which I will pay special attention when

analysing the case study:

Monitoring: this is essentially what watching means: to keep track of what is happening.

Revelation: according to Schultz, a key characteristic of watchdog journalism is revealing

information that some parties want to keep hidden.

Change: according to Hunter, the core objective of watchdog journalism is to change the

world. Exposing wrong doing, has the goal to end it. Being present as a watchdog: according to Schudson, one of the important functions of

watchdog journalism is the awareness of people in government that they are being watched.

In the section on Media and Europe I will argue why this concept of watchdog journalism is important


17/72

2.1.3 Advocacy NGOs

Traditional news organisations are ever less capable of conducting watchdog styles of journalism as

described above, due to the decline of capacity and resources. Therefore the future of watchdog

journalism should be sought outside the news industry, Hunter argues:

The industry retains significant resources for the distribution of news, and will remain a partner of

choice for watchdog enterprises. However, the industry is no longer essential to the same degree for

the future of watchdog news. Our belief is that investigative journalism will grow outside and in

parallel with the industry, and build a new public, before it is widely reintegrated into the industrys

standard offerings as a central mission. (If we are wrong, and the news industry swiftly rebuilds itswatchdog capacity, we will be delighted.)35

According to Hunter, the current paradigm shift in the role of journalism could benefit watchdog

journalism, albeit outside the traditional news industry. The core elements of this paradigm shift are

the following: an evolution of professional ethics (and audience expectations) from objectivity to

transparency, the transformation of content from a product to a service, and the reorientation of market

focus from the public to the community.36

When talking about watchdog enterprises outside the news industry Hunter refers to stakeholder

media, meaning media that reflect partisan or community interests. Stakeholder media fit well within

the new paradigm as described above. The goal here is not to create a middle ground. The goal is to

define issues of concern to the community, address those concerns, and to offer solutions that can help

current members and attract new ones.37

Also, Hunter argues, stakeholder media do not differ so

much from watchdog journalism as objective reporting. The core objective of watchdog journalismis to change the world, and that is not an objective enterprise; it proceeds from a subjective decision

that the world needs to change (Hunter et al. 2009a).

Hunter explores different kinds of watchdog enterprises outside the news industry, one of them

being environmentalist advocacy NGOs.38

He gives the example of Greenpeace, which over the years

has extended its investigative capacity and journalistic capacity and spreads research reports through

its own media outlets. Greenpeace operates increasingly as an auxiliary of the news industry, which is

effectively outsourcing coverage of global environmental issues.39

The establishment of research and investigative reporting capacity of NGOs is also mentioned in a

series of the Nieman Journalism Lab (an initiative of Harvard University to initiate a debate on quality

journalism), devoted to the arrival of NGOs in the news ecology.40

The main question of the series


18/72

was: to what extent do NGOs take on functions as information intermediaries, working in cooperation

with, or even in stead of, traditional news organizations?

In the Nieman series, both NGOs and journalists observe a growing reliance of the news media on

NGOs, including humanitarian, human rights and advocacy groups. Although three types of NGOs are

mentioned, the series mainly focuses on the role of humanitarian NGOs in foreign reporting. For

example: in areas that are difficult to enter because of war or natural disaster, journalists depend on the

infrastructure provided by a NGO. Or: in areas where journalists never come because of the small

capacity in foreign reporting, media rely on NGOs to draw attention to newsworthy events.

Because the decline of capacity is very visible in foreign reporting, so is the reliance on NGOs. ButI would argue that in every area where there is a decline in capacity, the dependence on NGOs

increases.41

As both watchdog journalism and European journalism are areas of decline, it will be

interesting to look at the role of advocacy NGOs in this field.

Finally, the reactions on the Nieman series are worth mentioning here. Most contributions work on the

growing reliance on NGOs in problematic terms: it is raising ethical conflicts and undermining the

objectivity of journalism. PhD candidate in communication Felicity Duncan (University of

Pennsylvania) responds to this fearful approach by arguing that it narrows the discussion. The

emerging role of NGOs in the news field is seen solely from within the liberal paradigm, where

journalism is primarily engaged in the collection and neutral, unbiased presentation of objectively

verified facts with the intention of only informing and educating audiences. Duncan opposes this

limited perception of journalism, and the supposed threat to objectivity. There is no pristine space of

news, she argues, and news creation is already an ideological enterprise.

NGOs new media strategies are part of a broader evolution in news mediascapes, and a

consequence of the growing importance of media in diplomacy efforts for actors ranging from states

to mining companies basically for all groups with a stake in global policy and negotiation. We

should not fall into the trap of assuming that there is a clean, traditional news space into which

NGOs are moving, or that journalists view NGO involvement with hostility.42

2.1.4 Role perception

In the earlier sections it became clear that both ideas on the neutral role of media (as being detached

from existing societal structures), and the prevailing professional culture (with objectivity as its

hi h t t d d) ld b id d bl ti H d thi i fl th lf ti f


19/72

The notion of objectivity has been identified by, mainly American, scholars, as the key element of the

professional self-perception of journalists.

Although objectivity has a problematic status in current thinking about the impossibility of beingvalue-neutral, authors and journalists alike still adopt more or less synonymous concepts like

'fairness', 'professional distance' or 'impartiality' to define what media practitioners do.

() The perceived neutrality or distanced attitude of journalists can be traced throughout surveys in

the 20th century.43

These ideas did not diminish over time. The fact that objectivity may not be possible does not mean

one cannot strive for it. Ideas on objectivity go hand in hand with a call for critical involvement and

increased sensitivity towards the public. In addition, a research among thousand Dutch journalists

shows that they have the ambition to influence the public and political debate. Journalists do not

experience this paradox of wanting to be objective, critically involved and influential as problematic.44

In the seventies of the past century, American scholars constructed a list of twelve possible media

roles. This list is still used to research the role perception of journalists, by asking them how they rate

each role.45

In his dissertation Deuze compares research on role perception in five different countries

(US, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and United Kingdom). The two roles of providing analysis

and interpretation and get news to the public quickly are more or less topping the charts in all the

countries. In the Netherlands and Germany, next on the list comes being an adversary of public

officials and business. In Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom there is another role

that comes third, or even second: investigate the claims of the government, which in The Netherlands

is seventh on the list. The Dutch and German lists also feature the role to stand up for the

disadvantaged, which more than 40% finds important.It is difficult to distinguish in the research by Deuze a primacy of one of the before mentioned

functions of media (watchdog, providing information and representing public opinion. Other research

suggests that there is a difference in professional culture between the British-American way of

conducting news journalism and the continental European. The former would be more focussed on

watching over state/government, the latter would be more focussed on the idea of public service.46

Research that was conducted in 2008 among Spanish and British journalism students supports this

suggestion: one third of the Spanish students had motives to become a journalist that can be

denominated as public service, against 17 % of the British students.


20/72

2.2 Media and Europe

In the part on media and democracy it became clear that ideas on democracy affect ideas on medias

duties, and so affect criticism of and prescription for media performance. In this part I will relate these

insights to the European situation and the current discourse on Europe and media. To understand the

European situation I will first give a short introduction into the European Union and then turn to the

debate on the public deficit and media performance, ideas on medias duties and finally the role of

advocacy NGOs in Europe.

2.2.1 The institutions of the European Union

In daily live the European Union is often referred to as Brussels, a generic term for the different

institutions that form the European Union. This is, of course, an overly simple representation. By

contrast, the real structure of the European Union remains a complicated affair even for insiders. It is a

vivid political body under continuous change. This and the following sections will therefore not give a

complete answer to the question how does the European Union work. They do aim to give more

insight in how power is spread through the institutions, and how the decision-making processes work.

I will pay attention to both the official structure, and the functioning in reality.47

The core of the European Union is formed by the institutional triangle of the European Commission,

the Council (European Council and Council of Ministers) and the European Parliament. Other

important bodies are the European Court of Justice, the advisory bodies of the Committee of the

Regions and the Economic and Social Committee and for the monetary union, the European Central

Bank. I will focus on the triangle, as these institutions are most important in the decision making

process.

The European Council consists of the heads of state and prime ministers of the Member States. It isthe youngest of the three institutions (it was officially established in 1974), but it developed to de

facto the highest entity for decisions.48

The European Council meets (at least) four times a year, and

decides upon the policy priorities of the European Union. It is not part of the normal legislative

procedure.


21/72

one or more Directorate-General (DG). Commissioners ought to act in the name of European interests.

Besides being a legislative body, the Commission has an executive role, and it sees to the application

of European decisions.

The European Parliament represents the European citizens, and its influence has extended

significantly over the years. From only an advisory assembly of national Parliamentarians in the

fifties, it changed into a directly chosen European Parliament (1979) with co-legislative power on

some issues (1993, Treaty of Maastricht). Since the Treaty of Maastricht the range of issues on which

the European Parliament exerts co-legislative power has grown, the last extension deriving from the

Lisbon Treaty (2009). The Parliament is not authorised to initiate laws.

2.2.2 Decision making processes

The process of decision-making differs per policy area and per law type. The treaties, that are called

primary law, determine on which issues the European Union has competence and what procedure of

law making should be followed per policy area. Two types of law can be distinguished: secondary law

and delegated law. On a national level this could be compared with laws and rules, which are both

legally binding.49

Secondary law is any subsequent decision based on treaty text. With the effectuation of the Lisbon

treaty, in the majority of the European policy areas secondary law follows the so-called codecision

procedure. This means that both the Council and the Parliament have to agree upon a proposal of the

European Commission, and are able to make changes to the draft. If the Council and the Parliament donot agree immediately, there is a second reading. If there is still no consensus then a conciliation

committee is established with representatives of both the Council and the Parliament to come to an

agreement.

In some cases the Council has autonomous competences and another procedure is followed than the

codecision procedure, for example in the fields of treaty formation and defence. Also, on some

proposals of the Commission such as on agriculture and on competition, the Council has to consult the

Parliament, but is not obliged to take over their amendments.

The vast majority of the binding decisions that come from Brussels, however, consist of delegated

law.50

These are acts that by secondary law have been delegated to the Commission. The Parliament or

the Council may have the possibility to object, if this is stated in the conditions of the delegation.


22/72

2.2.3 The f lesh and blood of the European Union

Lobby professor and political scientist Rinus van Schendelen (Erasmus University Rotterdam) wrote

a manual for lobbyist in the EU, which gives a good insight in the EU engine room. As lobbyists are

concerned with exerting influence, I consider them a good indicator of where power lies and how in

realit51

a system works. This section therefore will be largely based upon Van Schendelens work.

The question where power lies in Brussels is a popular one, but difficult to answer. According to

Van Schendelen it is even impossible to answer, because there is much variation by policy domain

and even by dossier for each domain. () Ultimately, every case of EU decision-making gives its ownanswer to the question.

52He makes an effort anyhow.

The formal answer would be: power lies with the Council. This is ultimately the most powerful

institution, as it both sets the policy priorities and has to give its approval to all important legislation. It

thus has the first and final say.

The realitanswer of Van Schendelen is, however, that the power of the Commission cannot be

underestimated. He compares a final binding decision with an A4-format piece of paper. The

Commission is the one that usually fills it in. In so far as the Council has any say over a proposed

decision, it usually gives this only as a last say at the end of the secondary pipeline, when the paper is

already filled with text. And among lobbyist in Brussels the saying goes that the most important

people are not those who sign the decision, but those who write the text.53

Different than common myths about the EU say, the Commission is a relatively small body.54

The

size of its bureaucracy is five times smaller than that of the Dutch central government, and forty times

smaller than the US federal service. According to Van Schendelen, it is precisely this relatively under-

resourced nature that makes it exceptional in comparison to national bureaucracies. It leads to a

strong appetite for information and support from the outside.55

To be capable to fulfil its task, the Commission has different ways of expanding its capacity. By

outsourcing, for example to national governments (implementation and inspection) and private

organisations (research and advice), and by in-sourcing people from the outside. Van Schendelen

distinguishes between four techniques of in-sourcing: hiring temporal personnel, setting nationalexperts to work, inviting experts from interests groups and organising public consultations. These

latter two are the clearest proof of the Commissions basic culture of permanent and intense

consultation of stakeholders (COM 2002/744) or deliberative democracy [Tanasescu, 2009].56

A common way to invite experts from interest groups is to form expert groups. These groups can


23/72

legislation).57

In practice, these legalistic distinctions do not matter so much as influence matters more

than formal power. And according to Van Schendelen both types of groups can be highly influential.

By defining problems and suggesting solutions, expert committees at least frame the policy

climate in an area. Often they have a direct impact on the agenda and the proposals that follow.58

For

interests groups, an effective lobby technique therefore is to make sure to be part of, or have

affiliations with someone that is part of, an expert committee. Members of expert committees do not

receive financial merits for participation.59

The formal power of Parliament, finally, is limited, because it can only exert co-decision power

over half of the secondary cases. In fact, only 11% of its plenary time the Parliament has spent oncodecision dossiers. But according to Van Schendelen in various ways the EPs influence can far

exceed its formal power and has always done so. Pushed by civil interest groups, it has always been a

major creator of EU issues and agendas [].60

MEPs launch new policy ideas and form ad hoc

groups to put a topic on the agenda. The Parliament is considered the most open institution of the EU

by lobbyist (followed by the Commission and last the Council). Parliamentarians, and especially the

rapporteur and committees that prepare a dossier before the vote in the Parliament, therefore are a

desired target of lobby groups.

In the next section is demonstrated how this distribution of (formal and informal) power leads to

problems of representation, accountability and legitimacy. In short, a democratic deficit.

2.2.4 The democratic and public deficit

The founding fathers of the European project envisioned it as a flight from history into bureaucracy,

writes Dutch philosopher and historian Luuk van Middelaar in his workDe passage naar Europa.61

After the bloody world wars, they wanted to de-dramatize the unpredictable inter-state relationships.

The means to do this were a treaty and a merger of economic interests. Their work on the integration

was done as much as possible outside the view of the public. This choice to work backstage was a

conscious and probably inevitable one, says Van Middelaar, if you take into account the nationalistic

feelings of the people at that time. The European project thus focused on economic integration and

small politics, with the bureaucratic means of regulation and monitoring. It did not need a public.

However, as the power of the European Union increased, this focus on bureaucracy could not last.


24/72

should have a face, and the face should be visible. The establishment of the European Council and the

direct elections of the European Parliament in the seventies tried to solve this problem of invisibility.

But, as Van Middelaar continues to use the theatre metaphor, with actors on stage now, there was needfor a public.

This transformation -from a faceless bureaucracy into a political body that seeks public support to

legitimate itself - caused a search for public and gave urgency to the issue of democratic legitimacy.

Although since the seventies much has changed within the design of the European Union, these issues

remain problematic. They are addressed by scholars with the concepts of democratic deficit and

public deficit, which in scholarly discourse often are interrelated.

First, the democratic deficit. Only the European Parliament is elected directly by the citizens, but it

has limited power. The Commission has no democratic base at all, except that its configuration needs

approval by the Parliament. This would be unproblematic, if the Commission were only an executive

body. But the Commission is not only an executive body; it has developed into an important

legislative force as well. The members of the Council are delegated by the different national publics.

However, as Van Middelaar notes, there can be no Parliamentary dialogue between the Council and

the Parliament, as the first has a mandate from the national electorate and the latter from the European

electorate.62

This discrepancy between the actual level of European governance and the democratic legitimacy of

those who govern is also addressed by Habermas in his essay Why Europe needs a constitution:

At present, legitimacy flows more or less through the channels of democratic institutions and

procedures within each nation-state. This level of legitimation is appropriate for inter-governmental

negotiations and treaties. But it falls short of what is needed for the kind of supranational and

transnational decision-making that has long since developed within the institutional framework ofthe Union and its huge network of committees.

63

The solution to this democratic problem should be sought primarily in the design of the institutions.

But, in the same essay, Habermas also relates the democratic deficit to a public deficit:

There will be no remedy for the legitimation deficit, however, without a European-wide public

spherea network that gives citizens of all member states an equal opportunity to take part in an

encompassing process of focused political communication.64

This view appears to be wide-spread among scholars.65

The emerging debate about the European

public sphere is regarded as fundamental for the preservation or the realisation of democracy in the

merging Europe.66

However, the concept of a European public sphere, or rather the question of its


25/72

develop by analogy with the construction of national identity. Habermas, in his essay on a European

constitution, is a strong advocate of this development:

If the emergence of national consciousness involved a painful process of abstraction [] why,firstly, should this [] be doomed to come to a final halt just at the borders of our classical nation-

states? And secondly: the artificial conditions in which national consciousness came into existence

recall the empirical circumstances necessary for an extension of that process of identity-formation

beyond national boundaries. These are: the emergence of a European civil society; the construction

of a European-wide public sphere; and the shaping of a political culture that can be shared by all

European citizens.68

However, initiatives for pan-European media until this time either failed (like the newspaper TheEuropean), or did not succeed to grow beyond a low-circulated medium addressing a European elite

(like the newspaper European Voice, or the European editions ofFinancial Times, Economisten Wall

Street Journal). As mass media are considered essential to the existence of a public sphere, the

absence of European mass media led to the conclusion that a pan-European sphere is a Utopia,

unlikely to become reality in the medium term.69

Causes that are often mentioned for the absence of European mass media are the lack of a commonlanguage, the lack of a uniform journalistic and media culture

70and the before mentioned democratic

deficit. Without a real democratic structure, there is no need for citizens to engage in a European

debate that would constitute a public sphere.71

As a pan-European public sphere appeared to be a fata morgana, scholars started to focus on the

Europeanization of national public spheres. One of the methods for studying this Europeanization is to

analyse the content of national media.72

Among researchers, the common thesis is that a European

public sphere can be constituted via the Europeanization of reporting in the national media.73

The project description of a major research project called The transformation of Political

Mobilisation and Communication in European Public Spheres to which I will return later refers to

this current discussion as to a present call with an emphasis on the emergence of a European public

space, on deliberation and participation, and on the development of active European citizenship.74

2.2.5 Medias duties

The emphasis on the emergence of a European public space and active European citizenship seems to

fit well into the school of thought that before was termed the New Left or deliberative democracy


26/72

Against this background, research on media performance with regard to European coverage mainly

judges media coverage on the extent to which it contributes to the constitution of a European public

sphere. If the future of European democracy lies in more popular participation and citizen engagement,the media should serve this cause by informing the citizens.

Without giving a value judgement on these ideas on deliberative democracy and the need for a

public sphere, I think it is useful to consider the fact that these ideas are just one out of many more that

one can have on democracy.75

And until this moment this model has reality working against it. The

European Union is, at least in the medium term, not developing in the direction of a supranational

democracy and neither is the interest of citizens in the EU increasing. Rather the opposite is

happening.76

So the result is that as long as there are no institutional changes - the discussion is

jammed. On the one hand the need for citizens to engage in public discussion is absent given the

current institutional structure, on the other hand this public discussion is regarded as essential for a

more democratic EU.

It is for this reason that I think it is useful to turn to other less normative - ideas on democracy than

the deliberative model for the questions on media and Europe. Given the current functioning of the

European Union, I think the pluralist, and in addition the radical approach as described in the section

on media and democracy, could offer relevant insights. As Scammell stated, pluralism is concerned

with the real workings of democracy, accepting that democracy in practice fell far short of the

participatory citizenship envisaged by Rousseau or Marx.77

The pluralists and radicals emphasise the wide variety of power in society and the different forces

that are in conflict over the distribution of and influence on this power. Looking at the EuropeanUnion, I consider this emphasis relevant. Unlike the citizens, interests groups by and large did find

their way to the European Union. These interest groups vary from local governments, workers unions

to multinationals and NGOs. It is said that between 15.000 and 20.000 lobbyist wander around in

Brussels.78

As described in the section on the flesh and blood of Europe, possibilities to influence and

participate in the policy process for these interest groups are numerous and the Commission is known

to be open, far more open than most national administrations.79

Some scholars see this feature of

participation of interest groups as democratic. Van Schendelen even goes as far as stating that the

future of European democracy could lie here: in the improvement of the lobbies, operating in a free

market place of ideas.


27/72

Union, this danger of domination by certain interests also is an issue.80

In the above mentioned

research project on European communication it is stated that although the Commission is known to be

very open, its accessibility is highly selective. The Commission listens carefully to major economicgroups, particularly if they represent interests that have already been aggregated to the EU-level.

81

To use the words of Van Schendelen, who calls the lobby arena a free market place of ideas: it is

exactly this free market that is problematic. In principle, everybody is free to lobby at the European

Union, but the arena is highly competitive and the issues and policy processes are complex. So the

more professional an interest group is, the more influential it will be. And professional lobbying in the

end is a matter of resources. This mechanism leads to the concern that corporations are privileged

above other interests groups.

Van Schendelen uses the term Darwins law to describe this mechanism in the lobby arena. There

are different corrections to adjust abuse of this mechanism.82

At first, efforts are being made to make

the lobby circuit more transparent, such as the establishment of a (voluntary) lobby register.83

Second,

the European Commission sometimes subsidies interests groups who it thinks relevant but under

resourced (such as environmental NGOs).84

Van Schendelen states, finally, that watchdogs are

important to guard the two preconditions that keep the lobby arena democratic: open entry and fair

competition. Critical stakeholders and the mass media are considered the best possible watchdogs, in

the view of Van Schendelen.

So the ideas of the pluralist and radical approach in combination with the actual working of the

European Union (the battle of interests at an EU level together with the openness of the Commission

for input of these interests groups) indicate an important function for the media as a watchdog.The results of the research project The transformation of Political Mobilisation and Communication

in European Public Spheres further add to the argument for the watchdog function of media. The

massive research funded by the European Commission - consisted of a combination of newspaper

content analysis, and interviews with civil society actors, mass media professionals and institutional

representatives across seven countries and was aimed to fill the empirical void that currently exists in

scholarship on the European public sphere.85

The most relevant conclusions for this paper are the

following:

We find evidence of a clear democratic deficit in Europeanised public communication. However,

the nature of this deficit is not as is often supposed that the media give us little information

about Europe or that such information is particularly negative. Neither is it true that European

institutions and particularly the European Commission receive little attention in the media. []


28/72

Mass media coverage merely mirrors and reproduces these structural inequalities. Without political

reforms that improve the accessibility of the European policy process, the stark inequalities in

access to European public debates will continue to reinforce the elite bias of the European policy

process, with the risk of further undercutting public support for European integration and Europeaninstitutions.

86

These conclusions suit with the existing observation that mass media coverage reproduces existing

power structures. In the Eurpolcom research project, solutions therefore are sought in institutional

reform. Following the radicals, however, I think media can also play an important role in the situation

as it is, by acting as a countervailing power. If the situation is considered to be deformed in the

representation of interests and the access to the policy process, this asks for watchdog journalism that

does not merely reproduce existing power structures.

The challenge then would be not to focus on the amount of coverage (which actually is not the

problem as the Eurpolcom research demonstrates) and on informing the citizen. Instead, it will be

worthwhile to focus on the way in which issues are covered, and whether media are acting as a

watchdog to the officials. To use the theatre metaphor of Van Middelaar: instead of thinking about the

public - that is difficult to find-, lets focus on the actors that already are on stage. According to

Schudson, that is precisely what watchdog journalism is doing: In the second function of journalism

in a democracy, the governors on stage and not the governed in the auditorium are the focus and

journalism is watching them. In this function it is not of great concern that all citizens are

knowledgeable: All that matters is that people in government believe that some people somewhere are

following the news.87

2.2.6 Advocacy NGOs When a certain area of journalism is on the decline, one can expect the role of advocacy NGOs to

increase, as was argued in section 2.1.3. As both the areas of watchdog and European journalism are

on the decline, I expect an important role for advocacy NGOs in the European decision making

processes.

One field where this is already visible and NGOs indeed play an important watchdog role, is that of

lobbying and the current lack of transparency. Ten years ago it was not known which and how many

expert groups existed and who was participating in them. This situation has changed, and is still


29/72

the presence of business in expert committees and launched a report about this. They correspond with

the Commission about expert groups that are of concern, they campaign for more transparency and a

more balanced composition of expert committees, and they seek media attention for the issue. Onemember of ALTER-EU is Corporate Europe Observatory, an advocacy NGO with the prime concern

of exposing corporate lobbying in the EU and to expose and challenge the privileged access and

influence enjoyed by corporations and their lobby groups in EU policy making.

2.3 Conclusions for case study

To conclude the theoretical part, I will examine what consequences the observations done so far have

for the second part of this paper, the case study.

Research that assesses the functioning of the media in regard to the European Union, often focuses

on the function of providing information. This focus can be explained by the fact that the model of

deliberative democracy seems to prevail in research on media and Europe. However, the pluralist

model of democracy seems more accurate to describe the current functioning of the European Union.

This model, combined with the radical approach, in my view urges watchdog journalism. In the case

study I will therefore assess the functioning of the media with the focus on this function.

The key question (in this paper) that watchdog journalism should pose, is: is the state/government

acting legitimate and in the public interest? I distinguished between four features of this watchdog

journalism: monitoring, revelation, change and being present. These features help to assess whether or

not the media are fulfilling a watchdog function and how this relates to advocacy NGOs.

In the case study approach a case is selected on the basis of known attributes. These attributes

should be particularly significant in terms of the practical problem or theoretical issue that the

researcher wants to investigate. This is opposite to large-scale surveys, where instances are selected

on a random basis to ensure as far as possible that they do not represent any specific factors relating

to the variable that is being studied.89

What are the attributes that would be particularly significant to research whether the media arefulfilling a watchdog function? With the findings of the theoretical framework in mind, it can be said

that the policy process that forms the subject of the case study, should have the following attributes:

different stakeholders that try to influence the process, the suspicion of undue influence of corporate

interests and the involvement of advocacy groups.


30/72


31/72

3 Case study

In December 2008 the European Commission launched some long awaited proposals to reform

legalisation concerning medicines and the pharmaceutical industry, that became better known as the

pharma-package. The package covered three major areas: revised regulation on pharmacovigilance

(medicine safety and monitoring), a directive on counterfeit medicines and revised regulation on

information to patients. The latter forms the subject of this case study. Already before its publication is

was considered highly controversial. The proposals would liberalize the rules for pharmaceuticalcompanies to supply information on prescription medicines directly to consumers. Opposing consumer

and health organisations feared that this would open up the way for direct advertising on prescription

medicines, which currently is prohibited in the European Union. Because of its controversial nature,

the part on information to patients soon got separated from the rest of the pharma-package and

followed its own path through the European institutions. In November 2010 the European Parliament

adopted the information to patients proposals, after the Parliamentary Committee on Health largely

had rewritten them. The European Council still has to decide on it.

On the eve of the publication of the proposals by the Commission, in November 2008, the European

newspaper European Voice concludes an article on the subject as follows: In any event, expect an

intense battle between public health and pharmaceutical lobbies. An intense battle, organised lobbies

and proposals that have been lingering for almost a decade: controversy is the main reason why I

chose this directive as a case study.90 Something seems to be at stake and opposing actors are

involved, which both increase the chance of finding relevant insights on the role of the media.

Also, the policy process of the information to patients, the so-called codecision procedure, is a quite

general one used in half of the cases of secondary legislation.91

Therefore I consider it useful to get

insight into this type of procedure.

3.1 Methodology

The case study consists of a reconstruction of the policy process of the information to patients

proposals which I from now on will call information proposals For this reconstruction I pay special


32/72

What are the ideas of actors themselves on their role in the policy process?

These questions should later on be of help to answer the main question of this thesis: are the mediafulfilling a watchdog function in regard to the policy processes in Brussels and how does their role

relate to the role of advocacy NGOs? To answer these sub-questions in the reconstruction I used three

methods of analysis: chronology, content analysis and interviews.

3.1.1 Chronology

I will map the temporal sequence of three types of events: the political events of the decision making

process (such as the publication of the draft proposal by the European Commission), the publications

of news media on the information to patients directive and finally activities of NGOs opposing the

directive (such as the publication of a Joint Briefing document for the Parliament). Putting these three

events together in one timeline, will give insights into the causality of events and the linkage between

news coverage and the phase of the decision making process.92

3.1.2 Content analysis

Second, I will analyse the content of news articles reporting directly on the information directive,

looking at frames and claims.An important part of public relations nowadays is the so-called issue management. In scholarly

literature this term is used to describe the organized activity of identifying emerging trends, concerns,

or issues likely to affect an organization in the next few years and developing a wider and more

positive range of organizational responses toward that future.93

A key element of issue management

is framing. When new trends emerge, and an organisation is aware of it too late, then it is impossible

to frame anything but a reactive response. Good public relations thus seek to frame issues in an

early stage, or even pro actively frame problems, in order to ensure a frame that can be favourable to

the organisation and the policy they wish for.

Van Schendelen, in his lobby manual, repeatedly addresses framing as a lobby technique. As the

real interest behind a value does not easily attract much support by its selfish nature, it should be


33/72

An up-frame, Van Schendelen continuous, is most useful for an unfriendly arena and requires a

lot of study of what important stakeholders, officials and the audiences want to hear. An unfriendly

arena is an arena in which one stakeholder wants something that will meet much opposition. Given thecontroversial nature of the proposals of this case study, I expect this mechanism of up and down

framing to take place. And as the way a policy issue is framed is of importance to the policy process,95

I will investigate whether the media take over one or the other frame.

I will look at the frames that the two most opposing stakeholders want to put forward. That is on

one side the frame that the pharmaceutical industry wants to put forth, hereafter called the industry

frame, and on the other side the frame that consumer and health organizations want to put forth,

hereafter called the health frame.96

In the reconstruction it will become clear what these frames are. I

expect the industry frame to be an up-frame (as they operate in an unfriendly arena and are the ones

that wish for legislative change) and the health frame then can be either another up-frame or a down-

frame.

To determine what frame is used in an article, I will look at the main news statement of the article

that is done by the author. That means that the framing through quoted sources is excluded.

To look at claims I used the public claim-making theory, a method derived from the Eurpolcom

research. Eurpolcom writes about this method:

Traditional approaches to content analysis are media-centric, and neglect the role of other political

actors in shaping the nature of public discourse and contestation. Media professionals certainly

contribute to shaping the public sphere, but to do so they have to draw on the raw material of

communicative actions and events that are produced and staged by non-media actors such as

politicians, interest groups, and NGOs.97

Because my research focuses precisely on this interaction between different actors and the media, I

chose this method for analysis.

A claim is considered a unit of strategic action in the public sphere, with seven possible elements:

location in time and space (when and where), claimant (who), form of the claim (how), the addressee

of the claim (at whom), the substantive issue of the claim (what), object actor (for/against whom) and

justification of the claim (why). For example:

Consumer groups (claimant) warn in an open letter (form of the claim) to the Commission

(addressee) that EU proposals will allow the sidestepping of the advertising ban (substantive issue)

by drug companies (object actor).


34/72

3.1.3 Interviews

Finally I will interview some key figures from the media and stakeholder NGOs. The interviews serve

partly to help the reconstruction, and partly to talk more in general about their ideas on their own roles

and that of other actors in the decision making process. The selection of interviewees was influenced

by the selection of newspapers and NGOs and the availability and willingness to co-operate of the

approached persons during the given period of time. I conducted interviews with a Trouw and

European Voice reporter, with the campaign director Europe of Health Action International and with

the senior health policy officer at consumer organization BEUC.

3.1.4 Determining the l imits of the case- study

Because the case study is too large to study in its full extent, I made a selection of newspapers and

NGOs to be studied, and limited the period of time.

Although the proposals were only published in 2008, the pre-history starts as early as 2001.98

My

research will cover the whole period, as this early stage is essential to understand the background of

the proposals and the different stakeholders.

The newspaper selection consists of two Dutch quality papers, Trouw and de Volkskrant, the

English quality paper The Guardian and the European weekly European Voice.99

Of course, there is

some arbitrariness in these kinds of selections, but the following considerations played a role. Trouw is

a newspaper that has a focus on healthcare issues and employs an investigative journalist working on

the pharmaceutical industry and de Volkskrantis a quite internationally oriented newspaper, which for

both would increase the chance that they report on the subject. The Guardian is a newspaper with a

strong international focus as well, and by exception an English newspaper that is not anti-Europe.

European Voice is a newspaper whose main task it is to report on European policy issues, and is

required reading for EU officials. It would therefore qualify as elite-media. The mixture of different

national newspapers and a European elite newspaper gives the opportunity of distinguishingdifferences between media and thus generating a diverse and more realistic picture of the role of the

media.

The NGO selection consists of Amsterdam-based Health Action International100

and the European

consumer organization BEUC101

, two NGOs active in mobilising civil society and opposing the


35/72

reconstruction of the policy process, and then continue with a number of observations that can be

made when analysing this reconstruction.103

3.2 Reconstruction

3.2.1 The early stage: shaping of the problem and agenda setting

(2001-2006)

Directive 2001/ 83EG had not even been published yet, when the European Commission started to

think about its renewal. The directive deals with the provision and regulation of medicines. The aim of

this pharmaceutical legislation is to achieve a single European market for medicines.104

But as time

changes fast, better policy was needed soon, according to the Commission. It led to the remarkable

situation that at the time the directive took effect, the Commission was already in the middle of a

review process.

The review of the legislation was meant to address the declining competitiveness of the

pharmaceutical industry. Once the most competitive in the world, the European drug industry was

losing ground to the United States. While the world market share of Europe slipped in ten years from

one third to one fifth, that of America increased from one third to two fifth. In 1997 US spending on

research and development overtook Europes and Europe has not caught up since.105

The troubles of the drug industry are of concern to Europe, both the Council and Commission

agreed at the start of the century. Strengthening the industry was made a policy priority. Thepharmaceutical industry counts for almost one fifth of the total private expenditure on research and

development in the European Union, and employs more than six hundred thousand people, of which

110.000 working in research and development.106

It therefore plays an important role in the

development of a knowledge-based economy, which was formulated as a goal of the EU in Lisbon

(2000).107

So at the end of the year 2000 DG Enterprise, at that time responsible for the pharmaceutical policy,

had research done to analyse the declining competitiveness of the European pharmaceutical industry in

comparison with the US. Most conclusions point to the (lack of) innovation of medicines. But the

research also identifies a difference in demand growth. It concludes that the gap between Europe and

the US in developing top selling drugs, is not as big is as the gap in sales. This might indicate that the


36/72

The research does not elaborate on what could cause this disadvantage, but for this case study it is

important to look at one of the differences regarding sales. This is the so-called direct-to-consumer-

advertising (DTCA). Since the eighties drug companies in the United States are allowed to advertiseon prescription drugs. Sales have risen much since then: for every ten dollars spent on advertising per

consumer, the expenditure per consumer rises with 200 dollars a year.109

The only other country that

allows DTCA is New Zealand.

In the EU the prohibition of DTCA on prescription medicines was reaffirmed in directive 2001/

83EG, section 88. Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to provide information directly to

consumers, unless they act upon a specific request. It is this section that will become the key element

for controversy, one side wanting to relax these rules on information provision, the other side

opposing it.

From the start there are two parallel tracks that are of concern to the information proposals. I term

them the legislative track, and the non-legislative track.110

The legislative track starts with the publication of a Review of directive 2001/83EG in July 2001. In

the Review by DG Enterprise it is proposed to change section 88 and relax the ban on advertising on

prescription drugs for AIDS, asthma and diabetes. As a pilot project the pharmaceutical industry

would be allowed to give information on these drugs directly to consumers during five years. If

successful, this could be prolonged and extended to all prescription drugs.

The proposals on the pilot project went to the European Parliament a year later (October 2002), and

were overwhelmingly rejected (494 votes against to 42 in favour). As a compromise the Parliament

and Council suggested another change to section 88: to add a section 88a, in which it states that withinthree years time the Commission would present a report on current practice in regard to information

provision particularly on the internet and its risks and benefits for patients. This way the issue of

information to patients would be addressed.

The article also provided that the Commission shall, if appropriate, put forward proposals setting

out an information strategy to ensure good-quality, objective, reliable and non-promotional

information on medicinal products and other treatments and shall address the question of the

information source's liability.111

This change to directive 2001 / 83 EG was adopted and took effect in 2004.112

Thus it was ensured

that the subject of information to patients would return to the political agenda in 2007, when the

Commission had to issue its report on information provision.


37/72

led by the commissioners of DG Enterprise and DG Health. The G10 was asked to come up with

creative solutions for the declining drug industry and to address, among others, the issue of

information to patients.

114

In its report, published in May 2002, the G10 recommended that the European Institutions produce

a workable distinction between advertising and information that would allow patients actively seeking

information to be able to do so () and the establishment of a collaborative public-private partnership

involving a range of interested parties.115

When the G10 finished in June 2004, in June 2005 the Pharmaceutical Forum was established as a

follow up in order to find relevant solutions to public health considerations regarding

pharmaceuticals, while ensuring the competitiveness of the industry and the sustainability of the

national health-care systems.116

Members again were invited by DG Industry117

, and consisted of

representatives of all Member States, industry, insurers, patients, doctors and pharmacists. One out of

its three focus groups worked on the issue of information to patients.

3.2.2 Global competit iveness or patient empowerment: theindustry and health frame

As outlined above, the issue of information to patients was initially placed on the political agenda in

the context of improving the competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industry (which is the main task of

DG Industry, and which was the reason for the pharmaceutical Review).

Besides this, other arguments from the part of both the Commission and the industry were usedfrom the start to stress the need for policy action. These arguments could be summarized as the

problem of information and consist among others of the following elements:

Everyone is allowed to provide information on medicines on the internet except for the

industry. This way they are unable to enter in the information economy, where also

misleading or false information is circulating.

Member States apply the current legislation differently, because the distinction between

advertising and information is not clear. Some Member States prohibit the publication of the

package leaflet on the website of the pharmaceutical companies (Germany), whereas other

Member States engage in public-private-partnerships with drug companies for information

websites (United Kingdom and Sweden).


38/72

for the provision of such information.118

This need for information of patients is combined with the

value of the patients right to know.

In the G10 report of 2002 the i

Documents

Scriptie Irene de Pous