Discussion: The way ahead

3 Discussion: The way ahead

Following the stock-taking part of this review, the discussion will focus on a number of aspects relating to theorizing and methods and also to the implications and consequences of a European public space in addition to reflections on some of the ongoing policy initiatives in this area.

Theorizing the public sphere: It has become evident in the above that there has been a mismatch between the level of theorizing on a European public sphere on the one hand and the availability of empirical studies on the other. This shortcoming has partly been alleviated by the recent completion of a number of large scale international and comparative studies and the accompanying availability of systematically collected data. But there is still much work needed on the conception of a European public space and one important question to ask is if traditional, in particular print media, are the sole and most appropriate ‘proxy’ for a public sphere. To start with we need to broaden the scope beyond the quality broadsheet newspapers. These outlets might provide most in the attempt to find ‘improvements’ in the European public sphere. But that sphere is limited if it only reaches a shrinking elite audience while a growing majority of citizens might rely on media whose contents look different. Moreover, especially given fragmentation, the emergence and significance of non-mainstream sources of news and information have been considered.

In addition, the very notion of a European public space will continue to be important to revisit: What is emerging is hardly a replacement of national public spheres, i.e. not a structural supra-national level but rather a constitutive part of national public sphere. This notion of a European public sphere is indeed far removed from Habermas (1996 ) criteria for a monolithic European public sphere. However, core elements in Habermas’ notion refer to citizens being affected by policies and to the debate involving individuals recruited from the entire citizenry. At this point there is little emerging in this sense. It will thus be important for future studies to be concise and specific in their theoretical foundations and criteria regardless of whether work is emerging out of the ‘utopian’, ‘elitist’ or ‘realist’ perspective.

Measuring the public sphere: With the proliferation of empirical studies and assessments of the scope and parameters of a European space future research is also charged with the challenge and necessity to arrive at comparable operationalizations and shared measures. One inhibiting factor stemming from previous research is the incompatibility and lack of comparability across studies. Key features of a communicative European space involve a classification of topics, actors, degree of cross-references, and the framing of issues (de Vreese 2002 ). While some of the former are relatively straightforward (is the topic an EU competence area? Is the actor EU affiliated? Is there reference to the EU or European countries?), the notion of framing should be central in future assessments of Europeanization of media content and the public sphere. The underlying question is not only whether issues are addressed simultaneously, but also how these are discussed. In terms of news framing, European news has been found to be framed both along the lines of conventional journalistic frames and by using Europe-issue specific frames (de Vreese 2002 ). In terms of how citizens make sense of Europe various audience frames have been suggested (e.g., Díez Medrano 2003 ) and research on the ratification process of the Constitutional Treaty is opening for a whole new area of analyses of transnational debates (e.g., Fossum and Schlesinger 2007 ).

Understanding the consequences: Underlying the research and focus on the parameters and scope of a European public space is an interest in the implications and consequences of such a sphere or space. As argued above a healthy public space can provide a forum for exchange between citizens themselves and between citizens and elites. A public sphere can thus improve the democratic quality of a system and contribute to the legitimacy and accountability of power holders. Research on a European public sphere has focused more on the sphere itself and the access to and diversity of the debate than on the effects and consequences. Given the centrality of media for the public sphere, we need to know more about media and public opinion and the responsiveness of politics to public opinion.

With public opinion about European integration being volatile, new information can change citizens’ opinions and policy preferences (Page and Shapiro 1992 ). Indeed, “where people know and care little about the issue, and where it is remote from their everyday experience of life and their values, then the imapact of the media may be greater” (Newton 2006 : 218). New information, as provided by the media, can therefore contribute to public thinking about and support for or aversion against different aspects of European integration. To the extent that public support is seen as part of the legitimacy of European integration, the media play an important role in affecting citizens as to which topics to consider and what to think about these when conceiving of European integration. How then may the media matter? In media effects research, agenda-setting, priming, framing and persuasion as a result of tone of the news are amongst the most applied concepts to understand media impact on public opinion formation (McLeod et al. 2002 ).

The conflict frame, a much applied journalistic news frame, can affect audiences so that more thoughts are generated about EU politics and more positive and negative considerations come to mind (de Vreese 2004 ). Schuck and de Vreese (2006 ) examined the news framing of the 2004 European Union enlargement in terms of risk and opportunity and the effect both frames had on public support for the enlargement. An experiment examined the impact of both frames on support for EU enlargement and showed that the opportunity frame produced higher levels of support compared to the risk condition. This framing effect was moderated by political knowledge. Individuals with low levels of political knowledge were more affected by the news frames and more susceptible to risk framing. At this point it suffices to say that the empirical assessment of the consequences of the (developments in the) Europeanized public sphere should be high on our research agenda.

3.1 Playing the blame game I: The media’s fault?
3.2 Playing the blame game II: The institutions’ fault?