Comments on: A headline is a powerful thing

By: The dishonesty of the EU debate | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia

The dishonesty of the EU debate | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:52:16 +0000

[...] depending on the context – sometimes even individual Commissioners and MEPs, and occasionally even institutions that have nothing to do with the EU), the press – and in turn the extreme pro- and anti-EU groups who find such a situation to their [...]

By: Valéry

Valéry — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:57:24 +0000

I noticed the same thing about headlines for Jean Quatremer’s articles in Libération. Articles are balanced and precise but the headline often implies quite the opposite of what the article is saying. Of course many people read only headlines.

The EU/CoE error is frequent but there is also those who cannot distinguish, as you did mention before, a law proposal, a white paper, an EP resolution or report… Even a random baltic MP answering a question in a press conference about blogs leads to the headline : “EU wants to control blogs”.

At some points, I would actually wish for some EU funding for training those in charge. I guess a few hours should be sufficient as most errors are just basic.

Of course other errors are more subtile : it becomes more difficult to explain why writing a few months ago “Sarkozy, president of the EU” is false and misleading.

By: Barney

Barney — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:04:29 +0000

And still, some major media have got it wrong on their websites (and in print, I guess, where that applies). I sent all of these organisations (polite) email on Thursday evening, pointing out their mistake, but they've ignored me, sniff, sniff - no reply or correction. Daily Mail - "EU payout" politics.co.uk - "EU gives Qatada" Belfast Telegraph "EU court" International Herald Tribune - "EU court"

By: Bruno

Bruno — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:23:37 +0000

You’re right about subs and the growing use of agency copy as the number of news sources and reporters dwindles. Depressing times

By: Ralf Grahn

Ralf Grahn — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:13:12 +0000

Nosemonkey, being a bit hasty, are you? The Council of Europe was founded in 1949 and you expect both news agencies and newspapers to have caught on already?

By: Robin

Robin — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:50:54 +0000

Have to agree with you about facts and the EU. it`s the same about Two Million Britons work in the EU. That is a myth as well, put about by the likes of Mandelson to deflect criticism of the affect of Free Movement of People within the EU (which means the amount of NMS nationals coming here ). And the Three million jobs that are dependent on our EU membership, another fabrication.
The ignorance about the EU works two ways, sometimes for your side, sometimes for ours.I still think that if the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth be told, We`d all vote to get out.

By: Ken Adams

Ken Adams — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:04:42 +0000

We do seem to be blessed with a media that does not understand the EU, you would have thought by now they would know the difference between EU and Council of Europe.

By: Jo

Jo — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:06:32 +0000

oops, missed half a sentence there… that should have said:
ECJ, Court of Auditors, European Central Bank which are EU, and the Council of Europe, ECHR, European Bank of Reconstruction and Development etc. none of which are EU.
So complex that even when you do think you know what you’re talking about it can get away from you!

By: Jo

Jo — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:01:39 +0000

Leaving aside the seriousness of the subject matter the ECHR judges will be ruling on, glad someone is on the case of lazy or uninformed EU references.

I’d willingly believe that it’s more cock-up than conspiracy but it’s not a one-off and the thing is, I once challenged a journalist on this (he was a frequent offender on th Europe/EU thing) and was told that frankly it didn’t really matter as only people that knew the difference would care and that was not the majority of his readers. Nice to see how much he valued accuracy. I just hope that attitude is not too widespread.

My fear is that, the more something’s repeated, the more it is normalised or gains a credibility of its own e.g. the EU MUST have something to do with this because we’ve seen it said so so often.
But because we in the UK don’t bother to learn about the constitutional set up that we have (few really seem to understand Westminster, let alone Brussels), we’re getting into a bit of a vicious circle: no one seems to know or care, so we assume they won’t know or care, so the information they are give doesn’t enable them to know or care.

And with the EU, nothing’s ever simple.
Look at the charter of fundamental rights which incorporates the European Charter of Human Rights and is annexed to the Nice Treaty – may be it’s confusing given the EU member states are also signatories to the ECHR. The EU has courts, councils etc. but there’s also the European Court of Justice, court of auditors, the Council of Europe none of which are EU. The EU works in different ways depending on which subject is up for discussion.
So you can understand the temptation to stick in something close-enough-for-jazz and get on with publishing pictures of Victoria Beckham wearing clothes or whatever actually makes it possible to shift more units.

Keep up the good work.