Opinion-formers and the Lisbon Result

They still don't "get-it". Locked in symbiotic obsolescence with the media that have served it so well, the EU elite is nonplussed by the Internet.

The Irish Times has obtained a copy of what is apparently an internal Commission memorandum addressing the role of the media, as broadly understood, in the outcome of the vote.The story is here, while the full document is here.

Looking at the document on its own terms, and allowing for its understandably biassed point of view, it is a fair enough survey of the "old-media" marketplace. Especially valuable, not least given the demographic analysis provided earlier of the composition of the majority, is the reminder that the Irish media space is populated to a very significant extent now by "Irishised" (not my neologism, I hasten to say) UK publications.

However, when it comes to the on-line media, the report is very unsatisfactory, and in very revealing ways.

We learn that the Commission attempted to monitor internet discussion of the referendum. The results of the monitoring, as presented, are impossible to interpret. We are shown tables setting out the number of "articles" on various sites, classified in terms of attitude to the Treaty.

It would appear that no account was taken of the relative popularity of websites. Thus, negative comments on two sites with a readership of 1 count for twice as much as one positive article on a site with 1000 readers, or so it would seem.

As far as I can see, Usenet was ignored, even though there was lively and very balanced discussion of the issues there. Likewise, Twitter and Facebook, Bebo, MySpace.

There is a plain silly assertion that the boards.ie discussions were irredeemably skewed in an anti-Lisbon direction because one of its owners was involved with Libertas.

Some other points from the document:

1. The proliferation of the internet as a magnet for anti-establishment opinion formers is a phrase which reveals simultaneously a state of mind which fears the un-supervised expression of anti-establishment opinion (as contrasted with the expression permitted in, say, the appallingly prejudiced Irish Times) and which is pathetically timid about its own ability to exploit the "new" media.

2. Internet- A fragmented battle ground dominated by Euro-scepticism Yes, it is fragmented by comparison with the now over-concentrated "old" media market - has the Commission forgotten the core Euro values of diversity and lively competition ? - but that is a superficial impression, and when account is taken of differentials in readership, I very much doubt that the dominance is as claimed. (And the Euro-sceptic label is seriously misleading in the Irish context, as opponents of Lisbon like me are not anti-EU).

3. Mainstream indigenous Irish media has tended to be critical but overall pro-European Oh yes, you could say that ! "Mildly critical on the odd specific, extremely pro-European and blindly supportive of further integration/expansion" is how I would put it.

4. Apart from official websites, the internet has largely been a space left to anti-European feeling Sarah , someone should tell them how popular GUBU is (for a start).

Update on Saturday, September 6, 2008 at 04:11PM by Fergus O'Rourke

Those who find the above of interest would probably also benefit from the articles posted yesterday by Jon Worth in his Euroblog .

Comments

[Chris]

Hi Fergus,

That's an interesting post. I've been looking into some results and statistics in the wake of the referendum and I have been interested to find that "new media" remains largely unused other than token gestures. It certainly seems it is a form of communication, and engagement, that the opinion-formers don't get.

Chris