You are in:
- Archives » 2006 » April 2006
Journalists For Sale
It's bad enough having to deal with corrupt MEPs with their noses in the trough - now it's emerged that the EU parliament is paying journalists to report on its activity in Strasbourg!
The parliament of the European Union - which travels from Strasbourg to Brussels and back again each month- is subsiding reporters to cover the the proceedings of the largely ignored legislature.
Many of Brussels' 1,550 journalists, one of the world's biggest press corps outside Washington, receive multi-euro subsidies including free hotel bills, free meals and unlimited phone calls.
Television journalists are entitled to gratis limitless use of TV studios, camera crews and sound teams.
The International Herald Tribune reports that a revolving turnover of 60 reporters from the bloc of 25 EU countries are invited to Strasbourg (or Brussels) each month under a programme which, at the time was not noticed, was initiated in the 1980s.
Hacks receive a first-class round trip rail ticket (or economy plane ticket) and a daily handout of €100 to cover expenses. Canny hacks can make this stretch to a good hotel, fine food and a decent supply of Bordeaux. According to the paper, media groups who have benefitted from the parliament's largesse include "RTBF of Belgium, RTE of Ireland, ERT of Greece and ORF of Austria, among dozens of others."
Unsurprisingly, none of these organisations were willing to comment on the reports. Speaking on condition of anonymity, however, one broadcaster admitted that the EU's habit of "buying" journalists in this way dissuades them from reporting on the notorious crookedness of MEPs themselves:
"How can I expose such perks when I myself am benefiting from them?" the journalist said.
Some are even thought to have refused editor's requests to cover parliament corruption: Perhaps that is why EU swindles are so rarely covered by the press - the hacks are at it too!
Why does the European parliament have to pay? "The parliamentary session are stultifyingly dull, so the parliament does whatever it can to make it easier for us to work", said one broadcaster. An Austrian broadcaster added that the scheme was part of the parliament's PR drive: "The Parliament's aim is not to put a spin on coverage, but to get any coverage at all."
Parliament spokesman Jaime Duch said that the funding was to "encourage" journalists to travel to Strasbourg - but their reporting was never interfered with. If the reporters didn't receive payments, they might find other priorities for coverage. Hilariously, he added that "if we stopped the funding, the journalists would protest."
Former journalist and Austrian MEP Hans Peter Martin cannot be alone in his concern about the payouts. He claims that the representatives of the EU institutions do not understand the principle of a free press.
The IHT adds, "Although it is generally viewed as unethical for journalists to accept funding from institutions they cover, analysts said that in countries that rely on public broadcasters, the notion of using available public money to fund journalists may be viewed as acceptable."
So reporters who are already paid by taxpayers don't see a problem with accepting yet more taxpayer's money to cover certain issues?
Despite some protests (from MEPs who themselves have advanced and controversial expenses fiddles), so far the payment system remains intact. But not all MEPs would like to see the handouts stopped. Representatives from Greece and Portugal have even been lobbying for an increase in subsidies for journalists so that their home viewers can see what they doing, or not doing, back home.
According to the Beatles' song: Money can't buy me love.
But now, if you have enough taxpayers money, you can make the attempt.
UPDATE: A group of MEPs has failed to bring an end to the monthly move from Brussels to Strasbourg, which costs €285 million annually. 200 MEPs were backing an amendment which would question the trip, but failed to gather support from the other 400 European parliamentarians, who clearly enjoy their monthly citybreak in one of France's most attractive cities.
Perhaps we are being too cynical - it is possible that many of the amendment's 400 opponents simply didn't want to waste time on the debate. After all, even if MEPs decided to quit the trip, they would have to persuade the 25 member governments to do the same. And can you imagine France giving up its claim to the prestige having the EU parliament on its soil brings (even if it is only for one very expensive fortnight a year?) Or, indeed, the millions of euros the various expenses scams, travel allowances and journalist handouts that the EU brings to Strasbourg's hotel and restaurant industry?
