ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS OF VIEWERS IN TERMS OF ... · ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS OF VIEWERS IN...

Qualitative Study

ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS OF VIEWERS IN TERMS OF TELEVISION PROGRAMMES WITH A EUROPEAN CONTENT QUALITATIVE STUDY IN THE 25 MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Fieldwork: August-September 2004

Publication: November 2004

This survey was requested by Directorate General for Press and Communication

This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

74, chemin de la Ferme des Bois 78950 GAMBAIS

OPTEM S.A.R.L. AU CAPITAL DE 30 000 E - R.C.S. VERSAILLES 339 197 444 TELEPHONE : +33 (0) 134 871 823 – TELECOPIE : +33 (0) 134 871 783 – EMAIL : [email protected]

ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS OF VIEWERS IN

TERMS OF TELEVISION PROGRAMMES

WITH A EUROPEAN CONTENT

QUALITATIVE STUDY IN THE 25 MEMBER STATES OF THE

EUROPEAN UNION

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate General Press and Communication

November 2004

Q u a l i t a t i v e S t u d y

Televiewers and television programmes with a European content – November 2004 2

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………….…3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………….….6 DETAILED RESULTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………..14 PART ONE - EUROPEANS AND TELEVISION GENERAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS……………………………………………………………….….15 I.1 VIEWING HABITS AND THE ROLES OF TELEVISION…………………..…………………….….16 I.2 DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF TELEVISION CHANNELS ………...……………………….…24 I.3 TELEVISION AS A PROVIDER OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE………………..….…..31 PART II - EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION ON TELEVISION………………………………….….37 II.1 PERCEPTIONS OF EUROPEAN CONTENT IN CURRENT TELEVISION PROGRAMMING...38 II.2 EXPECTATIONS OF TELEVISION PROGRAMMES

CONTAINING A EUROPEAN DIMENSION ………………………………..…………………..….…49 II.3 REACTIONS TO VARIOUS PROGRAMME CONCEPTS …………………………………………..66 II.4 ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE COMMISSION’S INITIATIVE ……...………………………….….84 ANNEXES …..……………………………………………………………………………………………………….87 ANNEX I – PARTNER INSTITUTES IN THE 25 MEMBER STATES……….…………………………….....88 ANNEX II – DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF THE GROUPS……….……………………………........90 ANNEX III – DISCUSSION GUIDE …………..…………………………………………………………………93



INTRODUCTION



The Directorate-General Press and Communication of the European Commission entrusted OPTEM and its partners in the Eurobarometer Framework Contract "Qualitative Studies” (1) with the task of conducting a survey of television viewers in the 25 Member States of the European Union.

The aim of this study is to provide DG Press and Communication with information that will help it to implement measures intended to support planned television programmes offering European content. The underlying hypothesis to this study is that while television is clearly an essential medium through which the awareness of the citizens of Europe can be raised in matters relating to the European Union, the attitudes and expectations of the different categories of viewer with respect to type of programme and channel still require to be ascertained.

This study focused on three major viewer categories:

“Standard” viewers, who watch solely or almost exclusively general-interest channels with wide audiences and in particular the commercial channels.

“Selective” viewers, who watch (amongst other things) specialist channels with what tends to be

more “intellectual” content, such as cultural channels, national and international news channels and channels from other countries. In order to be placed into this category, a viewer must watch such channels at least three times weekly and for at least three hours per week.

“Regional” viewers, who watch regional or local channels or regional or local programmes

broadcast by general-interest channels relatively regularly. The term “regularly” here implies that the viewer watches such programmes at least three times weekly and for at least three hours per week.

This last category of viewers was analysed specifically in 15 of the 25 Member States. This is because regional channels are as yet poorly developed, or indeed non-existent, in the remaining countries. These 15 countries were France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. However, given the great diversity of regional and local broadcasting on offer in these countries, it is worth noting that the profile of the “regional viewer” group is less uniform than that of the two other categories considered.

The study was conducted on the basis of group discussions. One meeting was held involving both men and women aged between 20 and 60 for each viewer category in each Member State. (1) Framework Contract set up and managed by Directorate-General Press and Communication – Unit

B/1.



The fieldwork was carried out between the end of August and the end of September 2004.

The discussions centred on a series of questions looking at specific themes.

General themes relative to television viewing habits, perception of and attitudes towards different channels and types of programme and the information and knowledge imparted by television through these programmes.

Themes concerning Europe and the European Union as portrayed on television, including

European content viewed during the previous months, opinions on the role of television in this area in comparison to the other media, expectations in terms of programmes dealing with Europe and the European Union, reactions to the Commission’s initiative to support such programmes.

This report is divided into two major sections to reflect the structure of the discussions held, i.e., dealing with general themes then more specifically European themes.

It was drafted by OPTEM on the basis of the national analyses drawn up by its partners working in the 25 Member States of the EU. It includes the following appendices:

A list of the partner institutes in the 25 countries

The demographic characteristics of the viewer groups interviewed in each country together with the locations and dates of the meetings.

The discussion guide used.



SUMMARY OF RESULTS

AND CONCLUSIONS



1. The majority of European television viewers can be described either as having “standardised” viewing habits, or as “dipping in” to the world of television.

“Standardised” viewing habits: viewing at similar times each day, to include in particular the

evening news, regular viewing of favourite programmes with either mainly informative or mainly entertaining content and which form a framework and are taken as reference points.

“Dipping in”: also frequently based on daily reference points, such as the television news, but

less loyalty towards regular programmes or specific channels, and a much greater tendency towards channel-hopping.

A much smaller number of viewers display “selective” or, at the other end of the spectrum,

“addictive” viewing habits.

“Selective” viewing: selective in terms of programme type or channel, above all in those groups described from the outset as “selective” owing to their particular tendency to watch “high-quality” channels.

“Addictive” viewing: more or less permanent, loose viewing, seen in particular amongst those who

do not work, live alone and often amongst those who are older than the average age and have a low level of education.

2. The roles of television can range from “pure” information to entertainment, through knowledge

and escapism (as well as acting as an additional presence and providing “company” on a daily basis to viewers with “addictive” viewing habits).

The information provided by television is obtained first and foremost through news programmes. All of the viewer categories in almost all of the Member States watch the television news. Indeed for some individuals, who do not read the press and do not listen to radio news, television is the only source of regular information on current affairs. This aspect is particularly appreciated by the “selective” viewers and by their “regional” counterparts in some of the Member States. Various types of programme are believed to impart greater knowledge and “broaden the mind”: in part political programmes (which are not uniformly popular as a result of the disillusionment frequently expressed with respect to politics and politicians); to a greater extent magazine-style programmes, debates, reports and documentaries on a series of topics including society, travel, foreign countries, nature and (by fewer participants) history, art and culture, popular science, etc.; in part also talk shows, both serious and light-hearted, and game shows. Some of these programmes provide an escape from daily routine, as do fictional programmes. Entertainment, which is considered by many to be one of the essential roles of television, is obtained through the different programme types already listed above, as well as (depending on individual view) reality television, and sport, music and variety programmes. No clear distinction is made between information as opposed to entertainment. Rather, these fall along a continuum and the proportion of each varies according to the programme at hand.



3. The interviewees in the different countries and groups differ as to their perception of the size of

the range of channels on offer, but use the same criteria to differentiate between those channels they are aware of and/or to which they have access , i.e., whether or not they are general in nature; if so whether they are public or private and the related notions of quality and reliability of content; the broadcasting range for regional channels; and whether a channel is national or foreign, a defining aspect raised by those interviewees who watch channels from neighbouring countries or indeed “international” channels.

The majority of the viewers questioned watch several different types of channel, depending on the specific programmes they broadcast.

4. Television is also deemed to play a role in providing information and imparting knowledge, through different types of programme from “purely” informative broadcasts to much more light-hearted programmes aimed at providing entertainment, but from which new things can be learned and which can arouse curiosity, as part of the continuum referred to above.

The topics themselves and the manner in which they are dealt with are of equal importance when considering those broadcasts which aim to be both informative and entertaining. Aspects are mentioned such as the pace of the programme, which is essential in retaining the viewer’s attention once aroused, the need for a “common thread” running through a programme to provide coherence, and the personal styles of the journalists and presenters, which have a major impact on the overall programme. The latter are expected to demonstrate a number of characteristics, including the ability to express ideas skilfully yet simply, the appropriate attitude, honesty and impartiality, charisma and the capacity to summarise.

5. The interviewees have varied, but generally few recollections of television programmes dealing

with Europe or the European Union. This is without doubt linked both to the variable proportion of European content in comparison to the full range of broadcasts on offer and to the extent to which viewers in different countries are interested in the EU and Community matters.

On the whole, the viewers from Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Poland can recall the greatest amount of European content, contrary to the viewers from Spain, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and above all Greece, the UK and Sweden. Those Community topic matters called to mind (to varying degrees) are restricted in scope, relating overwhelmingly to the enlargement of the Union and the new Member States, both of which are mentioned in several of the countries. The interviewees had greater recollections of documentaries and reports on some of the countries of Europe, either focussing essentially on tourism or going into more depth. Viewers in various countries also mentioned programmes on cooking and gastronomy, historical documentaries, talk shows, quizzes with questions on Europe and the countries of Europe and, more rarely, variety and sporting programmes and films.

6. The impression that television falls short in the manner in which it deals with European issues is widespread.

Shortcomings in terms of quantity: the idea that few or very few programmes are shown on

television which refer to Europe and more specifically the European Union is widespread and this



status quo is lamented to varying degrees in a large majority of the countries concerned, with the exception of some Member States in which a climate of Euroscepticism reigns and viewers are not actively interested in such matters.

Shortcomings in terms of quality: those programmes that do deal with European issues are

frequently seen to be dull, austere and quite unappealing and to be overly abstract with too little basis in the daily lives of citizens. It is also felt that they do not provide enough context and explanation, are often superficial or tend towards sensationalism. In some of the countries, the viewers suspect that the information is presented in a biased manner: in some of the new Member States, in particular during the pre-accession period, it was felt to be overly favourable; while viewers in the founder Member States are tired of seeing the EU shown in a negative light and from a purely national perspective.

This deficit becomes evident in several countries when comparing television to the press, which looks at broader aspects of European Union news in greater depth, is less prone to sensationalism, at least in the more serious publications, and is more objective. Despite this, the interviewees accept that both these media contribute – or should contribute – to EU news: one in a more light-hearted manner which is easier to understand, the other in greater depth, which can be preventive to some. Similar questions are asked relating to the role played by the radio. It is clear that only a minority of the respondents believe that the latter contributes to providing information on Europe (and in general). This is because many of the interviewees only listen to the radio rarely, or listen solely to music when driving or carrying out other daily tasks. Some countries nonetheless provide the exception to this rule. The participants do not criticise the radio as a medium for broadcasting information on European affairs, but their remarks certainly reflect the poor, or indeed very poor, range of programmes on offer in many of the Member States involved in the study.

7. The interviewees in the majority of Member States have clear expectations with respect to television programmes with a European dimension.

These relate first and foremost to the following potential points of interest: Getting to know the other European countries better, including the people, their mentalities, the

way they live, problems they face and solutions society has found or is seeking.

The respondents most frequently express a desire to find out more in general about ordinary people, their customs and traditions, their lifestyles and living conditions, including: their working life, their quality of life, their social welfare protection, the healthcare, education and school systems, their culinary and eating habits and other aspects of day-to-day living. They are also keen to discover more about other European cultures and the history of Europe and the nations of Europe. The participants would particularly welcome a focus on the interests, problems and concerns faced by people in other counties, the attitudes of society to these problems and solutions it has already thought out or indeed tried and tested.



Gaining a greater insight into and understanding of the European Union itself – a subject that

was referred to above all in the new Member States.

This encompasses the concrete impact of the EU and its activities on each country and its citizens, the role and clout of each country within the Community system, in some cases the EU budget and how it is distributed, or the more general effects of joining for the Member States. Less often, the participants request greater information on specific EU policies, or the workings of the EU institutions.

Some of the participants would also appreciate practical information on travel, employment, studies, exchange programmes, setting up home, buying opportunities, the rights and duties of the citizen, etc.

8. The study brought to light some major guidelines for tackling EU affairs on television.

Focus on issues that are concrete and relevant to the daily lives of the people.

Ensure the authenticity and credibility of all content, whilst avoiding the much-criticised austerity and dullness.

Guarantee objectivity.

Look at a wide range of topics from different angles.

Present alternative views and draw comparisons.

Arouse and maintain curiosity through an original approach.

Express empathy for the other people of Europe.

Place into context so as to enable the viewer to understand and sympathise, rather than simply

“showing and telling”, by providing a “cultural interpreter”. 9. When asked to think of television programmes that could focus on European content, the

participants make a large number of suggestions, thus indicating real interest in this possibility. In some cases they enter into great detail and provide concrete examples to illustrate.

The ideas put forward spontaneously at this point cover in particular the systematic inclusion of EU news in television news programmes, special programmes providing information on Community issues, broadcasts focusing specifically on the impact of the EU and its policies, topic-based programmes on Europe and the countries of Europe, or series of programmes looking at each country in turn. Somewhat less often, respondents suggest historical documentaries, cultural programmes (but which are in no way elitist), films or other fictional broadcasts from other countries, light-hearted and entertaining programmes, game shows and even reality television shows, as well as programmes providing practical information.



Furthermore, in several of the Member States the participants expressed the desire for a European television channel that would be free of charge and accessible for all.

10. The reactions of the respondents to different programme ideas then read out to them confirmed these expectations.

They show considerable overall interest in the following concepts: Reportages about the life of the people living in different European countries – to be shown on

the general-interest channels so as to enable the greatest number of people possible to view them.

Reportages showing solutions implemented by other European cities to try and solve such problems as transport, housing, urban security, school hours, access to public services, etc. - to be shown on general channels as well as other types of channel so as to reach a broad audience.

Practical information programmes on the rights of European citizens: for example the right to

study, work and live in any EU country, the rights of consumers who make purchases from other European countries, the Erasmus programmes for students, etc. – significant interest in the new Member States; some conditions attached in the older Member States whose citizens shy away from “overly factual” programmes – however broad interest amongst the relevant viewers, who would advocate that such programmes are shown on the general-interest channels.

Regional information programmes showing the impact of EU decisions and programmes on

your region or city : considerable interest in principle; the respondents logically assume that such programmes, by their nature, would be broadcast on regional channels (where such channels exist).

A five-minute slot in each day’s TV news bulletins on current EU issues and decisions: broad

support both for the idea of including EU news into existing programmes (which will encourage viewing) and for the regularity of this concept (which would make European Union news “more natural” and “less foreign”); some reservations are expressed, but relate more to the structure of this option rather than concept itself.

The participants would clearly favour broadcasting such slots on the general-interest channels.

A weekly one-hour programme including information and reportages on current EU issues: broad interest, although less so than for the previous concept, or with conditions or reservations attached (on the concrete subject matters that would be looked at and in terms of excessive duration and frequency). The audience profile here would appear to be more “selective” than for the previous ideas and views on the preferred channel type are more mixed: the majority favour the general channels, but some also advocate specialist channels.

Programmes on scientific subjects, health or the environment, showing experiences and giving

views from different European countries: interviewees generally interested in many of the Member States, holding mixed views in several other countries and cautious or doubtful in some of the countries.



Those who believe that such programmes would make relevant topics more widely accessible, with the right level of credibility but within the grasp of the common mortal, react positively to this suggestion.

Those participants who see such programmes as austere and exclusively for particularly skilled and well-educated viewers are more negative or dubious. The first group would advocate broadcasting this kind of programme on the general-interest channels, while the latter suggest more specialist channels.

Programmes about the arts, culture and literature in the other European countries: broadly

welcomed in principle, but linked to fears that such programmes would be too high-brow for the average citizen; as a result the interviewees feel that they should be shown either on general-interest channels for the “public at large” or, more often, on semi-general or topic-based, cultural channels.

The respondents show considerably less interest in other programme ideas with a greater entertainment factor.

Programmes devoted to the other European countries’cinema, including films and series in the original

language, interviews with film directors, reportages, etc.: cinema fans, whose numbers vary according to country, support this idea, but a large number of citizens feel such programmes to be highly elitist.

Game programmes whose candidates must answer questions about Europe and the other European

countries: interest mixed or conditional, either with respect to game shows in general (which are popular above all amongst “standard” viewers, but very little amongst “selective” viewers), or with respect to the practical implications of games of this type held on a European scale.

Entertainment programmes with artists and famous people from several European countries: variable

interest here also, essentially for the same reasons. Programmes on sports in the other European countries, including matches and competitions but also

reportages on champions and sports teams as well as sports in local people’s lives: very little interest, either for sport in general, or for this type of programme which is not felt to add anything to those broadcasts already broadly available.

Finally, the participants’ reactions to three further suggestions made reflect reservations with respect to programmes that are excessively “political” in nature.

Interviews of our country’s ministers in charge of European affairs at regular periods: interest generally

poor escalating to almost unanimous rejection in several of the Member States on the basis of the low credibility of political figures.

Interviews of European commissioners and members of the European Parliament at regular periods:

interest essentially limited, although slightly greater than for the previous proposal (with the exception of a small number of particularly Eurosceptic countries).

Debates on European issues between experts from the European Union and experts from our own

country: some interest in this concept does exist in principle, but the interviewees are widely concerned that the content would be out of the reach of the average citizen; as could be expected, the “selective” viewers show greater interest in this idea in several countries.



11. On the whole, this study clearly demonstrates that viewers can show an interest in programmes

that focus on Europe and the European Union, provided these are concrete and relevant, impart a better understanding and appreciation of the lives of the people in the different Member States and provide information on the impact which the Union has on their lives.

It is evident that what is currently lacking in this area is not potential demand, but supply. Although arousing an interest in topic areas that often initially appear austere and overly technical will be a gradual progress, this study indicates that it can be done. Indeed the participants are already showing a more or less spontaneous desire for such broadcasts anchored in the right “dose” of both informative and attractive content.

12. The Commission’s reasons for supporting future television broadcasts providing European content, including by providing financial support, are called into question by a very small number of people in only a few of the countries. The great majority of citizens openly approve of this idea.



DETAILED RESULTS



PART ONE

EUROPEANS AND TELEVISION

GENERAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS



I.1 VIEWING HABITS AND THE ROLES OF TELEVISION

The initial topics of the discussion were very general. Group participants were asked to talk about what they “usually watch on television”, “thinking of a typical week and trying to think back of all of the programmes they would watch during that week”. They were then asked to classify which programmes they watched “with more – or less – interest or to which they pay more or less attention” and to give reasons for their preferences.

The purpose, of course, was not to provide audience data for different programme categories, channels or indeed television as a whole on the basis of this type of qualitative study involving a small number of individuals from each country. Such data is compiled by institutes that specialise in measuring viewing figures. Rather, our goal was to uncover typical viewing habits for this medium and pinpoint the roles attributed to television by its viewers as well as the “benefits” they gain, or expect to gain, from it.

An analysis of the interviewees’ responses highlights some specific, characteristic types of viewing

Selective viewing

These viewers make clear choices in favour of specific programmes over others, either on the basis of their prior knowledge of the programme schedule or after looking up the programme for the day or the week ahead (in television magazines, the television section in the daily press or on teletext where available). They often reject outright certain types of programme. This group of viewers may also select specific channels or types of channels, in particular those, which broadcast informative programmes, in the broad sense of that word. They also frequently limit the overall amount of time they spend watching television, although in some cases watch a large amount of television, but select only specific topic matters or programmes which they endeavour never to miss. This group of viewers is most likely to record programmes they are unable to watch in real time, either because they are not home or are involved in some other activity or because two programmes they are keen to see are broadcast at the same time. As would be expected, the “selective” groups have the largest number of selective viewers, although this does not hold true across the board. It is important to remember that those individuals included in the “selective” viewer groups were chosen because they tend to watch “quality” television channels with more “intellectual” content than average (cultural and news channels, international channels and channels belonging to other countries) rather than on the basis of how much and how often they watch television. The selective viewers would appear to be a minority although their numbers varied across the countries included in the study.



On the whole, participants in the “selective” groups in France, Belgium, Greece, Austria, Finland, Malta, Poland, and to a lesser extent Luxembourg, demonstrate truly selective viewing habits. The viewers in the “selective” groups in Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany and Italy appear to have only partially selective viewing habits. In the latter two countries, they form a minority group whose viewing habits are linked above all to socio-demographic characteristics such as level of education and age. In some of the Member States (France, Sweden, Poland), selective viewing habits can also be observed amongst many of the “regional” viewers. Selective viewing is less common in the other Member States (Netherlands, Denmark) and in some cases virtually absent from the sample group.

Standard viewing This group is much larger, in particular in terms of time spent watching television, and these participants have well-established viewing habits. Viewing in this group centres on:

Specific time slots: “standard” practice of switching the television on for the evening news or upon returning from work in order to watch the programmes on before the news.

Some of these viewers also routinely watch television in the morning before leaving home, essentially to keep abreast of the first news of the day, or again at lunchtime or the start of the afternoon for those who eat at home, return from work very early or only work part-time. Such behaviours were observed notably amongst the interviewees from Spain, Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

A set of regular, favourite programmes which form a framework and provide reference

points. These programmes can be informative in nature (other than the news: magazine-style programmes, documentaries, reports or debates on a host of topics) or essentially entertaining and fun, but are in any event a core part of the television schedule (series and soaps of all types, recurring fictional programmes, talk shows, comedy slots, game shows and even reality television).

This does not mean, of course, that these viewers only watch these key programmes. They pick other broadcasts out from the schedules of the different channels on the day concerned. However, their favourite programmes are key. This type of viewing is widespread in all of the countries concerned, above all (although not exclusively) in the “standard” groups. It seems to be particularly common in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark, in Greece to a lesser degree, in Portugal in the “standard” groups and in Poland and the Baltic States.

Channel-hopping

Although the viewers in this category also frequently watch specific pivotal programmes each day – essentially the news – they have a less well-established routine in terms of the other shows they watch: they are less attached to any specific channel(s), tend to channel-



hop much more, are less faithful to regular programmes and take advantage of the diversity of broadcasts on offer according to their mood and frame of mind at any given time.

Such viewers are found in the sample groups in the majority of the countries studied and are often spread across the different categories set out for the purpose of recruiting the interviewees. This type of viewing habit is also very widespread and would appear to be on the increase as the diversity of programmes on offer grows. It seems to be highly characteristic of a large number of the participants from Germany, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, some of the respondents from France, Belgium, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Malta (not including those with selective viewing habits) as well as amongst some of the Slovenes and Poles.

Addictive viewing

These viewers leave the television switched on permanently, at least for part of the day, in some cases switching it on first thing in the morning. Varying attention is paid to what is actually showing depending on whether the viewer is interested in a specific programme. This group is in the minority in the majority of the countries studied and tends to comprise above all housewives, those who are retired or work part-time and those who live alone. Often, these viewers are older than average and have a lower level of education. In some cases, young people also fall into this category. Within our sample, interviewees from Germany, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Cyprus and Estonia fell into this group. The number of addictive viewers was considerably greater in just one Member State – the United Kingdom.

These categories are naturally somewhat rudimentary. Morevoer, the viewing habits of an individual can change over time and according to circumstance. The following variables can cause viewers to stray from their traditional viewing habits:

Available time

A large proportion of the respondents indicate that their viewing habits vary between weekdays (largely the focus of the descriptions provided above) and the weekend, but this variation is not the same across the board. Some of the interviewees watch considerably more television on Saturday or (yet more) on Sunday, whilst others (in particular the younger participants) tend to go out more. Some of the participants work variable hours, while others have children in the home at different times (and as a result voluntarily limit their viewing so as not to encourage the children to become dependent on the television, or alternatively switch on for children’s programmes which they may then watch with the children).



Events affecting the television schedule

These can be major world political events, which may incite a viewer to watch more news and information programmes, or specific sports events such as the Olympic Games, major international championships, competitions involving leading national teams, etc.

Frame of mind

This can determine whether any one individual watches an informative or educational programme or rather more light-hearted entertainment shows and is influenced by mood, tiredness, form and so on.

Let us turn now to the roles played by television The following roles can be identified :

Information

Essentially information on current affairs provided by the television news programmes or by round-the-clock news channels for those who have access to these. This is one of television’s key roles; indeed for a large number of people, who neither read the newspaper nor listen to radio news, it is the sole source of information on national and international events. The majority of the citizens asked cited the television news as a reference point in their day, describing this programme as one they would not miss, at least in the evening. Above we indicated that several of the interviewees switch on for the start of the television news or to watch prior programmes while waiting for the news. As also outlined above, a minority of the sample also “switch on” for the morning or lunchtime news. This level of interest in the television news is observed across all of the viewer categories in the majority of the Member States with the United Kingdom the sole exception worthy of note. Many of the British respondents (including, but not solely, in the “standard” group) use television for entertainment only and have little interest for informative broadcasts. The citizens in the majority of the new Member States set even greater store by the television news than elsewhere and are particularly keen to broaden their horizons to include the rest of the world.

On the whole, “selective” viewers show the greatest interest in the news. The “regional” group also displays particular interest in regional and local news programmes in France, the Netherlands, Greece, Austria, the Scandinavian countries, Slovakia, Hungary and Lithuania. Television is also used to varying degrees as a source of practical information. Viewers frequently watch the weather report and in some cases road traffic news or stay abreast of local events on regional and local channels. In some cases they also watch local “adverts” detailing



special offers available in local stores or view types of “small ads” (this was mentioned in some of the new Member States).

General knowledge

Various types of programme fulfil this role:

Political programmes (or socio-political or political and economic programmes), which are seen as an extension of or a complement to the television news.

Such programmes are not uniformly popular. This is attributable to a general disillusionment with politics. In France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Slovenia and Latvia, the “selective” viewers (and in some cases the “regional” viewers) watch this type of programme most often. In Germany, Sweden, Malta, the Czech Republic, Poland and Lithuania, interest in such programmes is varied according to viewer group or other criteria: the level of education is decisive in Poland, while in Estonia essentially younger male viewers opt for this type of broadcast. This category of programme arouses very little interest in the other Member States and in some cases is not mentioned at all by the interviewees. Magazine-style programmes, debates, reports, and documentaries

This type of programme is watched by a substantial share of the citizens in all of the countries, although audience figures would appear to be lower in some: “selective” audience for such programmes in particular in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, the Nordic countries, Greece (where less interest is shown by the youngest section of the population), Malta, Slovakia, Poland and Latvia. This is due either to less overall interest in such issues or poorer accessibility to relevant specialist channels. Such programmes tackle the following key topics:

o Society. Some of these programmes are intended for a wide audience and include testimonies from “ordinary people” in situations with which the viewer is able to identify and as such essentially do not have a selective audience. These programmes are mentioned across all of the groups.

o Travel, knowledge of other countries, geography. Broad interest in all of the

study countries across the viewer categories (provided viewers have access to the relevant specialist channels or the national general-interest channels show such programmes on a regular basis).

o Nature and the animal kingdom. The interest shown and audience scale are the

same here as for the previous point.



o History. This topic is cited less often, but would appear to be of particular interest in Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Italy and Greece with the exception of younger viewers, the countries of central Europe and the Baltic States. The audience is essentially not selective in these countries; although more so elsewhere.

o The arts and culture. This type of programme is quoted least often within this

category, and is probably the most difficult to penetrate. The respondents in France, to a lesser degree in Germany, and in some cases in neighbouring countries where access is available, refer to Arte. Other cultural channels or general-interest channels with a more “intellectual” profile are also mentioned, as are certain specialist channels. The audience profile for these programmes would seem to be quite definitely selective in the majority of Member States in which reference is made to them.

o Popular science. This is a further area referred to by the interviewees in a rather

large number of the countries studied and which generally has a selective viewer profile (except with reference to programmes on health which would seem to be more widely popular, in particular amongst women, in several of the Member States).

“Talk shows”, which fall somewhere between imparting knowledge and pure

entertainment, tending more towards one or the other depending on the subject matter, how seriously this is dealt with, the guests and the personality of the host. Talk shows can appeal to a wide audience.

Game shows, where these are based on general knowledge questions (quiz shows). The

respondents in various different countries indicate that these shows enable them to learn new things by testing out their own knowledge – even though they initially aim to entertain; this type of show is mentioned principally by the participants in the “standard” groups.

Escape

This role is fulfilled both by some of the programme types listed above (travel shows, programmes on other countries, nature and sometimes history) as well as by fictional programmes (films, television films, series, etc.) depending on their content and approach. Although this concept does not correspond directly to well-defined, "closed" categories, the participants clearly see a distinction between escapism and pure entertainment. Escapism enables the viewer to imagine they are in a different time or place, to dream a little, get away from the daily grind and satisfy their curiosity.



Entertainment

Numerous programmes from different categories aim to fulfil this role.

Talk shows, as mentioned above, where they deal with light-hearted topics with humour,

etc.

Some of the interviewees in some countries made specific reference here to humour and comedy programmes (Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Poland, the Baltic States).

Game shows are also mentioned frequently and generally not in negative terms, even in the "selective" viewer category (with the exception of “stupid” games), although they are popular above all amongst large numbers of “standard” viewers.

Fictional programmes

o Serials and series of all types, including sitcoms, soap operas and more dramatic

productions. We shall not go into detail here on the national characteristics that came to the fore when analysing the group discussions held in the different countries (and which are numerous), if only to highlight the particular popularity of soap operas and sitcoms in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Belgium and the Netherlands amongst the “standard” group and Portugal, Cyprus and Poland in particular amongst women.

o Feature films. The popularity of this type of broadcast is variable: it is significant above all in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Slovakia, Poland and Slovenia, but would appear to be less so elsewhere.

o Reality television

Although frequently criticised by the interviewees as being senseless, reality TV shows do draw a wide audience in numerous countries, in particular amongst younger viewers. Such shows are mentioned without any automatically negative connotations in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Greece, Malta, Cyprus and to an extent in Sweden and Lithuania.

Sports programmes

This type of programme is mentioned in the majority of the countries studied, essentially by the men (in all of the groups, although the “selective” viewers tend to watch such television less regularly).

Music and variety shows

This programme category is referred to much less and above all by the younger adults interviewed.



Television as company

Although not necessary defined as one of the roles of television, this is evidently a further important job done by this medium above all for those with “addictive” viewing habits, as described above: older people, those who live alone, housewives who switch the television on while they attend to the housework and pay varying attention depending on time (i.e., during breaks) and content (broadcasts in which they are interested).



I.2 DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF TELEVISION CHANNELS

Participants in the discussion groups were asked by the group leader to “think of all the television channels” they know – whether they watch them or not – and to “try to group them into several families, according to how similar or different” they felt they are.

Our aim here was to highlight the different criteria used to distinguish between the channels shown on television in the European countries studied.

It is worth noting from the outset that although a very large number of channels is available in all of the countries studied, which are in theory accessible to (almost) everyone and are well known, the number of channels cited spontaneously by the interviewees for this exercise varies greatly from country to country (it varies less across the viewer categories).

There are several reasons for this:

The number of channels that offer generally universal access to all citizens is not the same from one country to the next – whether these channels are free of charge or subject to a small licence fee (which in some cases is included in housing rents) for connection to the standard cable network.

In Western Europe, there is a quite clear distinction between those countries in which access to several dozen channels through a cable network is standard (Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, Benelux) and other countries in which this phenomenon is either entirely absent or much more limited (Member States from southern Europe, including France, Finland). The United Kingdom and Ireland currently fall somewhere between the two: in the former it is possible to access a limited number of channels through a cable network by paying an initial connection fee; in the latter many viewers subscribe to a package limited to a dozen channels, essentially from the UK. In the new Member States of the European Union, the spread of cable television in general and even more so of basic, limited packages is highly diverse: it is high in Malta and Slovenia in particular but poor to average in the other countries.

The level of access to a full range of cable or satellite channels (up to several hundred) or again to encrypted terrestrial pay TV.

In those countries where the use of cable is not common (listed above), this system provides access to a broader selection of channels in addition to the free terrestrial public and private channels. The rate of subscription to such services is very high in the United Kingdom for example. In the southwest of Europe it is much lower (with some exceptions such as the success of Canal Plus in France). The same applies in the majority of the new Member States.



The development of free, private Hertzian channels is also divergent for historical and

political reasons connected to the end of the public-sector monopolies on television broadcasting and the disparities in the ensuing national legislation. Amongst those countries that do not make systematic use of cable television, Hertzian channels (which can be national as well as regional and have good audiences) have been more prosperous in Italy and Greece, for example, than the other Member States.

Ease of access to channels from neighbouring countries – depending both on linguistic and psychological as well as technical and economic considerations.

This is widespread in Luxembourg, where a large share of viewers regularly watch German, French and Belgian channels, and numerous residents who are of foreign origin (in particular Portuguese) tune in to “foreign” channels from other European countries. It is also very common in Belgium, where the French-speakers watch a great deal of French television and the Flemish population watch channels from the Netherlands. It is the case in Ireland, where UK channels are popular, Austria, where German television is watched, and Malta, whose viewers tune in to Italian Hertzian channels and UK television. This phenomenon is also present to a lesser degree in the Netherlands, where some watch Flemish television, Denmark, whose viewers watch other Scandinavian broadcasts and sometimes German channels, Finland, where Swedish television is familiar beyond just the Swedish-speaking minority, and Cyprus, whose viewers watch Greek channels. In the Baltic States Russian channels draw an audience even outside the minority Russian-speaking areas and a Russian-broadcast “Baltic” channel is popular. Viewers in Estonia watch Finnish television while viewers in Lithuania tune in to Polish television. It also exists in Slovakia, with respect to Czech channels, and Slovenia where viewers watch programmes from neighbouring countries, including Croatia. As a result of these different factors, the number of channels spontaneously referred to by the respondents ranges from small (in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal, Finland and the Czech Republic) to several dozen (amongst at least some of the interviewees from the Benelux, Scandinavian and Germanic countries and Malta), with the other Member States quoting around ten to fifteen channels on average. The number of channels listed varies in some cases (although generally not a lot) across viewer categories. In some of the countries studied, the “selective” viewers do draw on a slightly larger range of options as they tend to watch more specialist and topic-based channels (in particular news, educational and documentary channels) as well as foreign channels. This is the case for example in France, Belgium, Greece, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia and the three Baltic States. Nonetheless, the differences are minimal in the majority of cases, although they are clearer in terms of the channels actually watched, a factor that is influenced by programme preferences as seen above.



The interviewees essentially use the following criteria to differentiate between the different television channels known to them:

General in nature or not.

This criterion is used across the board, either explicitly or implicitly (by contrast to more specialist channels).

Free of charge or payment-based

Unusually perhaps, this criterion is rarely mentioned as such, and is essentially used with reference to channels for which a specific fee is paid (i.e., not the general subscription paid for a range of channels or again the “standard” range that is widely available in some countries). The interviewees from France and Luxembourg point to Canal Plus, for example, while the British respondents mention additional channels that are available over and above the basic package and for which a specific subscription applies.

Public or private

This element is highlighted without prompting in the majority of the countries studied, using either these or other terms (such as “commercial” channels). However, at this stage, the interviewees in France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Malta, a little in Ireland, Poland and Lithuania do not refer to this concept. Rather they tend to place all of the main general-interest channels into the same family, irrespective of whether they are publicly or privately run.

Quality and reliability

This criterion is used in several of the Member States to differentiate further between the general-interest channels and often between public and private broadcasters. The distinction is clear in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, the three Nordic countries,

Cyprus, Slovenia and the Czech and Slovak Republics where the participants often vehemently criticise the thirst for the spectacular and sensational of the private channels. It is also evident in Spain, although the Spanish interviewees are disappointed that the quality of the public-service broadcasters is gradually decreasing as they attempt to copy their private competitors and bemoan the fact that the independence of the biggest public channel from the government (or rather the previous conservative government) has been called into question.

This criterion is used on the whole to differentiate between public and private channels,

although less so in Luxembourg, Portugal and Greece where the participants believe there to be a continuum ranging from high-quality public channels to commercial broadcasters that are of reasonable quality to other, quite mediocre private channels.



In Hungary the public-service channels are set apart from the rest, but alongside recognition of their quality and reliability, their austerity and old-fashioned approach are criticised.

Such complaints with respect to public channels are also heard, although with greater moderation, in some of the other countries and in particular amongst younger viewers (in Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden and in part in Lithuania).

Respondents in the other Member States do not, however, associate the level of quality

with the status of the channels on offer.

In some cases non-general channels offering informative, educational and cultural content are also classed as being of superior quality. Finally, in some of the Member States the smaller, low-budget or “semi-amateur” channels are also classified according to (lack of) quality (in Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece and Hungary for example). Some of these channels are regional or local in nature.

National, regional or local coverage

Regional and local channels are automatically identified in Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lithuania, as well as in France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries and Poland, although the channels in question here have only partially regional content or indeed are essentially national, but have regional items. The popularity of such channels varies considerably from one country to another. There is a substantial interest in the regional news as well as for other regional

programmes that offer more than just pure information or (less often) practical information: in Austria (where the dynamic approach of new channel Plus TV shown in Vienna is mentioned), in the Czech and Slovak Republics, in Lithuania (where some cities have their own channels and Vilnius TV is fairly popular in the capital), as well as in France (regional news shown on France 3 and M6, somewhat less support for the local channel in Rennes), Germany (regional news on the public-service broadcasters of each federal state) and Poland (TVP3).

Danish and Swedish participants make little mention of such channels and show less

interest in them. The same is the case in Italy (with the exception of the semi-regional, semi-national public channel RAI 3), and in Spain, Greece and Cyprus (very local content, low budgets and poor programming). Some exceptions are noted: Telemadrid is felt to be quite dynamic with some interesting programmes, but the information provided is considered to be influenced by the regional government.



National or foreign

Above we reported that the viewers in some of the Member States have good access to television channels from other European countries. These viewers frequently mention these foreign channels. This is much rarer in the other countries. Few respondents mention international channels as such. Several of the interviewees in a number of the countries refer to Euronews, CNN or NBC (as well as BBC World or less often TV5 and Deutsche Welle), which are described as news channels providing world news. However, the majority of participants believe that these news channels are rooted in one specific country as opposed to being truly international (with the exception of Euronews which would appear to be more neutral). British interviewees alone set aside an “international” family comprising English-language news channels.

Content

Participants in the different countries essentially come up with the same categories, in some cases using different titles for these and at times including varying numbers of channels. Some of the interviewees classified the channels according to audience rather than content: children’s channels are mentioned in Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Slovenia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, etc.; youth channels are cited in France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary and either described as topic-based or as more general but with a younger outlook, such as M6 in France; and some channels that target women or a retired audience are also mentioned. Nonetheless, the most common basis used relates to the nature of the programmes shown (see above).

The topic-based channels above all, though not exclusively, are classified according to content.

Some types of content convey a clear and uniform meaning in all of the countries studied:

News. Here the interviewees make reference above all to round-the-clock news channels. Examples cited are CNN, NBC and sometimes Fox News from America, BBC World and in some cases Sky News from the UK, which are broadcast internationally. Euronews is also mentioned in several countries, TV5 and Deutsche Welle are occasionally listed, as are national news channels in those countries that have them.

Some of the interviewees in some of the countries also point to “quality” general-interest channels that show a large amount of news content that is of sound value.

Sport. Eurosport is quoted fairly often as are national channels that show a lot of broadcasts

of competitions and sports programmes.



Music. A separate category of music channels is identified, essentially seen to offer music for young people.

Cinema. The interviewees in some of the countries studied do not make automatic

reference to channels devoted to cinema (or showing films). This concept is particularly scarce in countries with widespread cable television, which provides access as standard to several dozen channels, none of which on the whole are specialist cinema channels.

This notion is limited also in Italy, Spain and Greece, where the number of subscriptions to thematic channel packages is low. In the United Kingdom it would appear not only that such channels are rarely offered, but also that viewers have little interest in the cinema (contrary to series and soap operas). This notion is much more widespread in France and the majority of the new Member States, which either have specialist channels or general-interest channels that broadcast a lot of (good) films. This is perhaps because cinema is particularly valued as an art form in these countries.

The concepts behind other topic-based channels would seem to be much less clearly defined. As such these channels are placed into differing categories by the participants and are described in less uniform terms.

Essentially any remaining topic-based channels are centred on culture, education or information (over and above pure current affairs), in contrast to programme schedules that focus on entertainment. Let us remember that the dividing line between these two ideas is blurred. The general-interest channels are divided here into two rough groups: “serious” (often publicly run, more credible but in some cases dull and old-fashioned); and “more light-hearted” (often private). The following topic-based channels are cited in the main:

Cultural channels – although this actual term is barely used other than to describe well-

known examples such as Arte (mentioned a great deal in France, but less in Germany where it is not so widely known, and to a certain extent in some neighbouring countries).

“Documentary” or “educational” channels. This is sometimes taken as a broad, general

category, covering all channels from which the viewer can learn new things, which have a certain “serious” side, although can also be “entertaining”. In some cases, a series of sub-groups are identified here.

The most common sub-groups are history and (even more so) geography – or again discovery and travel – science and health and nature and wildlife. Contrary to the categories listed above, those channels that are felt to aim essentially at providing “entertainment” are most often general-interest channels and rarely specific thematic channels (except in the UK where some channels focus heavily on series or more light-hearted feature films, etc.).



Finally, in some rare cases channels with very specific content are mentioned: religious (in

Poland and Hungary, although these are not very popular), erotic, supplying practical information, television shopping (which has negative connotations above all in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg), and so on.



I.3 TELEVISION AS A PROVIDER OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

Next the question of “different kinds of television programmes [that] inform us and help us broaden our minds and learn things, in one way or another” was considered more directly, initially in general terms. Then, the participants were asked to discuss topics or issues dealt with in the programmes that they believe to fulfil this role, before considering “what is missing or failing right now”, i.e., subjects or topics which they would like to see more of, or better ways to deal with these subjects.

The interviewees reasserted the idea – expressed previously – that there is no radical contrast between purely informative and educational programmes on the one hand, and exclusively entertaining programmes on the other; rather that there is a continuum between these two poles. Some programmes tend more towards the former, while others tend towards the latter.

This dual role played by television tallies with the perceptions (and expectations) of the majority of the participants, who often indicate without prompting that a lot can be learned from the different types of programmes broadcast by the available channels. Nonetheless, the interviewees in some of the countries do see entertainment and distraction as the primary roles of the television. A large number of the British participants indicate this, as do several of the Spanish respondents although they are also open to the television as a learning medium. The participants in the “standard” and “regional” viewer groups in Ireland, Belgium, Portugal, Denmark and Finland as well as some of the Latvian interviewees also support this view.

The following essential remarks are made with respect to the types of programme that “impart something new” in addition to providing entertainment:

Participants do not necessarily refer in each case here to television news in the strict sense of that word.

This may be a result of the introductory wording used for this question, in which reference is made to “all sorts of programme” seen on television, ranging from “those dedicated solely to information and those that are mainly entertainment”. The groups in some of the countries simply call to mind the information provided by television news programmes as an obvious answer to this question, without adding any further specific comment. This is the case in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and Lithuania. British participants tend to mention the news as a specific sub-section within television broadcasting which plays a role that is quite distinct from the entertainment they so clearly expect from television. In some of the other Member States, the information provided by national broadcasters – including the news – is initially criticised as mediocre in comparison to that available on the foreign or international channels they sometimes watch. This occurs in Finland, Estonia



(although English-language news channels are criticised for providing “biased” coverage of current affairs), Cyprus and Malta. Maltese interviewees condemn the systematic party-political “bias” of the national, privately run channels. In Spain, many of the participants accuse the main national public-service broadcaster of portraying the views of the previous government (contrary to the second channel which is more intellectual and left-wing) and criticise the influence the regional government has on Telemadrid. Furthermore, some viewers in various of the countries lament the sensationalism present in news coverage on television in general, on both the private channels and the public channels which are sadly endeavouring to copy their commercial competitors with a view to gaining audience figures. This criticism is quite widespread.

“Political” programmes (in the broad sense) – whether magazine-style or debates – are mentioned by the citizens interviewed in the majority of countries, though not all.

In particular it is worth noting that the interviewees in France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Finland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic States make no reference to this type of programme. This programme category is seen to be a continuation of the television news, often going into greater depth, and would appear to be quite popular in the Netherlands, Ireland, Austria (whose citizens advocate debates involving experts rather than politicians), Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, but less clearly so in Malta and Cyprus. In Portugal and Greece the popularity of such broadcasts depends on the style and skill of the presenters. In Germany, Belgium and Spain viewers feel that a glut of such programmes is emerging, although they do point to some specific, high-quality broadcasts.

The interviewees often refer first and foremost to magazine-type programmes, documentaries and reports as types of programmes which both impart new information and provide entertainment and escape, depending on the issues dealt with and the interest of the viewer in these.

This is the case generally in all of the groups, although is more pronounced amongst “selective” viewers in Italy, Spain, the UK, Finland, Denmark and Lithuania. The most popular subject matters cited here essentially tally with those listed by the interviewees in the first chapter, which are covered to varying degrees by the existing television schedules. These include: Travel, finding out about other countries in terms both of their geography and people

Nature, the environment and wildlife

History (with particular demand in Spain, Cyprus, Slovakia and Slovenia, for example, for

programmes looking at periods in the national history of the country).



Science in different areas according to individual interest. The interviewees in several of the Member States would also specifically like to see programmes looking into the new technologies.

Health and medicine: the participants in many of the countries feel that television teaches

us things in these two areas, while in other countries there is demand for this type of programme.

The arts and culture: mentioned less often and above all by some of the viewers in the

“selective” category who, in some countries, would like television to devote more airtime to these topic matters.

Society, political and social current affairs. Some of the interviewees indicate that the

programmes currently on offer to cover this theme meet with their expectations. However, a yet larger group would welcome more programmes of this type, focussing on the lives of ordinary peoples, the problems they face and the solutions society has found to these problems. This subject is cited in the majority of the Member States in one way or another.

Economy: a topic that is listed much less often as such and in only some of the countries

concerned.

Interviewees from quite a few countries also make reference to programmes offering practical information.

The main topics cited here are cooking and gastronomy – which are part of general knowledge in the broad sense and go beyond simple practical skills – DIY and decorating, gardening and, less frequently, issues related to legislation and consumer protection.

Game shows are described in the majority of the Member States as both instructive and entertaining – above all by the viewers in the “standard” category, although more generally in some of the countries studied. Some of the “selective” viewers would advocate more quizzes whose content and slant are more intellectual or cultural.

These shows are even mentioned without any prompting in several of the groups from Greece, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania as well as in the “standard” groups in Italy, the United Kingdom, Portugal and Slovenia.

Variety and talk shows (that are not of a political nature) are also mentioned here, although rather rarely, as a separate category. The majority of viewers, however, feel that such shows are centred on entertainment.

Fiction is cited more often, although two contrasting views emerge: on the one hand good-quality films (i.e., “not Hollywood films” to quote the exact terms used by some respondents) enable the viewer to enter a specific historic or social context; on the other hand, series can provide an insight into foreign society (this was mentioned by some of the interviewees from Sweden and Cyprus for example) and even soap operas and reality television have some



value here (cited only by “standard” viewers from the United Kingdom and Italy who would appear to particularly enjoy this programme type).

Sport is also mentioned by some – where sports programmes offer more than just broadcasts of matches or competitions and provide a “behind-the-scenes view” or “inside information”.

Lastly, purely educational programmes and children’s broadcasts are called to mind.

The topic matter at hand and the manner in which a programme that aims to be both informative and entertaining deals with this topic matter are of equal importance.

We do not claim here to draw up a detailed set of “specifications” for the ideal television programme, in particular given that the ideal balance of serious and entertaining elements varies according to viewer, country and the general context of a programme (day, time, etc.). The different national analyses contain examples of programmes that are more or less highly valued and that can shed some light on this issue. It is nonetheless possible to pinpoint key aspects about which most viewers would seem to agree.

In terms of programme “format”

The “pace” of a programme is essential in retaining the attention of the viewer once it has been grabbed.

Irrespective of the length of the programmes watched by the viewers (depending on their level of education and “intellect”), many stress that their attention and interest tend to drop off when watching broadcasts based on an overly linear concept. Rather, they welcome alternation between documentaries, reports, interviews, testimonies, pauses in debates allowing film illustrations and so on.

Viewers also highlight the need for a “common thread” to ensure the coherence of a programme and prevent it from “going off on tangents”.

In terms of the personal style of the journalists, presenters and hosts, which is crucial:

These players are expected to demonstrate a series of skills:

Knowledge of the topic at hand and an ability to express ideas clearly and simply so as to make them accessible to all.

A serious attitude and professionalism, but coupled with closeness to the viewer and a likeable

demeanour.



Honesty, impartiality, independence, which does not necessarily mean passive neutrality in the commentary given.

The charisma needed both to attract viewers to the programme and to supervise the debate,

prevent tangents and deal with the unexpected, together with the ability to focus on the subject matter rather than using it to put their own points forward to the detriment of the topic or the invited guests, avoidance of pomposity.

The ability to summarise so as to bring to the fore the “common thread” mentioned above.

Although at first glance it may seem that it would be difficult for any one presenter to demonstrate all of these skills, the interviewees in all of the countries concerned provide examples which indicate that there are programmes that succeed in this task and which in some cases are greatly respected. Indeed the overall content of some individual channels (“high-quality” general-interest channels, “cultural” or “documentary” channels) meets with these expectations.



ROLE CHANNEL TYPE AUDIENCE PROFILE

TELEVISION NEWS INF GEN SPEC REG BROAD SEL+ REG+

MAG/POLITICAL DEBATES INF Know GEN SEL+

MAGAZINES, DOCUMEN- TARIES, REPORTS SOCIETY INF Know GEN Spec Reg BROAD

TRAVEL, GEOG. KNOW ESC Ent GEN SPEC BROAD SEL+ NATURE KNOW ESC Ent GEN SPEC BROAD SEL+ HISTORY KNOW Esc GEN SPEC SEL SCIENCE Inf KNOW GEN SPEC SEL HEALTH INF KNOW GEN SPEC BROAD FEM+ Economy Inf KNOW Gen SPEC SEL Arts, Culture KNOW Gen SPEC Reg SEL

PRACTICAL INFO INF Know GEN Spec REG REG+

Talk shows Know ENT GEN BROAD STAN+

Variety (Know) ENT GEN Reg BROAD STAN+

GAMES Know ENT GEN Reg BROAD STAN+

Cinema, fiction Know ESC ENT GEN SPEC Reg BROAD

(Reality TV) (Know) (Esc) ENT GEN STAN+

TELEVISION TO ACQUIRE INFORMATION , KNOWLEDGE AND

CULTURE, LEARN

PROGRAMME



PART II

EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

ON TELEVISION



II.1 PERCEPTIONS OF EUROPEAN CONTENT IN CURRENT TELEVISION PROGRAMMING

The moderators of the group discussions then tackled the theme of Europe on the television.

In an initial stage, they asked participants to talk about this in respect of Europe in general – everything than can be seen on TV” “about Europe, the European countries, and what is taking place in those countries, the people who live there, etc.” – by asking them to try to remember everything they had seen on television on these subjects over the previous few months, irrespective of the type of programme. In a second stage, the discussion focused more specifically on the European Union – everything they can see on TV “about the European Union, its policies, and programmes, its institutions – in other words what it does, what takes place there, how it works, etc.” – likewise encouraging people to think back on what they might have seen over the previous few months.

First of all we can see that the citizens interviewed, who spontaneously liken Europe to the European Union to varying degrees, moreover have more or less numerous recollections, depending on the country, of programmes on subjects associated with the Union.

In some countries, the two notions of Europe and European Union are closely linked and the people questioned immediately think of programmes about the Union.

This is the case in five out of six of the founder States (with the exception of the Netherlands) as well as Malta, Cyprus and the Czech Republic.

In others, the comments relate both to Community issues and the recollection of more general programmes about Europe and the European countries.

We see this in Spain, Portugal, Austria, Slovenia (in particular among television viewers in the “selective” group), Hungary and Estonia. In the first of these countries, recollection of programmes about the Union seems limited, however.

In almost one in two Member States, the people questioned initially said little or very little about issues linked to the European Union in their list of television programmes concerning Europe.

However, two cases need to be distinguished here: That of countries in which the interviewees then mention programmes dealing with

Community issues: the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia (among the “standard” TV viewers) and Poland.



That of Member States in which recollections of such programmes are limited (Sweden, Slovakia in particular among the “standard” TV viewers, Latvia and Lithuania) or very limited (United Kingdom and Greece).

We can imagine that two types of factors come into play in the frequency of people’s recollections of Europe and the European Union on television: on the one hand, the greater or lesser amount of European content in the television programming to which people are exposed, and on the other hand the greater or lesser degree of interest in the Union and in Community affairs, depending on the countries.

The following analyses indeed highlight fairly different attitudes in this respect. Overall, it is the Belgians, Luxembourgeois, Portuguese participants in the “selective” group of TV viewers, Maltese, Slovenes, Czechs and Poles who seem to have most recollections. They are followed by the French, Germans, Italians, Dutch, Irish, Portuguese participants in the “standard” group, Austrians, Danes, Finns, Cypriots, Hungarians and Estonians. The memorisation is lower in Spain, Slovakia (apart from the “selective” group), Latvia, Lithuania, and particularly in the United Kingdom, Greece and Sweden where it is extremely low.

As regards the subjects relating to the European Union which the interviewees remember, these include:

The enlargement of the European Union and the new Member States. .

References to this subject are quite numerous in several of the old Member States: France, Germany, Belgium, Finland and Denmark. People recall, with varying degrees of precision, series of reports on these different countries in turn, sometimes with a mention of the (public) channels on which they saw them, or short sequences on them in television news bulletins, or indeed one or other programme on one of these countries (or candidate countries in particular).

In some cases, people lament the subjects being dealt with in an overly superficial way (in Finland and France), an overly negative presentation of the new member countries (among some Frenchmen), or an overly national view of the subject (in Germany as regards programmes focusing on the Germans’ fears vis-à-vis Poland, in particular).

Some television viewers from other old Member States, though fewer in number, also mention this subject: in Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Sweden.

As in the countries mentioned previously, it is either with the memory of a series of specific programmes, or with a vaguer recollection. Here, too, when specific channels are mentioned, these are public channels, sometimes including foreign or international ones (Euronews).

The enlargement is also a subject mentioned in several of the new Member States but often in order to make the comment that information on the European Union, which was plentiful



before membership, has since decreased – an idea put forward, for example, in Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and to a lesser degree in Cyprus.

The Turkish candidacy, and the controversies surrounding it, is sometimes also mentioned: by some Cypriots who are logically especially sensitive to the question, and by some Dutch, Austrian and Estonian participants. Institutional events – albeit surprisingly seldom.

The European elections mentioned only by a number of Belgians, Portuguese, Slovenes,

and by a very few Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Austrians and Danes – and in most cases without any specific details.

The appointment of the new Commission, the subject of occasional mention. A few

Dutch, Austrian and Estonian interviewees mention the name of their country’s appointed Commissioner, and a few others mention the name of the new President or more vaguely the names of other figures.

Among the current Commissioners the only names referred to by a few rare people are those of Lamy (in France) and Prodi and Monti (in Italy).

The draft Constitution for the European Union – a subject also tackled by a very small number of people among the Spanish, Belgian, Austrian (vague memory of a plan to introduce a President for the Union), Maltese and Lithuanian interviewees.

The EU Presidency recently held by their country, mentioned by a few Irishmen and

Dutchmen.

Various news items seen on MEPs, or on a debate in Parliament (in Luxembourg, Cyprus and Lithuania), or on how the institutions work (in France, Belgium and Luxembourg) by some people.

Very sporadically, general references to various aspects of the EU’s policies or problems that these policies have to solve: the situation of the European economy (in Portugal, Malta, Hungary and Poland); poverty in Europe (in Portugal); the Euro (in Italy, in Belgium as regards the plan to get rid of the lowest-value euro-cent coins, in the Netherlands but in reference to the period when the single currency was being introduced, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia with regard to the prospect of the euro being adopted); the failure on the part of some Member States to respect the Stability Pact (in Finland); the state of crime in Europe (in Belgium), European defence (in Finland and Malta) or the differences of opinion among European countries on Iraq (in Portugal); agriculture (in Belgium following a report on the complaints of French farmers); Europe’s position vis-à-vis GMO (in Malta); and cultural exchanges (in Belgium).



Slightly more often, subjects on the implications for one’s own country of EU membership or of specific Community policies.

This includes questions raised at a general level in programmes seen by some Slovenes, Czechs and Poles, or more specific to certain fields: worries about the future of the national agricultural sector (in the Czech Republic and Poland, and in Italy as regards dairy quotas) or fishing (in Portugal); fear of inflation or increased taxation (in Malta and Cyprus); the impact of the harmonisation of regulations and standards (in Latvia); relations between the EU and Russia (in Estonia); questions concerning the Community funds and conditions governing access to them (in Latvia and Lithuania, and in Spain with the prospect of a decrease in the payments made from them to this country); and opportunities opened up by freedom of movement (in new Member States such as Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia and Latvia).

Subjects on “scandals” mentioned by some interviewees in Germany (programme taking the lid off cases of “misappropriation of funds” on the part of MEPs), Luxembourg (investigations into “corruption” within the Community institutions), the Netherlands (denunciation of “misuse of power” by one of their compatriots), Denmark (misappropriation) and the United Kingdom (where does British taxpayers’ money go?).

More general recollections of “special reports” on different European countries, more or less regular programmes on Europe, or information on European topics in television news and current affairs programmes.

Relatively precise recollections are revealed in some countries, with programmes or channels being mentioned by name for example: in France, Germany, Austria, Finland, Slovenia and Malta. They are more scattered elsewhere.

On Europe and the European countries more generally, participants in the group discussions are more talkative about television programmes they have seen, which spoke about them in one way or another.

“Tourist” programmes in the form of documentaries and reports on foreign countries –

including European countries.

These kinds of programmes are cited in many countries, and more particularly in the United Kingdom and Ireland, the Nordic countries, Slovenia, the Member States of Central Europe (although less in the Czech Republic), Latvia and Lithuania. The countries that were the subjects of these programmes included in particular France (and several of its regions), Ireland and Greece (the latter highlighted on account of its staging of the Olympic Games in Athens), and also the Netherlands, Norway (fjords), Prague, Budapest, etc. As regards the channels on which people remember having seen these programmes, these are either public or private general-interest channels, or sometimes thematic cable or satellite channels.



These programmes are generally fairly well appreciated on account of the entertainment and escapism they provide. However, they are sometimes criticised for their overly touristy or superficial nature, with such criticisms being voiced, for example, in France, Slovenia and Slovakia. More “serious” and more in-depth documentaries and reports on European countries. Some interviewees also mention these in many Member States – in particular the Benelux countries, Austria, Finland, the countries of Central Europe and the Baltic States – and to a lesser degree France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece. These programmes may relate to countries, regions or cities, placing greater emphasis than the “purely tourist” programmes on the specific features that arouse curiosity and interest: European “cities of culture” mentioned by some Latvians, Festival of Berlin by some Spaniards, report on the Berlin Wall by some Belgians, tulip growing in the Netherlands by some Slovaks, Finnish SOS Children villages by some Estonians, Romanian children by some Luxembourgeois, the Islamic headscarf in France by some Portuguese, hours of sleep in different countries by some Austrians, the life of London airport by some Italians, security measures in the same city by some Portuguese, tri-national Alps-Danube-Adriatic programmes by some Slovenes, programmes on the sea and life at sea by some Frenchmen and some Belgians, etc. They are often interested in the life led by people in the countries described – which is generally much appreciated. These programmes generally leave a clear memory in the minds of those who saw them – these people often expressly mentioning the title of the programme, sometimes the name of the presenters, or the identity of the channels on which they saw them: for the most part public general-interest channels (sometimes foreign ones), cable or satellite thematic channels in some cases, and less frequently commercial general-interest channels. In a similar vein, we can mention programmes, which are apparently particularly popular in some countries, on the practical life of nationals of these countries who have moved to go and live elsewhere in Europe: in the United Kingdom in particular, in Ireland, and also in the Netherlands and Latvia. Conversely, some programmes on foreigners who have come to live in their own country are cited by some Dutchmen and Slovenes. Programmes on cuisine and gastronomy, cited by some Britons, Danes, Greeks, Hungarians

and Poles – and which also convey aspects of the culture and ways of life of other Europeans.

Historical documentaries, which were recalled by some interviewees in Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Portugal, Denmark and Hungary.



“Light” and humorous talk shows, with celebrities or guests from different countries – mentioned by some people in France, the United Kingdom, Hungary and Lithuania.

Game shows including questions about Europe and the countries of Europe to which the contestants have to reply, or competitions between teams from different countries. The entertainment aspect is dominant, but you find out things that you did not know. Such programmes are mentioned by Portuguese, Swedish, Slovene and Hungarian interviewees.

Eurovision Song Contest, mentioned slightly ironically by some Belgian, Dutch and Irish interviewees, but more greatly appreciated in Estonia. Apart from the songs and the artists, people find that they learn about the other countries.

Sports programmes, mentioned in particular by some Dutch, Irish, Portuguese, Danish, Estonian and Lithuanian interviewees, and less by some Germans, Spaniards and Belgians.

Foreign films, rarely mentioned (only by some Portuguese and Danish interviewees).

For the record, “purely” news programmes which have focused attention on -– often dramatic – events affecting other European countries: the terrorist attacks in Madrid cited by some Dutch, Portuguese, Finnish and Slovak respondents, hostage taking in Russia cited by some Portuguese and Maltese, or other disasters mentioned by some Germans, Dutchmen and Latvians.

Irrespective of the relative abundance or dearth of recollections of television content concerning Europe and the European Union, there is a very widespread impression that television does not deal with these questions to any great degree, or does so poorly.

There is a general idea that television only offers a small or very small number of programmes dealing with Europe or more particularly the European Union.

This is only expressed slightly less spontaneously in a few countries: France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland, Poland, and Austria as regards the “selective” television viewers (who think that information about Europe on the television undoubtedly exists but is “slipped in” without penetrating much) – but nonetheless without the feeling that there is a very large amount. Mention can be made of the perceived difference, in several of the new Member States, between the large or relatively large flow of information prior to membership and its marked decrease since then (Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary and Latvia in particular). In two others, it is chiefly the low level of information on the national channels that is questioned (Malta and Cyprus). The citizens questioned deplore this state of affairs fairly sharply – with the exception of some Member States in which the prevailing Euroscepticism does not encourage people to become more



actively interested in Community issues (United Kingdom, Scandinavian countries, Austria with the exception of the “selective” TV viewers, and Estonia). The times at which programmes are shown (late, outside prime time) are sometimes also the subject of explicit criticism.

The criticisms of the way European issues are dealt with on the television are chiefly the following:

Their lacklustre, dry, unappealing character.

This is a widespread impression, reported in particular by some interviewees in France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia and Latvia.

Abstraction, not based enough on the practical aspects of people’s lives.

Some criticisms are expressed in these terms notably in Italy, Spain, Belgium, Slovenia, Poland and Latvia.

Lack of perspective, insufficiently pedagogic approach – which would, however, be necessary to ensure that citizens knowing little about the problems and challenges gain an understanding of them, since in their case the information tends to go over their heads.

Some French, Belgian, Dutch, Irish and Lithuanian interviewees in particular make this kind of criticism.

Superficiality, tendency to sensationalise.

The general impression of superficiality comes mainly from the comments heard in Spain, Portugal, Austria and Slovenia among “selective” viewers, in Denmark, in Malta at least as regards the national channels, and in Slovakia. Linked to the idea that television channels only pay attention to European issues when a particular “spectacular” event occurs, this view is also expressed by some German, Italian, Finnish and Latvian interviewees.

Bias in the presentation of the information.

This is a criticism expressed quite frequently in general terms in Italy (as regards the commercial channels), Spain, the Netherlands (in particular by the “regional” viewers), and in Malta. It includes suspicions of manipulation in several countries, where there is a tendency to view the way in which the European Union is presented as “too rosy”: this is the case among a substantial section of the Austrians (“standard” and “regional” viewers), as well as in several of the new Member States where national politicians are blamed for having embellished the reality prior to membership by playing down the problems (among some Slovenes, in the Czech Republic and in Poland) – or, at least, where people would like to hear contrasting points of view presenting the positive and negative sides (in Latvia).



Conversely, some French, German, Belgian and Dutch participants report their dissatisfaction at seeing television mainly talk about the negative aspects, or give an overly national view without the wider European spirit they would like to see it convey.

This lack of Europe-related information provided by television is confirmed on analysing the answers given by the participants in the group discussions when asked to then say what they recalled having read in the press over the previous few months “on the European Union and Europe more generally”.

The interviewees in a large majority of the Member States say that they value the press as a medium that provides information on these subjects.

They express themselves very clearly in this sense in France, Ireland, Finland, Malta, Cyprus,

the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and in Belgium at least in respect of those from the group of “selective” television viewers.

The greater valuation of the press is also expressed in Germany, Austria, Sweden and

Slovenia, as well as in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Hungary and Lithuania – albeit with the remark being made, in this latter group of countries, that many only read newspapers rarely, if at all.

The Britons consider that the press gives more information than television, in terms of

volume, but that the newspapers’ European content in general (not only the purely popular press) gives a clearly negative view of the EU. And, even if some express their doubts about their objectivity on these subjects, this does not prevent the majority from being heavily influenced.

The comparative advantages that people recognise the press as having vis-à-vis television are more or less similar in these countries. First and foremost, newspapers (or magazines, which are less present in people’s minds, but are also mentioned by some interviewees in Italy, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Hungary) deal with European information less superficially, and more broadly: both as regards the range of subjects and the degree to which they are examined in depth – if only because they have more space at their disposal than television, where the news programmes only “skim over” things. Various people mention “feature” articles, information presented with a reminder or explanation of the context, or special reports illustrated with maps, graphs or comparative tables. Also mentioned is the idea that there is less of a keenness to sensationalise in newspapers (or at least in the “serious” newspapers) with a greater objectivity, and greater journalistic quality and “soundness”. This is the case in particular among the French, German, Swedish, Maltese, Czech, Slovak and Hungarian interviewees.

Finally several report that information read in newspapers is memorised better. This is because it is less fleeting in itself, but also because the reading of an article implies a voluntary decision and



greater attention – the downside here being that one is not always willing to make this effort, as some readily acknowledge.

Television and press are equally balanced in the comments made by the participants in the meetings held in some countries: in Belgium (apart from those in the “selective” group), and in Portugal, Denmark, Poland and Estonia.

Here we hear the same comments recognising the capacity of the press (newspapers or magazines, as the case may be) to go further and deal with subjects in a more detailed manner. But at the same time we find here that people confess more to not reading much or to only “skimming over the headlines” when the news relates to “political” (in particular European) matters. In short, people are not necessarily prepared to make an effort, which you are spared when you watch television – at least this is the case among the Belgian interviewees concerned, and the Danish and Estonian interviewees. In Portugal and Poland, this is supplemented by an image of the importance and quality of Europe-related information on television which is undoubtedly less negative than elsewhere – in addition to the Polish remarks about the political “bias” of every newspaper.

In a small number of others, the initial statements are rather in favour of television.

This is the case in Luxembourg (the national press only sporadically provides information on European issues; moreover the fact that people view the channels of several countries undoubtedly gives a comparatively more positive image of television in this respect), in Greece (where mention is also made of the weakness of the press in the way it handles these subjects) and in Latvia (few people say they read newspapers regularly here, aside from some “selective” television viewers).

Overall, when the people questioned are asked to compare directly how television and the press respectively contribute towards providing information on Europe, the “landscape” that emerges from their comments is more qualified.

Most of the discussion groups admit that the two types of media make a contribution, one more superficially but in a manner that is easier to assimilate, the other in a more serious and more in-depth manner. The scales are only tipped in favour of television in quite a small number of countries: the United Kingdom, Portugal in the “standard” group, Malta, Slovenia and the Baltic States. They are tipped in favour of the press, on the other hand, in Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece (despite the initial declarations), Austria, Cyprus, Slovakia and Hungary.



The people who met in the discussion groups were also questioned about information “on Europe and the European Union” on the radio.

Approximately half of the interviewees say that they remember information broadcast on the radio.

Basically, the programmes in question are radio news bulletins, therefore generally constituting short and concise items of information on current affairs, of the kind one can see on the television – with less of a capacity for attracting the attention than the ritual “rendezvous” of the more image-based television news programmes, but conversely with less of a tendency to prioritise the spectacular and the sensational. We can sum up in this way the feeling of quite large numbers of German, Belgian, Luxembourgeois, Dutch and Czech interviewees as well as some Hungarians, Poles and Estonians. Some Germans and a few Poles remember, without any particularly detailed comments, programmes dealing with the new Member States one by one, or different EU countries. Some Dutch interviewees in the “selective” group mention an ordered debate heard on the public radio on employment in Europe, whilst others mention hardly anything other than having listened to news bulletins. Apart from these bulletins, some Hungarians remember programmes devoted to Europe on several radio stations mentioned by name, judging the quality of the information given on the radio to be superior to that on television; but most say that they only listen to news programmes by chance, and mainly use the radio as musical accompaniment. Roughly one in two Estonians says that they listen (sometimes) to radio news bulletins, and some remember more clearly a programme devoted to the impact of the adoption of Community standards. Some of the other interviewees from these countries only mention little more than the news summaries of radio news bulletins. The positive appraisals of radio go further in some Member States: in France, Spain, Belgium for some of the interviewees, in Austria and Slovenia at least for the “selective” viewers (who recall more in-depth programmes), and in Sweden. Quite a number of French interviewees feel that the major general-interest stations like the radio news stations have European “sections”, and this medium is seen overall as more reliable and more comprehensive than television in its role as a supplier of information. The Spaniards value the “pluralist” side of radio, which is superior to that of television; as regards European information, they remember comments made by several radio editorialists. Several of the “selective” Belgian viewers recall daily programmes on the new Member States, and some also mention a programme broadcast on Sunday morning on compatriots living abroad. Among the Austrians, it is chiefly the interviewees in the “selective” group who have a recollection, and a positive judgement, of a “Europe news” programme broadcast on the public radio station in addition to the news bulletins. In Slovenia, one in two interviewees claims to listen to news programmes; some “selective” interviewees remember in some detail information programmes broadcast prior to membership by the national radio station or by a private radio station, and with a favourable impression; this is less frequent among “standard” TV viewers in this country. In Sweden, there is the vaguer prevailing impression that the national radio stations regularly cover European subjects, but not necessarily at peak listening times. This does not detract from the fact that, even in these countries, some people do not listen to the radio regularly or hardly listen to it on account of its informative aspect.



In the other groups, the radio is virtually not envisaged as a medium liable to contribute to

information about Europe – either because the people do not listen to the radio, or because it is largely only the musical stations that people listen to, the purpose of which is provide “background music” and “accompaniment”, particularly during car journeys.

According to the participants in these groups who listen to the radio, this is the main or only function they expect the radio to offer. A minority say that they listen to – or hear – radio news programmes in Italy, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Malta, Slovakia and Lithuania. In the other countries of this category this is practically not even mentioned. Some very occasional clearer recollections are cited here and there: by a small number of Britons questioned who mention, without any great detail, programmes with a European content; by one Portuguese participant in relation to the new Member States; by a greater number of Maltese, but with reference to the pre-membership period (answers to questions posed by the listeners by the European Union’s “information office”); and by one Lithuanian interviewee, on the subject of the prospect of his country adopting the euro.

These findings do not imply “condemnation” of the radio as a medium for the broadcasting of information about Europe, at least for the segments of the public who are not exclusively “music listeners”. But they no doubt reflect the low or very low level of the existing programming on the subject in many of the countries studied.



II.2 EXPECTATIONS OF TELEVISION PROGRAMMES CONTAINING A EUROPEAN DIMENSION

The discussion leaders in the meetings suggested that the participants “think together about what could be done on television for us to be better informed and to know more about the European Union or about Europe more generally”.

They first asked them to list the subjects relating to the European Union that could be of interest to them, and then what would have “to be changed, improved or done differently” as regards the way in which the subjects concerning it were dealt with on television. The group participants were then asked to devise television programmes, pretending that they were the designers of such programmes and in principle had “complete freedom to suggest whatever they felt could be interesting”. Finally, an attempt was made to decide whether the programme concepts resulting from this exercise would be more especially suitable for a particular kind of television channel.

The initial announcement of this discussion theme aroused keen interest in most of the groups, in keeping with the feeling they had previously expressed about there being a shortfall in programming on the subject.

The enthusiasm to get to grips with this subject was only less great in a few countries where Euroscepticism is well developed. This was the case in particular in Sweden and Estonia, where many expressed their doubts about whether average citizens (and they themselves) could be attracted by programmes focusing on European issues. In the other traditionally Eurosceptic Member States, the attitude of the interviewees is slightly different: in the United Kingdom, Denmark and Poland, the majority participate quite readily in the game – but it will be seen that the content of the programmes that they imagine are in good measure linked to their own mistrust towards the EU and often exaggerated sensitivity to the implications of its action for their country. Conversely, the reactions in several other Member States reflect a particular desire to see television contribute to a greater empathy between European nations by showing what unites them rather than what separates them. This is very much the case in France, Germany and Spain.



As regards subjects of potential interest, we can present the following findings:

For a very large majority of them, the suggestions made reflect the wish to find out more about the other European countries, their inhabitants, their mentalities, their way of life, or the problems they have and the solutions that society is implementing – or trying to implement – to solve them in the various countries.

The lives of ordinary people, their customs and traditions, their ways of life and living

conditions constitute the general theme most frequently cited as the area about which people would like to be better informed. In one form or another, it is mentioned everywhere or almost everywhere, with particular interest in a number of more specific subjects: o Life at work, the situation of the job market (or unemployment), employer-employee

relations or labour law.

This subject is mentioned by the people questioned in fifteen Member States, sometimes with particular curiosity as to the way in which jobs are done in a particular profession or corporation.

o The standard of living, salaries, the cost of living – mentioned in several countries. o The social welfare system or various questions concerning this field (minimum wage,

integration of the most disadvantaged, pensions, maternity leave, child protection): interviewees in ten of the countries studied talk of this.

o Medical care and the health system (how care works, how the hospitals work, etc.) –

subject cited in one in two countries.

o Schools and the education system, with a marked interest in comparing systems and practices or the way these are developing – a subject also mentioned in one in two countries or so.

o Cooking, eating habits, use of local products – mentioned by the interviewees in ten

countries.

o Various other aspects of daily life, including consumption habits, housing, driving behaviour, leisure and holiday trends, the celebration of feast days, rituals of politeness and “etiquette”, or sport – apart from the mere broadcasting of competitions.

Knowledge of other European cultures is another theme present in the minds of the

interviewees in most of the countries.

Sometimes they mention this without any further detail, or by making reference to their specific interest in a particular cultural or artistic form of expression (occasionally including the “authentic” music of a country, or cinema), or cultural events put on in other Member States.



The history of Europe or of the other European countries is mentioned in the same spirit in the groups in ten countries.

Another angle of approach to these subjects or other subjects of interest or concern for the citizens is that of the way society views them and the solutions devised or tried out in other European states in order to deal with them.

Besides the fields already cited, we can report questions posed in several groups on: o The economic system, the state of the economy, the day-to-day life of companies and

businesses, or the privatisation process (in ten Member States). o The major projects or major advances in scientific and technological research (in a

few countries).

o Protection of the environment or more specific related issues: nature conservation, animal rights, or organisation of the collection and recycling of refuse and waste (a question raised in half a dozen countries).

o The organisation of transport and modes of travel (in a few Member States).

o Societal issues: attitudes and policies vis-à-vis immigration, the curbing of racism, inter-

generational problems, sexuality, abortion, rules governing the adoption of children (in half a dozen countries).

o Justice, or attitudes and behaviour in the face of insecurity, crime or corruption (in several

Member States, too).

o Rarely, political life (spontaneously only in one or two countries).

Expectations also relate to subjects more directly linked to the European Union.

These even tend to be expressed first of all in most of the groups in the new Member States. In the older EU Member States, requests for television programmes on the EU to be developed are made with varying degrees of swiftness in the discussions: very spontaneously both in a generally Europhile country such as Luxembourg and in a reluctant Member State such as Denmark; fairly rapidly (but after the primary wish to see subjects dealt with, which involve getting to know the other nations better, as mentioned above) in most of the other countries; and with a degree of secondary priority in two Eurosceptic Member States, the United Kingdom and Sweden. The subjects to which these expectations relate can be classified as follows. Subjects dealing with the impact of the European Union and its actions, and among these:

o The specific effects for one’s own country and its citizens.



This subject is mentioned in old Member States which are rather pro-Europe, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, in new Member States whose citizens are broadly speaking favourably disposed but feel the need to be better informed of the implications of measures about which they know very little (Malta, Slovenia, Slovakia, in particular as regards the harmonisation of laws), and in more resistant and more suspicious countries such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, Poland and Estonia – by way of the intermediary cases of Austria (where attitudes are correlated to the social and educational level) and Lithuania (where people are waiting for answers to their concerns). Some Cypriots, Lithuanians and Danes also wonder about the possibility of their country adopting the euro. Even when there is no negative predisposition a priori, here there is a desire to see both sides of the coin, the benefits and their contras or disadvantages.

o The distribution of the Community budget, the balance between contributions paid and benefits received, subsidies, or the legitimacy of certain cost items.

These are questions posed in particular by some British interviewees (still inclined to question the legitimacy of UK taxpayers’ financial aid to the EU), Danish interviewees (challenging openly or without having to spell things out, the subsidies or agricultural “surpluses”, the pointless costs occasioned by the fact of the European Parliament having two seats, in Brussels and Strasbourg, and other financial effects of the EU’s action), Austrian interviewees (with similar questions raised by some of them), and by some Czechs, Poles, Estonians and Latvians, keen above all to find out about the subsidies that their country would receive, and the foreseeable impact of this aid or the practical details of how it works. Some Spaniards would also like to know what the situation is concerning the reduction in contributions from the Structural Funds to their country.

o The role and importance of one’s country in the European Union, or its relations with the Community institutions or the other Member States.

These subjects are mentioned in some small Member States (the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria) and Spain.

o The more general effects of membership of the EU for its Member States.

Some Belgian, Dutch, Irish, Maltese, Cypriot and Czech interviewees say that they are interested, without on the face of it having a negative view, in finding out more about how Member States other than their own have turned membership to good account, the changes and developments it has brought about in their countries, etc. Some Frenchmen and a large number of Germans even insist that the positive consequences of membership be highlighted throughout Europe, and they are joined in this by a section of the Dutch interviewees who say they are tired of hearing nothing but negative things.



In the new Member States, general questions about the economy or business creation, employment or education are raised in the same spirit by some citizens in most of these countries.

Subjects dealing with particular policies or future orientations of the Union.

Requests are made on these themes in an unsystematic manner, according to the particular areas of interest of the person in question. These concern gaining a better understanding generally of “where the EU is going” (for some Frenchmen and Poles); finding out more in the field of economic policy or research policy (in particular in Spain, Greece and Portugal), or the euro (stability of the currency in Austria, prospect of low-value coins being got rid of in Luxembourg, prospect of the single currency being adopted in new Member States, or social policy in the broad sense – employment, social welfare, education – (in Luxembourg and Greece); being given explanations about the development of the EU’s external policy or its security and defence policy (in Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Greece, Austria and Malta) or on future enlargements (in Luxembourg, Denmark and Estonia). More generally, being informed of the legislation recently adopted or being discussed corresponds to requests also made by some Italians, Irishmen, Austrians and Danes.

Subjects concerning the EU institutions and institutional operation.

These are generally not among the leading areas about which people express the wish to have better information and a higher level of awareness, but requests concerning them are recorded in various Member States. o On the draft Constitution, by some interviewees who have heard about it (in Germany,

Spain, Greece, Finland and Slovakia).

Those who talk about it often say at the same time that they are not very interested in abstract institutional subjects – and only make an exception on this point because they regard it as being particularly important. However, we can note the low level of attention spontaneously paid to this major institutional question by the average interviewees at the time when this study was carried out in the field.

o On the practical functioning of the institutions, their role, that of the Parliament in particular, and the daily activity of MEPs and Community officials.

Requests were made to this end by some citizens questioned in several other countries (France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, and more rarely the United Kingdom and Poland). They bear witness to a need to “be aware of” (as much as to know) the organs and the people of flesh and blood who work there, through reports on a session of Parliament, portraits of officials, following these officials during a typical working day, etc.



Subjects relating to practical information

These are mentioned less frequently. However, we can note requests for information on various aspects. o How to move about in practical terms in Europe – either requests for explanations

about the measures of the policy of freedom of movement in several new Member States, or the desire to find advice or “tips” for the preparation of a journey.

o How to find a job – a question raised by some Italian, Luxembourgeois, Czech and

Slovakian interviewees and by some Maltese and Latvians more especially in respect of temporary jobs for young people.

o What possibilities there are for going and studying in another country, or more

particularly the grants under the Erasmus programme – questions heard from Finns, Maltese, Slovenes and Czechs.

o What exchange programmes are available, in particular for young people (in France and

Hungary).

o How to settle in another country – including information about real estate, insurance, etc. – questions raised by some British, Belgian, Cypriot, Slovene, Hungarian and Latvian interviewees.

o Finding out about opportunities for cross-border shopping – a subject mentioned in

the United Kingdom, Belgium, Slovakia and Poland.

o Being informed of citizens’ rights and duties (request made in Greece, Portugal, Cyprus and Estonia), or consumer rights (in Malta), or the possibility of mediation or appeal against contested court orders (in Belgium and the Czech Republic).

o Finding out about the sources of information, which can generally be used.

Sometimes people also ask for television programmes on learning a foreign language, a request made in a few countries.

As regards the way in which European subjects are dealt with on television, the comments made by participants in the group discussions make it possible to determine the major directions people would like this to take.

Giving priority to practical, real-life aspects that actually affect people’s lives.

This is about avoiding abstract views, political “waffle”, information that remains distant and obscure for lack of concrete reference points enabling viewers to understand its scope, and choosing subjects that depict and illustrate the “real lives” of Europeans in such a way as to enable the viewer to relate to what he is seeing and hearing.



In particular the interviewees repeatedly ask to see testimonies, report sequences, etc., on the other European countries and their inhabitants – or, as regards more particularly the European Union, concise interviews with MEPs or Community officials on well-defined issues, programmes following a typical day’s work for them, their debates, etc.

Guaranteeing the authenticity and seriousness of the content – even if the tone may be light, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the kind of programme and/or public (at all events dryness and boredom must be avoided).

In this vein the interviewees ask, among other things, for interest to be shown in people’s real problems, and for artificial subjects, the showing of spectacular images at all costs or “promotional-type” presentations to be avoided (a criticism we hear levelled, for example, at certain superficial travel programmes which only show “beautiful images” without getting to the heart of the matter).

Ensuring objectivity Initially this naturally involves a lack of bias, generally speaking, in tackling and presenting a subject, but also a judicious choice of guests or participants in a programme, a balance in the interviews and testimonies so as to enable different opinions to be expressed, the highlighting of the pros and cons, positive aspects and their counter-arguments, etc.

Offering a wide range of subjects and viewpoints

We have already seen what main subjects the citizens questioned spontaneously express interest in. This obviously does not exclude others that they did not think about during their discussions; and also does not prevent one and the same area being approached by different means. To take but one example here, on the general theme of education systems, we can mention several ideas put forward by different interviewees: following the daily work of a teacher in another Member State, comparing the return to school at the beginning of term in various European countries, interviewing students who have benefited from the Erasmus programme, giving practical information on how to take part in this programme, comparing school syllabuses, giving information on the adaptation of university syllabuses with a view to “harmonisation” of diplomas, assessing the progress made in their mutual recognition, etc.

Presenting contrasting views and comparative elements

A great many comments are made reflecting an interest in being able to situate oneself in relation to others, and in finding out how Europeans view each other (and in particular how others view the country to which one belongs oneself), how different countries or different cities face up to one or other major problem which is also relevant in one’s own country or city, how the European Union or one or other of its policies is viewed in the various Member States, etc.



Talking of which, it is advisable to avoid propagating caricatures, received ideas, and common stereotypes of the different nationalities.

Arousing and maintaining curiosity by means of the originality of the approaches

Two stumbling blocks are to be avoided: the ponderous, tedious style of the “academically pedagogic” description, and the futility of the sensational or artificially spectacular. The above-mentioned example of the wide range of possible approaches for an a priori “serious” subject such as education, suggest that diverse and original points of entry have to be found which catch the attention right from the start. Other examples of the same kind can be found in other fields, illustrating the need to “move off the beaten track”. Giving a programme pace is a request that emerges from the comments of many interviewees, who dislike overly linear and uniform programmes, and want to see them organised in successive sequences (of reports, testimonies, interviews, debates, experts’ contributions, interactivity with the public, etc., depending on the case).

Showing empathy

Without of course falling into the excess of “everyone’s beautiful, everyone’s kind”, and without denying diversity and differences, the programmes that the viewers interviewed wish to see must, in their content and tone, value openness to others and the virtues of exchange and dialogue, highlight factors reflecting closeness and convergence rather than divergence, build bridges rather than dig ditches, and reduce distances. Very often the interviewees ask for guests from the other countries to participate in the programmes intended for them. This comes our clearly from the comments, and also applies to the rather Eurosceptic countries.

Giving a meaning, and making viewers understand and feel, rather than just showing and describing.

For every programme this implies a guiding principle and qualities that the journalist, presenter or discussion leader must have in order to bring it out: capacity to “explain” elements presented, which must be put in perspective and situated in the appropriate context, clarify complex information which is difficult to assimilate without explanations, and control of the way debates are handled (in the case of debates). This request is also expressed, for example, in the wish to see “experts” take part who would be liable to redefine or render explicit elements of reports or testimonies by ordinary people, in the local context of a country. In other words, there is a need for someone to play the part of go-between and “cultural interpreter”.



The exercise we asked the participants in the discussions to carry out, by imagining new television programmes with a European content, makes it possible to clarify and illustrate the observations above.

The results of this are presented below, with on the one hand a perfunctory classification of the types of programmes that would correspond to their wishes, and on the other hand the detailed description of examples of imagined programmes that appear symptomatic of their expectations.

Information on European matters in television news programmes.

In the groups of several countries (France, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Greece, Lithuania, and among the “selective” TV viewers in the United Kingdom and Malta), their participants want to see short slots (of a few minutes) devoted to the main EU current affairs inserted systematically in the TV news bulletins. This would mainly be on general-interest channels, although some imagine this happening “on all channels” or suggest the programmes being rebroadcast on regional channels during the day. The specific suggestions made include that of very short interviews, in this context, with different MEPs each time (Italy), that of interventions made by foreign correspondents (Spain) or foreign or national experts (Lithuania), or even reference to the Internet for more detailed information.

Magazine-type programmes providing information on Community issues.

In one form or another, this idea is reflected in the comments made by interviewees in some fifteen countries, who often take as a reference existing weekly or monthly television magazines in their country, which they would like to see “Europeanised” or supplemented by similar programmes on Community issues: the problems and stakes, major policies, major institutional questions (in particular the draft Constitution mentioned in some countries), the way the institutions work, etc. As the case may be, this request is made by large sections of the population, or mainly by some “selective” TV viewers (in Belgium, the United Kingdom, Greece and Austria, for example). People imagine programmes of between 30 and 90 minutes, mainly on the public general-interest channels, although sometimes also on specialist channels. These programmes could include reports, experts’ views (Hungary), debates including the participation of MEPs or other EU personalities (Greece, Austria, Sweden) with possibly also some national officials, portraits of such figures (the Netherlands), sequences (translated and commented on) showing parts of the debates in the European Parliament (Czech Republic and Slovakia), an “explanation of what goes on behind the scenes” (United Kingdom), etc.

Programmes focusing more especially on the EU’s impact and that of Community policies.

We have previously seen the questions that people have on this subject, in particular in the new Member States, but also in some countries of Western Europe which are long-standing members of the EU and are affected by Euroscepticism.



Here we find these concerns in the form of a preference for information magazines to focus on the consequences of recent membership or more generally on the advantages and disadvantages of membership of the EU – in particular in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and the Baltic States, as well as in the United Kingdom, Denmark and among “standard” and “regional” TV viewers in Austria. The comments made by some interviewees in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovenia also indicate an interest in such approaches. As for information magazines more generally, these would be traditional formats lasting an average of 60 minutes, and broadcast a priori first on the national public channels. Some add regional channels, when the content mainly concerns the impact of Community action on the area, and others specialist channels (for example if the content is liable to interest certain professional activities). Specific suggestions can be noted: reports on people receiving European grants, who would set forth the positive and negative sides (Poland and Lithuania), reports accompanied or followed by expert intervention (Poland), possibility for the public to put questions during the programme (Poland and Estonia).

Thematic programmes on Europe and Europeans

The proposals made in this field relate to programmes designed to form part of a series, and focusing on a different area each episode, seen from the viewpoint of people’s daily lives and dealt with comparatively. These are noted in virtually all the countries studied, on a wide range of themes (see, above, the main subjects of interest expressed by the TV viewers questioned). As the case may be, people imagine basically – or at least to some degree – “serious” programmes with documentary sequences, reports, interviews or debates on major problems, but also other lighter and more entertaining programmes. In the case of the former, people think first and foremost of the public channels or “quality” general-interest private channels – or specialist channels for particularly “specialised” subjects (the economy, businesses, agriculture, scientific research and medicine). In the case of the latter, people think of all kinds of general-interest channels, notably when it is to do with programmes about lifestyles, daily customs and leisure. The assumed frequency of the programmes would on average be weekly, although their typical duration of one hour could be stretched into an entire thematic evening including several successive programmes. Among the specific suggestions recorded in different groups, we can highlight: The frequently expressed wish for there to be interactivity with the public – going as far as

having members of the audience put forward their problems, followed by a search for solutions (Portugal, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland) and that of seeing presenters and/or specialists from several countries host the programmes or make contributions to it (France, Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and Hungary) – at the same time as a



presentation and firmly comparative explanations of the information and its illustration with reports, testimonies and interviews with average citizens or important people in various countries.

The idea of a “candid camera” type programme on subjects affecting society, such as

immigration, racism or abortion (Portugal).

On a lighter note, the idea of a cartoon or comic strip sequence illustrating the comparison in a humorous tone (Italians, taking working life as an example).

Programmes in which each episode is devoted to a European country

These programmes are of course designed to form a series, “scanning” the different European countries one by one, shown in principle on a weekly or monthly basis. These are among the most frequently mentioned, in virtually all the Member States, and on which the participants in the group discussions spontaneously express the most ideas about programme format. The tourist-type descriptive aspects are naturally not excluded from them (discovery of the landscape, cities, districts, monuments, etc.) but they are generally not at the heart of the concept. Here, too, the dominant expectations are “to go and meet people”, to see how they live on a day-to-day basis (work, studies, transport, pace of life, eating habits, cuisine, leisure activities, music, fashion, etc.), with a more general explanation of the economic, socio-political or cultural context of the country in which they live. There is an aspiration here to feel and understand, and not just see. Depending on the viewers, these programmes could be serious or light to greater or lesser degrees, and contain different proportions of images of the country, reports on the life of its inhabitants, interviews or testimonies given by the latter, documentary sequences on the country’s situation, historical reminders, interviews with local figures, debates (rarely) or explanations by “experts” (sociologists, journalists of one or other nationality who know the two countries well and are able to play a role of “cultural interpreter”), overall comments by the presenter(s) (possibly also of the nationality of the country visited and of that of the TV viewers), and “light” sequences of music, festivity, humour, etc. As regards the length of these programmes, the ideas put forward range from short programmes of thirty minutes to one hour or more – with some people even suggesting evenings devoted to the various facets by which the country can be presented, or full-day programming with all the possible kinds of programmes on a country, from news bulletins through to pure entertainment.

In most cases people envisage these programmes on general-interest channels reaching a wide public. These could be either public or commercial channels, with a greater or lesser degree of seriousness or lightness according to the “proportion” of the different components. Some also think of channels specialising in documentaries, reports and travel subjects (or more rarely, cultural trends), whilst others think of regional channels if the local aspect predominates – one idea, for example, being programmes on twinned cities or on foreign regions with similar characteristics to those of the area where the programme is broadcast.



Among the more specific suggestions made here or there, and which bear witness to a concern for originality, positive curiosity and a desire for empathy on the part of some people, we can cite for example:

“Educational” documentaries on a country, its history, its culture, its nature, its economy, the life

of its inhabitants (Lithuania).

Documentaries or reports containing interviews with the people of the country and explanations of the context by specialists who can moreover answer questions put live by the public (Greece and Finland), or including an interview with the country’s ambassador (Lithuania).

Visit of the country followed by debates (Cyprus and Poland).

Programmes designed around comparative views of the country visited and the country in which

the programme is broadcast, with people from each country giving their views and opinions on the other country (Greece).

“Guided” tour of the country by a familiar television host from the country in which the

programme is shown (Ireland, Austria and Sweden) or by a local television presenter.

Following the travels of a politician who has agreed to head off to visit a country on a low budget, and who has to “get by” on this budget – or more simply that of low-budget travellers (Belgium).

Travel diary of a young man or woman going and meeting people (Italy), or of a curious walker

who enters people’s houses and discusses things with the residents (Spain).

A woman going and meeting women (Spain).

A day in the life of a resident of the country (Italy), or the day (Lithuania) or week (Hungary) of an average family.

Travel by non-conventional means of transport (bus, balloon, lorry, boat, dolmus, gondola, etc.)

(Belgium).

Reports on the various districts of a city (Spain), on unusual seldom-visited places (Slovenia).

“Flashes” on twinned towns, and programmes on their local feast days and festivities (United Kingdom and Slovenia).

View of a foreign country by compatriots who have settled there – in the context of “relocation

programmes” (United Kingdom and Ireland) or in a wider perspective (Belgium, Estonia and Latvia).

Conversely, the view of foreigners who have settled in the country where the programme is

broadcast and who present their country in a comparative light (United Kingdom and Belgium).

Full day’s programming devoted to a country, from morning aerobics, weather forecast and the first news bulletins, cooking programmes, children’s programmes and game shows, through to evening documentaries or reports (Hungary).



Historical documentaries

This is a kind of programme much less often mentioned (by some Italians, Spaniards, Britons, Greeks, Austrians, and less directly by some Dutchmen, Swedes, Cypriots and Czechs) – often “selective” TV viewers. The channels they think of in respect of these are either specialist historical or cultural channels, or “quality” general-interest channels.

Cultural programmes

The theme of the culture of the other European countries is present or underlying in the comments made by the interviewees of a majority of the Member States, but it is often without any great detail, or in the sense of popular culture or even ways of life or traditions. Requests for cultural programmes in the strict sense of the term (arts, literature and humanities) are rare. They come chiefly from “selective” TV viewers who think either of specialist channels or public general-interest channels with an intellectual connotation.

Cinema and TV drama

Interest in programmes about cinema or the showing of films from other European countries is not spontaneously expressed very often either, in the framework of the discussion theme put forward (the wording of which, it is true, did not necessarily prompt people to think of this). The idea of seeing more series or soap operas from other European countries or TV dramas of this kind with actors of different nationalities sometimes appears (Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland and Finland).

Light entertainment programmes

The “talk show” is mentioned relatively little as a specific genre – to a more or less explicit degree by some interviewees in ten countries, and without any great detail as regards the format and content apart from the personality of the compere being highlighted as an essential factor. Those who mention it directly either refer to programmes of this kind which are successful in their country and would have to be “Europeanised” in general (Spain), or make suggestions – broadcasting of each episode from a different European city (Ireland), incorporation of “multilingual variety programmes” (Italy), etc. However, it is clear that the dividing line between this and the type of programmes described previously is blurred, with components including the presence of a compere with a strong personality, testimonies and debates. In fact it is the degree of seriousness or light-heartedness that will have people regard a particular programme as belonging to one genre or another. We



have previously seen a fairly widespread desire expressed to see lively programmes, with a cheerful pace and a light-hearted, humorous tone (as long as they maintain a genuine content). These programmes would be broadcast on general-interest channels, including commercial channels – the audience chiefly being “standard” (or “regional”) TV viewers.

“Reality” shows

TV viewers in the (standard or regional) groups in half a dozen (West) European countries suggest “Europeanised” programmes of this kind: European “Star Academy” mentioned by some Spaniards, European “Big Brother” by some Spaniards, Italians and Finns, “survival” programmes mentioned by the latter, an individual being “dropped” in a country and having to survive on a low budget, mentioned by the Belgians, and several ideas put forward by some Britons who show themselves to be the most prolific on the subject: two Europeans swapping jobs, people swapping their life (and friends) for someone else’s, “relocation” against the clock, etc. It is mainly the youngest TV viewers in these countries who would logically imagine this kind of programme on commercial general-interest channels.

Game shows This is a kind of programme that many people think of in ten of the countries studied: “standard” or “regional” TV viewers, but also sometimes “selective” viewers. People mainly think of quiz-show type game shows, with questions on Europe or on European countries (the Netherlands, Malta and Poland), a compere of a different European nationality (Italy), or competitors from different countries (Belgium, Greece, and in Slovenia where the idea is put forward of having two competitors asked what they know about the other person’s country), or where the winner’s prize could be a holiday (Malta). The game as such could be enlivened with short report sequences or sketches on the same themes (Italy, Portugal and Malta), contributing to form a dual content combining the informative and the entertaining. The channels showing these programmes would be mainly, but not exclusively, general-interest channels.

Practical programmes

We have previously seen that cuisine and gastronomy appear among the subjects mentioned quite often as liable to be included in programmes with a European content. The request for exclusively culinary programmes is expressed to a lesser extent: a culinary “European tour” (Italy and Belgium), comparative views of autumn cuisines (the Czech Republic), gastronomic competitions with chefs from several countries (Italy).



These programmes would be shown on general-interest or specialist channels.

The request for practical information on different subjects was also spontaneously expressed in several countries – but viewers seemed to imagine such information being imparted in programmes with a wider framework rather than forming separate programmes.

Interviewees in a few countries ask for programmes on the learning of a language

(more so on specialist channels).

Finally, we can note the wish, expressed spontaneously by the viewers in several Member States, to see a European television channel (free of charge and accessible to all): this is the case in Germany, Spain, Ireland, Austria (among some “selective” or “regional” viewers), Finland and Poland.

We also noted the few spontaneous (and generally positive) references to Euronews in several other countries where this channel is widely accessible – in particular among the “selective” viewers.



HIGH

PERCEIVED WEALTH

OF EUROPEAN CONTENT ON TELEVISION

LOW

EL LT ES LV SK

DE IE PT MT CY IT NL SI CZ HU BE LU FI FR PL

AT

SE

UK

DK

EE

EXPRESSION OF UN-FULFILLED EXPECTATIONS

HIGH

LOW



DULL CHARACTER ESP.: FR, DE, BE, LU, ES DIVERSITY OF THEMES DRY AT, DK, SE ORIGINAL UNAPPEALING SI, LV APPROACHES

PROGRAMMES WITH A GOOD PACE

ABSTRACTION, NOT ESP.: BE, IE, ES LIVING CONDITIONS/WAY OF LIFE, PROXIMITY BASED ENOUGH ON SI, PL, LV CULTURES SENSE OF REAL LIFE PEOPLE’S LIVES EFFECTS AND IMPACT OF THE EU /CONCRETE PRACTICAL INFORMATION LACK OF ESP.: FR, BE, NL, IE PROBLEMS IN SOCIETY CROSS VIEWS, PERSPECTIVE LT SOLUTIONS APPLIED COMPARISONS AND PEDAGOGY IN THE EU MEMBER FUNCTION OF STATES, POLICIES, CULTURAL

FUNCTIONING OF EU INTERPRETER GIVING MEANING

SUPERFICIALITY ESP.: ES, PT IN-DEPTH TREATMENT AUTHENTICITY OF TENDENCY TO AT, DK OF SUBJECTS, NOT LIMITED CONTENT, REJECTION SENSATIONALISE MT, SI, SK TO CURRENT AFFAIRS OF STEREOTYPES,

REJECTION OF THE PROMOTIONAL

NEGATIVE ESP.: FR, DE, BE, NL POSITIVE EXAMPLES OBJECTIVITY PRESENTATION OF EU ACTION EXPRESSION THE EUROPEAN UNION NON-NATIONALISM OF EMPATHY BIASED ESP.: NL, IT, ES DEBATE OBJECTIVITY PRESENTATION OF AT WIDE RANGE INFORMATION MT, SI, PL, CZ, LV OF POINTS OF VIEW

REJECTION OF THE PROMOTIONAL

QUALITATIVE SHORTFALL IN THE

HANDLING OF EUROPEAN ISSUES ON TELEVISION

EXPECTATIONS

REGARDING CONTENT

EXPECTATIONS

REGARDING HANDLING



II.3 REACTIONS TO VARIOUS PROGRAMME CONCEPTS

Fifteen ideas for television programmes “talking about the European Union” were submitted for the attention of the participants in the group discussions – who were then asked to specify what type of channels they envisaged these being broadcast on.

The reactions to these various concepts, listed in order of decreasing interest, are as follows. 1. Reportages about the life of the people living in the different European countries

The proposal for this kind of programme is received extremely positively by a very large proportion of the people to whom it was presented.

This will come as no surprise, given that its content corresponds precisely to the expectations expressed spontaneously by European citizens, which were recounted in detail in the previous chapter. Only some Britons have reservations, which no doubt reflect the low level of their genuine interest in getting to know other Europeans better, or concerns about whether these programmes might be used to present the European Union too favourably; but most remain potentially interested. Besides them, we find repeated requests or suggestions as to the types of content that some would like to see included, or as to the characteristics of the programme format, which by and large reiterate their previous comments here.

The channels on which the interviewees would like to see these programmes shown are primarily, in all countries, general-interest channels, such as enable the largest number of people to see them (except among the least interested of the Britons, as a rule “standard” TV viewers, who would reserve them for thematic channels). In some of the Member States people envisage either “all kinds of channels” (in Italy, Luxembourg, and in Greece among the “regional” and “selective” viewers, or thematic channels as well as general-interest channels (in the Netherlands, and among some Austrians, Slovaks, Hungarians, Lithuanians, and “selective” Slovenes), or also regional channels (in Germany, and among some Austrians and Slovenes).

2. Reportages showing solutions implemented by other European cities to problems such as

transport, housing, urban security, school hours, access to public services, etc.

These are backed very wholeheartedly, in all groups irrespectively, in a very large majority of the Member States.



These are among the most unanimously appreciated of all the concepts proposed to the interviewees. Many find in this concept the idea (that they had spontaneously expressed) of specific content focusing on the daily lives of people in other European countries, and on the usefulness of being able to compare one’s own situation with others, to learn from other experiences and to draw useful lessons from these. In these countries there are almost no reservations expressed as regards the concept, but only here and there some suggestions as to the programme format: coupling this theme with reports on European cities, including a debate in the programme, or having experts participate and give their view on the “transferability” to one’s own country of solutions tried out elsewhere. The reactions – also positive overall – are slightly less spontaneously enthusiastic in some countries: Sweden, where interest varies according to the subjects and the European cities presented; Germany, where, alongside a very favourable minority, many fear that such a subject would be somewhat dry and would only have limited interest for the citizens (who in any case cannot change things themselves in the light of experiences in other countries), and state that it would be advisable first and foremost to have the local elected representatives benefit from this; and the United Kingdom (here, too, people do not always see how they could benefit from experiences transferable to their own situation). Finally, in a number of Member States we can see a lower degree of interest among “standard” TV viewers than among their “selective” or “regional” counterparts. This is the case in Italy and the United Kingdom. In Austria, it is the “regional” viewers who set themselves apart – on account of their high level of interest – from those of the other groups whose interest is more moderate.

As regards the types of channels on which the interviewees would like to see these programmes shown, these are:

o General-interest channels very predominantly for the Irish, Spanish, Portuguese, Finnish,

Danish, Maltese, Cypriot, Slovene, Hungarian, Estonian and Lithuanian participants. o General-interest channels and other types of channels at the same time: all types of channels

in Luxembourg and Slovakia; regional channels in Belgium, the Czech Republic and Poland, and for the “selective” and “regional” Italian and Greek viewers and the “selective” British and Latvian viewers; more or less specialist channels for the French (news/information channels and channels with a cultural bias), Germans, Dutch, Swedes, many Britons and Austrians, and “standard” Latvian viewers.

3. Practical information programmes on the rights of European citizens: for example the right to

study, work and live in any EU country, the rights of consumers who make purchases from other European countries, the Erasmus programmes for students, etc. The wording of this proposal is received very positively in around one in two of the countries

studied.

o In most of the new Member States, where it is seen as meeting the very great expectations concerning access to better and more practical information on the European Union.



In these countries, only the Slovenes in the group of “standard” TV viewers, although themselves also viewing the format positively overall, express the condition that the content should be lively and illustrated, and the Latvian interviewees proved to be lukewarm, being more in favour of this kind of information being incorporated into a more general weekly magazine-type programme on the EU.

o In France, Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal and Denmark.

Predominant interest is also revealed in Italy (albeit less clearly in the “standard” group), Ireland and

Greece, and with more reservations or hesitations in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria (interest mainly in the “selective” group) and in Finland – as well as among the Latvians mentioned above.

These reservations relate to the fear of programmes that are too “purely factual”, of which only a small proportion, moreover, would be likely to relate to all viewers, given the wide range of situations, concerns and questions that different individuals could have. However, the largely positive nature of the reactions is due to the assumption that this will not be the sole content of these programmes and that these will make it possible to gain an idea of the life of Europeans which is of interest to the viewers, through an editorial format not limited to raw data, but including interviews, short reports or “live” debates. This is in fact undoubtedly the kind of programme also imagined by TV viewers in the more favourable countries mentioned above, and which explains the very high level of backing they give the idea. In the Member States analysed in this paragraph, the interviewees are more inclined to wonder about the precise content of the programmes. For lack of comprehensive assurances on this level, some opt for sequences of practical information inserted into programmes with a wider spectrum (as some Germans say, for example).

The reactions in principle are clearly reserved in the United Kingdom and Sweden, for similar

reasons, together with a low general interest for to the European Union.

Some Britons thus imagine that the information concerned could be broadcast in the context of consumer programmes (consumer watchdog) and in a framework of the same kind. Some Swedes tend to think that the Internet would be a more appropriate medium.

As regards the types of television channels on which programmes of this kind could be shown, the

interviewees in most countries think of general-interest channels on account of the idea that this information is likely to concern everyone.

Some exceptions are noted:

o Specialist channels are preferred by a section of British and Austrian interviewees (“standard”

viewers who thus no doubt indicate the low level of their interest). o Specialist channels sometimes envisaged in addition to the general-interest channels: among some

Belgians, Dutchmen, Portuguese and Estonians.

o Regional channels sometimes also mentioned secondarily by some Italians, Greeks and Czechs.



4. Regional information programmes showing the impact of EU decisions and programmes on your

region or your city.

The principle of such regional information meets with the interest of the citizens interviewed everywhere – or almost everywhere.

There are only a few groups, among all the groups that met, whose participants declared themselves not to be very interested (the Belgian group of “standard” TV viewers and its British counterpart, the latter having scant concern in London for regional issues) or as having fairly neutral attitudes, not rejecting the idea but not personally being particularly attracted by it (in Finland, Denmark, and in Sweden where people could not imagine a specific programme devoted to these subjects alone, in Latvia where the people questioned in the capital feel that they already know enough about what is happening in their city, but are in favour of the principle when thinking about other regions in the country). Generally speaking the concept tallies well with the expectations, which are often expressed spontaneously, of practical local information on subjects concerning ordinary people. In some countries the interviewees seem to expect it also to fulfil a function of “control” of what the EU is doing, or what the national authorities are doing with Community aid (this is quite clear in the comments heard in Greece, and also comes across in Sweden). The degree of interest seems to be highest overall in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Greece, in the four countries of central Europe, and in France, Italy and Austria (albeit less strongly among the “standard” TV viewers in the three latter countries). Favourable attitudes are also uniform in Germany, but doubts are expressed here as to the nature of the information that could “fill” such programmes and the (low) frequency with which they might be shown. In Ireland, the youngest seem less keen than their elders. In several countries, some of the interviewees imagine more an extension of the existing regional news programmes than whole programmes exclusively devoted to these aspects.

In several of the old Member States where a group of regional TV viewers had been assembled, it is clear that this category of the population reacts particularly favourably to the concept proposed (in France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Greece and Austria) – but it is also sometimes true of the “selective” TV viewers who on average are better educated and have a greater intellectual curiosity than “standard” viewers. In the new Member States, on the other hand, the level of interest is generally quite homogeneous from one category to another.

As regards the types of channels deemed relevant for such programmes, these are regional (or local) channels which are logically mentioned in most of the Member States as being preferred broadcasting media. The exceptions to this rule concern either countries where these channels do not exist or are not very well developed – it is then general-interest (essentially public) channels that are cited – or others where the interviewees add national general-interest channels to regional channels so as to enable the greatest possible access to these programmes: the former cases include Luxembourg, Ireland, Portugal, Finland, Malta and Estonia, the latter cases include Spain, Greece and Austria (apart from the “regional” viewers in these two countries), Sweden, Cyprus and Hungary.



5. A five-minute slot in each day’s television news bulletin, on current EU issues and decisions.

This proposal is greeted favourably by TV viewers in the great majority of Member States, and even seems to meet with especially keen interest in several of them: France, Greece, Austria, Sweden, Malta, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary – the reactions also being positive but more measured in Estonia.

The reasons for this are chiefly: o Its short format, which suggests condensed news concentrating on the essential, which is

concise yet at the same time likely to attract people’s attention: it meets the expectations of those most interested in Community issues, and also reassures those who feel least involved and who would fear the tedious nature of a longer, more in-depth programme.

However, we can note doubts raised by some TV viewers in these countries who wonder whether a five-minute format would be long enough to cover all the news that they would expect to find in it (some Austrians in the “selective” and “regional” groups, some Danes who think that getting acquainted with these subjects would call for a longer slot, and some Cypriots, Slovenes and Hungarians). Others, on the other hand, regard this as a maximum length: some Britons who at the outset are less keen on learning about European issues and who doubt whether there would be enough valid news to be offered every day, and some Belgians in the group of “standard” TV viewers.

o Its incorporation in the regular television news bulletins, i.e., both at prime viewing times and in a framework that to some degree obliges – or at least encourages – people to listen.

What is more some interviewees insist that this European slot should be placed in the middle of the television news programmes so that as many people as possible are likely to be exposed to it, in the countries where reactions are most positive. Others, on the other hand, say they would like to see it at the end of the news, or after the news in a separate “slot”, perhaps to give viewers more of an option to choose whether they listen to it or not.

o Regularity of broadcasting, which in itself would have an educational quality: gradually getting people to understand that Europe-related news is something natural, and “not foreign”. This is an idea expressly put forward in particular by some pro-Europe French interviewees, but also by some Britons who were not so favourably inclined at the outset, but are receptive to the usefulness of learning more about the EU.

Conditions are sometimes laid down: that the information supplied not be “the voice of Brussels” (in the United Kingdom and Denmark) or “the voice of the Commission” (in Luxembourg), that it not be “too political” (in Ireland and Denmark), that it be presented in a lively and rhythmic way (in Greece, Austria, and in Ireland where some people express the wish to see priority given to a subject every edition in order to avoid weariness). The reservations recorded in Estonia chiefly stem from the “selective” TV viewers who fear that the content of the information presented will be insufficient. In a few other Member



States, conversely, there is less interest expressed among the “standard” TV viewers than in the other groups (Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria).

On the other hand, initial reactions are rather negative or at least hesitant in some Member States, but for partially different reasons.

o Among the German and Polish interviewees, we find the widespread impression that such a

short format length will only enable the information to be dealt with superficially – which is a criticism already quite often made about the way it is dispensed now (although the Poles in the “standard” group would be more ready to make do with it, since their demands are less vigorous).

Some Germans, moreover, have their doubts as to whether there would be enough material every day to fill a European slot of five minutes, out of a total TV news bulletin length that barely exceeds a quarter of an hour.

o Among the Spaniards, misgivings concern the assumption that the news would be tedious unless it made a radical break with its current character – but most say that they would watch.

o Among the Latvians, the first reaction consists in thinking that “everything important” is

already broadcast in the national television news programmes and that it is not necessary to make provision for a specific slot for European news. However, they too, say they would watch in the proposed framework.

We can also observe similar reactions among some Lithuanians, whilst others have reservations as to the overly concise nature of the short news slots – although the majority trend is favourable among them.

General-interest channels are those that people everywhere think of first of all for this kind of programme, for obvious reasons. It is on these that most television news bulletins are shown, and it is they that have the largest audience.

Regional channels are not ruled out, and are cited secondarily, by some Greek, Swedish and Lithuanian viewers. Some people also do not reject specialist (news) channels either.

6. A weekly one-hour programme including information and reportages on current EU issues.

Among the Member States in which the previous concept was greeted most favourably, there are some in which the participants in the meetings show the same high level of interest in this second form of information on Community news and current affairs: Portugal, Malta, and Hungary – and interest increases to the same degree among the Latvians and the Lithuanian interviewees in the “selective” group.

These TV viewers consider this as satisfying their appetite for information and explanations about the European Union in a format that they deem to be suitable.



The Germans, who tended to reject short news slots, also feel that this format fully meets their expectations in respect of magazine-type programmes able to cover subjects in a sufficiently in-depth manner, with a variety of approaches (reports, interviews, debates).

The same applies to the Poles, notably those in the “selective” group who are very much in favour of in-depth analyses – those in the other groups also being positively disposed, but more in favour of the programme being half the length.

In several Member States in which the first kind of programme was the most enthusiastically appreciated, interest is less or largely disappears.

The French remain receptive but much less markedly so, in the light of a programme length that they feel risks being too long at least for certain relatively fascinating subjects – or on the other hand too short to be dealt with in depth. The Greeks in the “selective” group maintain their interest, but it is accompanied by more conditions – in particular that the programmes make an effort to highlight the implications of Community initiatives and decisions for their country. But their compatriots in the two other groups have appreciably more mixed views, some of them complaining about the idea of a long programme. The same largely applies to the Austrians. Those in the “selective” group state that they are wholly in favour of such a format which makes it possible to deal with things in depth. Those in the “regional” group say that they are also favourable but imagine a partly “cultural” content on various European countries rather than chiefly focused on the EU itself. And those in the “standard” group are partly hostile to the idea or at least attach conditions (imperative request for debates to maintain attention). The keen interest initially shown in the Czech Republic remains but decreases, whilst in Slovakia it largely falls away to become a minority in the three groups (too long, request for short news items). In Sweden, there are few people who imagine being able to maintain interest for this length of time on “political” issues which generally do not elicit enthusiasm, except in the case of certain specific subjects.

As regards the countries in which attitudes towards the previous proposal were positive but without the same solid backing, these attitudes only remain at the same level in some of them – Italy and Cyprus – and are reinforced in one country – Latvia.

In several others, the TV viewers questioned show a less strong interest or have mixed views, and tend to argue in favour of a shorter format: Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland and Slovenia (where a large proportion of the “standard” TV viewers acknowledge that they would not watch a one-hour programme). In some, people only feel drawn to this idea to a low degree, the formula in any case being regarded as too long: Finland, Denmark (even if the “selective” and “standard” viewers in this country nonetheless say that they would watch it) and the United Kingdom, where basic interest in European questions is too low, particularly among “standard” TV viewers.



In Estonia and Lithuania there is a clear split between the “selective” viewers who find this formula to be more in-depth and superior to the insertion of European slots in television news programmes, and the “standard” viewers who barely see the point in it.

The Spaniards questioned, finally, maintain their major doubts about “political”- type news programmes, which they feel would be tedious, although those in the “selective” and “standard” groups do not rule out watching them.

Overall, attitudes appear more differentiated than for the previous concept between the

“selective” TV viewers, who are more inclined to appreciate longer, more in-depth programmes, and the others: we see this to varying degrees in around one in two Member States.

As regards the kinds of channels on which the interviewees would envisage finding such

programmes:

o These would primarily be general-interest channels in most of the Member States, broadly speaking for the same reasons as in the previous case (audience, accessibility, the news function generally being more important on these kinds of channels). In some countries, people also think, secondarily, of regional channels: Spain, Greece, Sweden and Hungary. In a few others, some “selective” viewers in particular also think of specialist channels (to which in principle they have access): the Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia and Estonia; and the French and Germans a priori think of “all types of channels” (the distinction between regional and national channels not being very marked among them).

o In five Member States, the interviewees show themselves to be split between general-interest channels and specialist channels.

In two of them, Ireland and Portugal, it is the “selective” TV viewers who as a rule cite the specialist channels. In two others, the United Kingdom and Belgium, it tends more to be the “standard” viewers – this reflecting a tendency in their country to push this kind of programme onto channels to which they do not have access. In Cyprus, the choices differ without it being possible to identify the same split.

o In two countries, they opt predominantly for the programmes to be shown on specialist channels.

However, this seems to reflect different attitudes, between Luxembourg where this choice does not a priori harm the audience, and in Slovakia where it appears to correspond to the same disaffection as in the United Kingdom and Belgium on the part of a section of the population.

7. Programmes on scientific subjects, health or the environment, showing experiences and giving views from different European countries.

This proposal gives rise to varied reactions.



o Generally interested in a good number of Member States.

The declarations of interest seem particularly numerous, in all the groups, in Belgium, Luxembourg (with the exception of some young adults), Ireland, Greece, Portugal (more especially among the “selective” TV viewers), Austria, Finland, Denmark, Malta, Cyprus, Hungary and Lithuania. The interest is also shared to quite a large degree, but at a generally lower level or with lesser homogeneity between the “selective” TV viewers and the others, in Italy, Spain, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland.

o Mixed in several others between people drawn to this kind of programme and others who do not express any great intention of watching them.

This is the case in the United Kingdom (“standard” TV viewers who are not very interested at all), the Netherlands (favourable attitudes above all among the “selective” viewers, and Sweden.

o Reserved or questioning in a few others: in France, Germany, Estonia and Latvia.

However, the analysis of the comments made by the participants in the group discussions leads one to think that the national criterion is perhaps not as sensitive as it appears at first sight, and that the interviewees may have reacted differently according to the idea they forged a priori of the content and style of these programmes.

The positive reactions are indeed often accompanied by comments showing that those making them readily imagine programmes of popularisation in the good sense of the term, i.e. with the necessary seriousness but accessible to the layman, on subjects they feel affected by – for example health, medicine, the environment or discoveries that could change people’s lives. We have previously seen that these are themes that were already suggested spontaneously by quite a large number of interviewees for programmes with a European character. Moreover, the ideas of comparison and exchange of experiences also correspond to pre-existing expectations – although some question the legitimacy of a solely European programme whilst scientific progress is of an international nature. The negative or dubious reactions are often linked to representations of dry and daunting scientific programmes, reserved for particularly competent and well-informed viewers representing a small minority of the public at large. These fears prompt some interviewees to suggest that these themes be dealt with briefly in the framework of regular multi-subject European “magazine”- type programmes, rather than as the subjects of entire programmes.

Preferences in terms of types of television channels for the showing of such programmes partly reflect the a-priori perceptions of the two groups.

The supporters of general-interest channels – only or also with more specialist channels – are the most numerous. They include in particular the Italians, Spaniards, Belgians, Dutchmen, Irishmen, Greeks, Austrians, Danes, Swedes, the citizens of most of the new Member States (except Slovakians and “standard” Latvian viewers), as well as “standard” (and “regional”) viewers in the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and Portugal, and on the other hand participants in the Finnish “selective” groups.



This choice is not necessarily exclusive: we see specialist channels mentioned alongside general-interest channels by participants in the Italian, Spanish, British, Luxembourgeois, Portuguese and Finnish “standard” groups, by their Danish “regional” counterparts, and by the Belgians, Austrians, Czechs, Hungarians and Poles generally. Some, but more rarely, do not exclude regional channels, either (among the supporters of these channels in Spain, Greece and the Czech Republic). On the other hand, many of those who opt to reserve this kind of programme for specialist channels are among those who express doubts as to whether the programmes have enough of a “mass audience” character. We find them in particular in France, Germany, and Slovakia and in the Latvian “standard” group. On the other hand, other options favouring specialist channels – expressed by “selective” viewers in the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and Portugal – do not appear to be inspired by the same reservations.

8. Programmes about the arts, culture and literature in the other European countries.

The principle of programmes on the culture of other European countries is received favourably by a very large proportion of the European citizens questioned.

In some very pro-Europe Member States, this idea is greeted especially enthusiastically and unanimously in all the groups: Spain, Luxembourg, Hungary, where the interviewees see this as a response to their wish to see Europeans better informed about, and acquiring a greater empathy towards each other. In several, on the other hand, it is received with more moderate interest (in Greece, Finland and Estonia) or with mixed feelings, depending on the population category in question: less interest among “standard” (or “regional”) TV viewers than among the “selective” viewers in the United Kingdom, Cyprus and Slovenia (and among the lower-educated people in Poland), and even disinterest displayed by the former in Belgium, Ireland and Denmark. The Dutch are also divided between spontaneous support and at times substantial misgivings. The reasons for the reservations are uniform: the fear of programmes that are too intellectual for the average person, for whom art and culture in the traditional sense of the term are not part and parcel of his everyday world. In other Member States the declarations made by interviewees who are on the face of it in favour, show that they, too, distrust elitism and in fact make their agreement conditional on an open view of culture in the broad sense of the term, or say that this stated interest is in fact in a style of programme that they spontaneously imagine as corresponding to this view. Irrespective of the countries, we can think that overly “specialised” cultural programmes would in fact only attract a minority of viewers.



In some Member States, it even appears on analysis that the interpretation of the term “culture of the other European countries” is not really distinguished from the content of “travel” programmes – this being the case in particular in the United Kingdom.

When called upon to say what types of channel they would envisage seeing such programmes

on, the participants in the group discussions cite:

o (Public) general-interest channels, predominantly, in some Member States: Italy, Spain, Ireland, Finland, Malta, Hungary, Poland and Estonia.

o General-interest channels or thematic channels with a more or less cultural connotation

in many others.

This is the case in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Cyprus, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania. Belgians tend more towards favouring specialist channels. In a few countries, the two types of channels are cited, with a propensity on the part of the non-selective viewers to push this kind of programme onto specialist channels.

o The idea of broadcasting on regional channels as well is not excluded by the interviewees in some countries: France (although this is no doubt on account of the more “intellectual” image of France 3 rather than its genuinely regional character), Greece, Cyprus, the Czech Republic (and to a lesser degree Spain, Austria and Slovenia).

9. Programmes devoted to the other European countries’cinema, including films or series in the original language, interviews with film directors, reportages, etc.

In some countries, such programmes on cinema meet with quite widespread interest in

principle: in Portugal, Finland, Estonia and to a lesser degree in the two other Baltic States and in the Czech Republic: one in two or more people interviewed seem here to want to see more European films – without the type of group being a very distinguishing criterion. Their showing in original version, which is usual for foreign films in these countries (except in Lithuania where dubbing is more frequent), does not pose any problems for them and is even regarded as desirable (apart from cases of incomprehension by people who imagine that the original version would be without subtitles). The participants in the French groups also say they are receptive to the cinema of the other European countries, but with more frequent misgivings about original versions. A degree of interest is also expressed in the different Belgian groups in respect of film classics (but scarcely for aspects peripheral to the films themselves which were included in the presentation of the proposal, namely interviews and reports).

In most of the Member States, on the other hand, we see a clear split between a small number of interviewees with a keen interest and a majority of others who express indifference or misgivings.



o The former constitute a minority of film enthusiasts, enlightened fans of arthouse movies and foreign films, some of whom spontaneously say they are tired of the endless flood of Hollywood productions.

These people do not see any objection to films being shown in their original language version, something they even look for (and which in any case is the normal way in which foreign films are screened in many countries). However, the “extra material” related to the film (reports, interviews with directors, etc.) is rarely mentioned as an element of major appeal. These interviewees are most often found in the groups of “selective” TV viewers, and among people of a higher educational and cultural level. However, it should be noted that even some people in this category point out that they already have access, in particular when one has subscriptions to cable or satellite multichannel packages, to a wide range of cinema. This is the case, for example, in Italy, Malta and Hungary, where the kind of programme offered arouses particularly low interest. Some Austrians also point out that these days their content (together with the “extra material”) can be found on DVDs.

o The latter perceive the programmes suggested as very elitist. They do not have the same curiosity for European cinema. Some (in Sweden, Cyprus, etc.) say that they are so used to American “formatting” of films distributed in their country that they dread the effort that would be required to “get into” a different and more demanding style of cinema (even though they regret this). In several countries, misgivings regarding original language versions are widely mentioned: in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg (at least when people watch on television, where subtitles are not very legible), Greece and Poland. There, too, cases of a lack of understanding are sometimes detected among TV viewers who imagine original versions without subtitles (some Poles) or even the reports and interviews in the original language (some Britons). These kinds of misgivings also exist in the former countries where the attraction for these programmes is a priori greater, but they are less widespread there.

As regards the types of channels on which programmes on European cinema could be

shown:

o The interviewees mainly think of specialist or thematic channels (devoted to cinema or of a predominantly cultural nature) in one Member State in two.

They hardly mention any others in France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Austria, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Latvia. The general-interest channels are cited in second place in Italy, Belgium and Lithuania.

o Specialist and general-interest channels are cited more or less equally (or: all kinds of channels) in several other countries: in the Netherlands, Portugal, Cyprus, Slovenia, Slovakia, and among the “selective” TV viewers in Luxembourg and Greece.



o The general-interest channels are those that come to mind in others: in Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Malta, Estonia – and among the “non-selective” viewers in the Member States mentioned above.

10. Game programmes whose candidate must answer questions about Europe and the other European

countries.

The way the idea of this kind of programme was received varies considerably according to the countries.

A distinction can be made between: o Some Member States in which quite a lot of interest is revealed in all the groups: Spain,

Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Hungary and Lithuania.

The interviewees see these as enjoyable and entertaining programmes, which also give the viewer the chance to learn about aspects of the other European countries.

o Some Member States in which the interest shown in the various groups is more moderate and accompanied by questions or conditions.

This is the case in Germany, Greece, Cyprus, Slovakia and Estonia. These are programmes which are not new as regards their concept apart from the multinational participation of the contestants; questions are raised as to whether it would be possible to find suitable candidates able to answer the questions and, above all, the possibility of captivating the television audience who, on the face of it knowing very little about Europe, would not really be able to play the game themselves at home.

o Some Member States in which a split is observed between “standard” TV viewers attracted by the idea and “selective” viewers who as a rule do not often enjoy this kind of popular entertainment (the “regional” viewers in the countries where they were specifically questioned are found on one side or the other, but tend more not to be very interested).

They include France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Malta, Slovenia and Poland.

o One country where the split is the other way round: Luxembourg, where it is the “selective” TV viewers who are the most receptive.

o Some Member States where the concept is not very appealing – Finland, Latvia – or is very

unappealing – the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and the Czech Republic.

Here we find, in a more general manner, a disaffection vis-à-vis a style of programme which is slightly old-fashioned and simplistic, as well as major doubts about the possibility of arousing the interest of viewers who would be a passive audience since they would not know the answers to most of the questions.

As regards the kinds of channels that people think of for such programmes, these are chiefly general-interest channels in most of the Member States.



The interviewees in certain countries are split between the different types of channels (in Luxembourg, Austria, Denmark and Cyprus) or some of them also think of specific channels (some Italians, many Britons, some Slovenes and Czechs and some “selective” viewers in Portugal and Latvia). It will be observed, however, that these statements do not mean much in cases where the people concerned have no interest in the programmes in question.

11. Entertainment programmes, with artists and famous people from several European countries

Declared interest in this kind of programme differs very markedly from one Member State to another.

It appears quite high in Spain, Malta, Cyprus, Slovenia, Hungary and in the three Baltic States, as

well as among the “standard” Belgian and Portuguese viewers and the “regional” Austrian viewers. In short, people see this as possibly enriching the existing programmes of the same kind at national level, with some – especially in very small countries – showing curiosity for the idea of discovering artists of other nationalities who are unknown to them.

Reactions are mitigated in France (a degree of interest among fans of light entertainment, but a rejection of this genre among a sizeable section of the interviewees), among the Belgians in the “selective” and “regional” groups, the “standard” and “selective” Austrian viewers, the Danes and the Slovaks.

The reasons for interest are the same, as are the reasons for misgivings. Many adopt a wait-and-see attitude for want of being able to “get a feel for” the content and tone that these programmes would have.

They are predominantly reserved in Italy, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Poland, and generally negative in Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Greece and among the “selective” Portuguese TV viewers.

The main reasons for a lack of interest are indifference to this type of programme in general, the feeling that there are already plenty – or even too many – of them (in Germany in particular), the lack of any perceived logical link between this television genre and the European Union (in the Netherlands, for example), or even the lack of any great desire to see performances by foreign artists or figures known in their own country but not ringing any bells in ones’ own. This latter category of objection is often made in particular in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Poland. Some Czech interviewees also report their doubts on account of the fact that the translation needed in most cases causes much of the wit in a light, humorous programme to be lost.

As regards the types of channels on which people would expect to see these programmes shown, these would chiefly be general-interest channels (and for some interviewees, explicitly commercial ones).

To these can be added specialist channels (for some of the Italians, Britons, Greeks, Austrians, Danes, Slovenes, Czech, Hungarians and Lithuanians) or regional channels (according to some Dutch, Greek and Cypriot interviewees).



12. Debates on European issues between experts from the European Union and experts from our own country.

This programme proposal rarely arouses any great enthusiasm.

We see a relatively large number of declarations of interest in the different groups in Luxembourg, Greece, Austria and Malta, where the debate formula seems to be appreciated. Some Danish viewers from various categories, although less attracted by it, nonetheless say they would probably watch such programmes, depending on the subjects discussed, recognising the need to be better informed on the European Union. In other Member States, only a minority of viewers, generally “selective” or from the higher-than-average educational bracket, express a similar view: in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Finland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. In a few others, there is also a minority interested (without the same criterion of differentiation of the attitudes being as clear) or at least a non-rejection in principle: Sweden, Hungary, Estonia and Lithuania. Among the other interviewees the dominant attitude is that programmes perceived a priori as elitist and difficult, discussions readily imagined as over the heads of the average person, and carried on between experts far removed from daily life, using a specific language amongst themselves, and undoubtedly abstract subjects hold little or very little appeal. On top of this comes a certain saturation of the very formula of debates, highlighted mainly by some Frenchmen, Germans, Swedes, Hungarians, Poles (who quite clearly have had enough of “sterile” political debates) and some Lithuanians. This leads, inter alia, to declarations of almost total disinterest in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Ireland, Cyprus, Slovakia and Latvia. In other Member States, those who are potentially interested or at least not wholly unreceptive insist on a number of conditions: that there genuinely be a debate and exchanges of ideas that result in progress being made on the subject under question, that the experts present know how to make themselves understood in simple language, that the discussion leaders be particularly qualified and able to interpret and reformulate in simple terms complex ideas tackled in the discussion, or that the public be able to take part by asking questions live. Finally it will be noted that in some Member States there is a fear of the debates being biased (in Poland) or dominated by the European experts to the detriment of their less self-assured national counterparts (in Estonia and Latvia).

As regards the types of channels adapted to the scheduling of such programmes, the hypotheses differ from one country to another.

o Specialist channels cited predominantly in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium,

Portugal, Poland and Latvia. o General-interest and/or specialist channels in Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,

Austria, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary and Estonia.



o General-interest channels mainly in Denmark, Greece, Malta, the Czech Republic and Lithuania (where this no doubt reflects a higher degree of public interest than is seen to be the European average), as well as Ireland.

13. Interviews of European commissioners and Members of the European Parliament at regular

periods.

Interest shown for this kind of programme is low overall.

In many cases, the reasons for this are the low propensity to pay attention to political subjects in general, and the perceived distance between average viewers and leaders of any kind. Attitudes seem more favourable among the Latvians, Lithuanians, the “selective” Greek, Finnish and Maltese viewers, and some (“regional”) Austrian and German viewers.

In some Member States, the general disaffection observed towards politics and politicians could be slightly less great in the case of interviews with Community officials than national officials.

This is observed among some Italians (from the higher-than-average educational bracket), among some Belgians, Luxembourgeois, Spaniards, Irishmen, Portuguese and Danes: credibility and objectivity a priori better or less poor, vision perhaps wider than a purely national vision, etc.

In three of them, they are not very interested at all, the distance between average people and the European officials and MEPs (who are unknown and anonymous) being very great: in the United Kingdom, Sweden and Estonia.

As regards the types of channels on which the interviewees would think of seeing these

programmes shown, attitudes are mixed.

These would mainly be (public) general-interest channels, for the Irishmen, Greeks, Finns, Danes, Maltese, Czechs, Estonians and Lithuanians. Frenchmen, Britons, Portuguese, Poles, Slovaks and Latvians would, on the other hand, be inclined to favour specialist channels. In the other Member States, both are mentioned as possibly being envisaged. Few are those who think of regional television channels.

14. Interviews of our country’s ministers in charge of European affairs at regular periods

This proposal elicits an even more markedly lower level of interest; it is even almost unanimously rejected in a good number of Member States.

What is involved is the greatly deteriorated image of politicians in all countries, be it in respect of their actual skills or, in the case of the overwhelming majority, their ability to talk about a subject



with a minimum of objectivity, avoiding “waffle” and using language that is not totally obscure for the general public. Moreover, it is imagined that they would talk about “political” or institutional subjects, which are not the priority subjects European citizens want to know more about. At the very most, we can see measured and conditional interest among a small number of citizens: some “selective” viewers in France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Finland, Malta and Slovenia, and some viewers from various categories in Austria, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania. However, it would still be necessary for these programmes to avoid the “political” pitfalls that lead the other interviewees to reject the idea.

If such programmes were shown, it seems logical to many that they should be shown on public general-interest channels.

However, the opposite idea sometimes prevails, with specialist news channels being regarded as most appropriate to a kind of programme which would only have an audience limited to a small interested section of the public: in France, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Hungary and Poland as well as among “selective” TV viewers in Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and Slovenia, and among various Belgian, Dutch, Irish, Austrian, Slovakian and Lithuanian interviewees. Regional television channels are rarely cited.

15. Programmes on sports in the other European countries, including matches and competitions, but

also reportages on champions and sports teams as well as sports in local people’s lives

Interest shown for such sports programmes is very low – and the reactions in this regard are broadly homogenous across the different Member States.

In short, one precondition is being attracted to sport – which is not the case in the majority of the viewers questioned, and especially women. Secondly, even those who appreciate sports events generally feel that there is already plenty on offer in this field, be it on channels accessible to everyone or on thematic sports channels. Thirdly, there is no perceived link between sport and the European Union, and even the wider European dimension of sport is barely perceived. People think either of its international character (Olympic Games, World Championships) or its national character (interest in the results of the national champions and teams), or (more rarely) its local character. In their very great majority, the interviewees therefore do not see any justification for the type of programme proposed. It does not contribute anything as regards broadcasts, and the other aspects (reports) could only arouse interest, even among fans, if they involved sportsmen or national teams with whom they might feel identified. We find only a few relative exceptions to this general rule: among some minority (male) interviewees in Malta and Cyprus who feel a degree of island isolation and for whom the European dimension would be synonymous with opening up (including an embracing of sports other than



football, which is dominant for the former), and among some Lithuanians for less clearly explained reasons.

Elsewhere, we find a moderate interest expressed here and there among sports fans, for example in respect of little-known sports among some people, but this is very limited.

The question of the channels on which they would prefer to see this kind of programme is very

theoretical in these conditions.

We can note, for the record, a frequent tendency to designate specialist thematic channels, which in some of the cases in fact means relegation of such programmes to this kind of channel which is not accessible to everyone. It is only in Spain, Luxembourg, Greece and Malta that general-interest channels are mentioned more. In a few other countries, general-interest channels are mentioned alongside specialist channels (Italy, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus and Slovenia).



II.4 ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE COMMISSION’S INITIATIVE

To wind up the meetings, their participants were informed of the identity of the body that had commissioned the study, the European Commission, which would like “citizens to be better informed on European issues through television”.

It was added that to this end the Commission was in the process of “setting up a support system, including financial support, to television channels planning to develop programmes including some European content”. The discussion leaders asked the participants what they thought of this.

The spontaneous reactions to this announcement are very predominantly positive.

In some Member States the people questioned even express very keen and unqualified satisfaction, unanimously or almost unanimously: in Ireland, Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary and Lithuania.

Satisfaction is also very general in France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, and more moderate in Sweden and the Czech Republic. Attitudes are more qualified or mixed in Italy, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria and Poland.

Two aspects need to be distinguished:

o The first concerns the Commission’s initiative to have this study carried out, which is greeted in all the countries and which nobody criticises.

It is recognised as legitimate and desirable that the Commission should be concerned about the information citizens receive about European issues. Moreover, as in other studies for various Directorates-General in which the group discussions concluded with a similar theme, the people questioned have the satisfaction of having been consulted and listened to by the Community institution, which they feel thus displays the consideration it has for people’s opinions, and shows itself to be closer to them. In several of the new Member States, in particular, some interviewees even say they are flattered or contrast this display of openness to the indifference towards citizens that they sense from their own governments – reflections of this nature having been made spontaneously for example in Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Lithuania.

o The second concerns the Commission’s policy of support to television projects with a European content.

It is also viewed in a very favourable light by the interviewees in most of the Member States.



The need to inform people better about Europe and the European Union appears obvious, the medium of television is considered as relevant to do this given its very large audience, and the legitimacy of the Commission’s intervention is not questioned at all. On the contrary, the fact that it should set itself the mission of contributing to a higher level of knowledge and seeing to it that Europeans find out more about each other is perceived very favourably. Only some people wonder about the effectiveness of such an approach given the indifference displayed by the citizens – themselves included – in respect of Community issues. Whilst they regret this, they fear the size of the task will be considerable. Others, implicitly recognising this difficulty, attempt to contribute to solving it by coming back to their previous comments to recommend choices of subjects or ways of dealing with them which would be likely, in their view, to increase the audience of the proposed programmes. In these countries very few raise the question of the objectivity of the information in channels receiving financial aid from the Commission: a few Germans, Spaniards, Belgians, Swedes, Czechs, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, but a priori without suspicion. In only a few countries, the misgivings or doubts are greater and the citizens interviewed more divided. This is the case in Italy (opposition by some of the participants to the idea of devoting public funds to such projects), the United Kingdom (fears, albeit relatively not very exaggerated, of biased pro-European information), the Netherlands (worry among some regional TV viewers of receipt of financing leading to dependence) and Poland (suspicions of non-neutrality on the part of those who are the most stand-offish as regards the European Union). Again these reservations do not come from all the citizens questioned in these countries.



MAIN TYPES OF PROGRAMMES WITH A EUROPEAN CONTENT AROUSING INTEREST

GREAT GENUINE MODERATE VARIABLE MINORITY TYPES OF AUDIENCE INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST CHANNELS PROFILE REPORTS ALMOST GEN PEOPLE’S LIVES ALL MEMBER UK SPEC BROAD EUROPEAN COUNTRIES STATES Reg REPORTS VERY MANY DE IT GEN LOCAL SOLUTIONS MEMBER AT REG SPEC BROAD TO THE PROBLEMS STATES UK SE PRACTICAL INFORMATION MANY IT IE EL DE BE NL GEN BROAD RIGHTS/OPPORTUNITIES MEMBER FI AT UK SE Reg Spec SEL+ FOR CITIZENS STATES SI LV REGIONAL INFORMATION LU NL FR IT AT DE BE IE REG BROAD ON IMPACT OF THE EL ES PT MT CY SI FI UK DK SE GEN SEL+ REG+ EUROPEAN UNION PL CZ SK HU EE LT LV EUROPEAN SLOTS FR EL BE LU NL IT DE ES GEN IN TELEVISION NEWS AT SE IE PT FI DK UK Reg Spec BROAD BULLETINS MT CZ SK HU CY SI EE LT PL LV WEEKLY PROGRAMME DE PT IT FR BE LU NL ES GEN BROAD ON EU NEWS AND MT HU LV CY PL CZ IE EL ES AT EE LT UK DK SE SPEC SEL + CURRENT AFFAIRS SI SK PROGRAMMES ON BE LU IE EL PT IT ES NL FR DE GEN SCIENCE, THE AT FI DK SI PL SPEC SEL + ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH MT CY HU LT CZ SK UK SE EE LV PROGRAMMES LU ES FR DE IT EL BE NL IE GEN SPEC ON ARTS AND HU PT AT FI SE UK DK Reg SEL + CULTURE MT CZ SK CY SI PL EE LT LV



ANNEXES



ANNEX I

PARTNER INSTITUTES

IN THE 25 MEMBER STATES



PARTNER INSTITUTES RESPONSIBLE FOR RUNNING AND ANALYSING THE GROUP DISCUSSIONS (AT) Austria Karmasin Motivforschung (Vienna) (BE) Belgium EADC – Yellow Window (Antwerp) (CY) Cyprus Synovate – Cyprus (Nicosia) (CZ) Czech Republic MARECO ( Prague) (DE) Germany Echanges Marktforschung (Cologne) (DK) Denmark Ulveman Explorative – Erik Liljeberg Research Consultancy (Copenhagen) (EE) Estonia TNS EMOR (Tallinn) (EL) Greece FOCUS (Athens) (ES) Spain Escario Research (Madrid) (FI) Finland Marketing Radar (Helsinki) (FR) France CSA (Paris) (HU) Hungary Ad Hoc Plus Research (Budapest) (IE) Ireland TNS – MRBI (Dublin) (IT) Italy Market Dynamics International (Milan) (LT) Lithuania Baltic Surveys (Vilnius) (LU) Luxembourg Ilres (Luxembourg) (LV) Latvia TNS Baltic Data House (Riga) (MT) Malta MISCO (Valletta) (NL) Netherlands PQR (Amsterdam) (PL) Poland BSM (Warsaw) (PT) Portugal TNS Euroteste (Lisbon) (SE) Sweden Kommunicera (Stockholm) (SI) Slovenia RM Plus (Maribor) (SK) Slovakia Psymareco (Bratislava), in cooperation with MARECO (UK) United Kingdom Andrew Irving Associates (London)



ANNEX II

DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION

OF THE GROUPS



DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF THE GROUPS Standard viewers Selective viewers Regional viewers Men Women 20-40 years 41-60 years Men Women 20-40 years 41-60 years Men Women 20-40 years 41-60 years

(AT) Austria

4 4 Vienna, 08.09.04

3 5

5 5 Vienna, 09.09.04

5 5 5 5 Vienna, 13.09.04

4 6

(BE) Belgium

4 4 Brussels, 16.09.04

4 4

4 4 Antwerp, 09.09.04

3 5 4 4 Antwerp, 02.09.04

4 4

(CY) Cyprus

4 4 Nicosia, 16.09.04

4 4 4 4 Nicosia, 21.09.04

4 4

(CZ) Czech Republic

5 5 Prague, 15.09.04

4 6 5 4 Prague, 16.09.04

5 4 4 4 Olomouc, 20.09.04

4 4

(DE) Germany

4 4 Cologne, 26.08.04

4 4 4 4 Cologne, 24.08.04

5 3 4 4 Cologne, 25.08.04

4 4

(DK) Denmark

4 3 Copenhagen, 13.09.04

3 4 3 3 Copenhagen, 13.09.04

2 4 4 2 Odense, 14.09.04

2 4

(EE) Estonia

3 5 Tallinn, 14.09.04

5 3 3 5 Tallinn, 14.09.04

5 3

(EL) Greece

4 4 Athens, 06.09.04

4 4 3 4 Athens, 08.09.04

4 3 4 4 Patras, 15.09.04

4 4

(ES) Spain

4 4 Madrid, 14.09.04

4 4 4 4. Madrid, 13.09.04

4 4 4 4 Madrid, 14.09.04

4 4

(FI) Finland

3 5 Helsinki, 14.09.04

5 3 4 4 Helsinki, 14.09.04

5 3

(FR) France

2 6 Paris, 08.09.04

4 4 3 5 Paris, 07.09.04

3 5 3 5 Rennes, 09.09.04

4 4

(HU) Hungary

4 4 Budapest, 17.09.04

4 4 4 4 Budapest, 17.09.04

4 4 4 4 Miskolc, 20.09.04

4 4

(IE) Ireland

3 4 Dublin, 21.09.04

3 4

3 4 Dublin. 21.09.04

4 3

(IT) Italy

3 4 Milan, 07.09.04

3 4

4 3 Milan, 08.09.04

3 4 3 4 Asti, 09.09.04

4 3

(LT) Lithuania

5 5 Vilnius, 06.09.04

6 4 5 5 Vilnius, 06.09.04

4 6

(LU) Luxembourg

4 3 Luxembourg, 09.09.04

4 3 5 5 Luxembourg, 14.09.04

5 5

(LV) Latvia

4 4 Riga, 21.09.04

4 4 4 4 Riga, 22.09.04

4 4



(MT) Malta

4 4 Valletta, 04.09.04

4 4

5 3 Valletta, 11.09.04

4 4

(NL) Netherlands

4 3 Amsterdam, 06.09.04

3 4 4 3 Amsterdam, 01.09.04

3 4 4 4 Amsterdam, 02.09.04

4 4

(PL) Poland

3 5 Warsaw, 06.09.04

4 4 4 4 Warsaw, 06.09.04

4 4 4 4 Katowice, 07.09.04

4 4

(PT) Portugal

2 4 Lisbon, 14.09.04

4 2 4 4 Lisbon, 15.09.04

5 3

(SE) Sweden

3 4 Stockholm, 21.09.04

4 3 4 3 Stockholm, 28.09.04

3 4 3 4 Stockholm, 23.09.04

4 3

(SI) Slovenia

3 4 Maribor, 09.09.04

4 3 5 4 Maribor, 10.09.04

5 4

(SK) Slovakia

4 4 Bratislava, 10.09.04

4 4 4 4 Bratislava, 15.09.04

3 5 5 4 Banska Bystrica, 17.09.04

4 5

(UK) United Kingdom

4 4 London, 15.09.04

4 4

4 4 Surrey, 21.09.04

4 4 4 4 Southampton, 16.09.04

4 4



ANNEX III

DISCUSSION GUIDE



TELEVISION STUDY DISCUSSION GUIDE

(27.08.2004)

Introduction

Good afternoon/evening. My name is… and I work with…, the research institute in charge of the study for which we are here together. This study is about television.

To start with, may I ask each of you to introduce him/herself briefly: please tell me who you are, where you live, if you live alone or together with someone else, if you have children, what you do for a living (if you are working) and what your wife/husband does, and finally what are your favourite leisure activities and hobbies. THEME I I.1 Let us talk about what you usually watch on television. I will ask each of you to think of a typical

week, and to try to think back of all the programmes that you watch during that week.

Ask each of the participants successively. Let each one express him/herself spontaneously, then probe: which particular programmes or programme types, on which days, at which hours …

I.2 You have mentioned different programmes. Among them, there are probably some which you watch with more – or less– interest, or to which you pay more – or less – attention.

Establish a classification of programmes : starting with a first category including the

programmes which are nearly always watched and regarded as most interesting ; then getting the respondents to define other categories according to viewing frequency and degree of interest and attention ; through to programmes never or practically never watched

Clarify the reasons for (greater or lesser) viewing frequency and interest Elicit viewing habits common to all or most participants/differences in viewing habits



THEME II II.1 Let us talk about the different existing television channels. Please think of all the television channels

you know – whether you watch them or not – and then try to group them in several families, according to how similar or different you feel they are.

Incite the group to reach a consensus in defining families of channels Clarify the reasons for forming these families : what the channels grouped within each family

have in common, and what makes them different from the other families Ask the respondents to express degree and reasons of interest (or non-interest) for the channels

of each family II.2 We are now going to consider each of these families of television channels successively. For each

one, please tell me which are the particular channels of this family which you watch personally either regularly or more occasionally, what you particularly watch on these different channels, and why.

Take each family successively. For each one :

Get the respondents to quote all the channels of this family which they watch (more or less regularly/occasionally)

Clarify the reasons for regular, occasional, or non-viewing of the different channels quoted (and/or : of the family of channels)

Identify specific programmes or programme types watched on these channels (and/or this family of channels) rather than on other channels

THEME III III.1 There are all sorts of programmes on television, between those dedicated solely to information and

those which are mainly entertainment. I would like to discuss how television and different kinds of television programmes inform us and help us broaden our minds and learn things, in one way or another. Please tell me what you find in television yourselves in this respect, what you watch, what you find interesting, and why.

Spontaneous reactions Probe :

Types of programmes (mentioning concrete examples) Features (in content and/or form) of programmes in which one « learns things »

III.2 Another approach to this question is the subjects and topics which are dealt with in all these

programmes. Which subjects do you find most attractive and interesting?


List of subjects/topics in which the participants find interest Degree and reasons of (greater or lesser) interest for these subjects/topics



III.3 Regarding how television can inform us, and help us broaden our minds and learn things, what

would you say is missing or failing right now – that can be subjects or topics which you would like to see more about, or better ways to deal with these subjects?


Unfulfilled expectations in terms of content : subjects/topics missing in the television offer Unfulfilled expectations in terms of form : failings/insufficiencies/shortcomings in the way

subjects are dealt with

THEME IV IV.1 We are going to turn to a particular subject : Europe on television ; in other words all that can be

seen on television about Europe, the European countries and what is taking place in those countries, the people who live there … etc.

Please try to remember everything that you have seen on these subjects in the last few months, regardless of the type of programme in which you saw something.

Spontaneous reactions Encourage the respondents to search back in their memories and probe :

Subjects/topics (For each one) In which type of programme (For each one) On which channel that programme appeared (For each one) How the subject was dealt with (For each one) Judgments on the interest of the subject and the way it was dealt with (For each one) Judgements regarding credibility/confidence in the information provided

IV.2 Let us now talk more specifically about the European Union on television : everything that can be seen on television about the European Union, its policies and programmes, its institutions ; in other words what it does, what takes place there, how it works, … etc. Please try to remember everything that you have seen on television on the European Union in the last few months, regardless of the type of programme in which you saw something.


Subjects/topics (For each one) In which type of programme (For each one) On which channel that programme appeared (For each one) How the subject was dealt with (For each one) Judgements on the interest of the subject and the way it was dealt with (For each one) Judgements regarding credibility/confidence in the information provided



THEME V V.1 One also receives information and learns things in other media on the European Union or Europe

more generally. What do you remember seeing on these subjects in newspapers and magazines in the last few months?


Subjects/topics (For each one) In which newspaper/magazine (For each one) How the subject was dealt with (For each one) Judgments on the interest of the subject and the way it was dealt with (For each one) Judgements regarding credibility/confidence in the information provided

V.2 And what do you remember hearing on the European Union and Europe on the radio in the last few

months ?


Subjects/topics (For each one) In which type of programme (For each one) On which radio station (For each one) How the subject was dealt with (For each one) Judgements on the interest of the subject and the way it was dealt with (For each one) Judgements regarding credibility/confidence in the information provided

V.3 Overall, considering the information provided on Europe and the European Union on television,

compared with newspapers and magazines and radio, what would you say?


Interest, quality and credibility of Europe-related information on television compared with information provided in newspapers/magazines and on the radio (pluses and minuses of television)

Is there anything that one finds in the press or on the radio that could teach lessons to design television programmes that make people better informed on the European Union?



THEME VI We are going to try and think together of what could be done on television for us to be better informed and to know more about the European Union or Europe more generally. VI.1 Firstly, there may be subjects which you would be interested in, but are now hardly or not at all dealt

with. Let us try to make a list of subjects that you could be interested in, in relation with the European Union.

Ask the participants to quote potentially interesting subjects. Incite them to work from the first spontaneously expressed ideas to find new ones, and thus to produce a (as) comprehensive (as possible) list of subjects

VI.2 As regards now the way European Union related subjects are dealt with on television, what should be

changed, improved, or done differently?

Ask the participants to express their expectations and suggestions, starting from their perceptions of shortcomings in the way television deals with these subjects. Ask to clarify with concrete examples.

VI.3 Lets us now play a game. Assume that you are in charge of imagining completely new television

programmes on the European Union – programmes which do not exist now. You are the designers of these programmes, with complete freedom to propose whatever you feel could be interesting. That can include very different programme types, you are free to imagine whatever you like.

Encourage the respondents to define the broad outline of several possible programme types Probe for each one: content, format, way of dealing with the subjects, tone and style of presentation,

personality of the people presenting, or appearing in, the programme, … etc.

VI.4 Certain programmes are probably better suited to certain types of television channels than to others. To keep things simple, let us consider 3 major types of channels:

A. National generalist channels, addressing wide audiences B. Regional or local channels, or channels having specific regional or local programmes C. More specialized channels, including information channels, cultural channels, international channels,

or channels focussed on any other particular theme. Thinking back of the different ideas of programmes which you came up with earlier (in VI.1, VI.2 or VI.3) please tell me how you would imagine that these programmes could fit with each of these channel types.

Probe : Programmes specifically for, or adapted to fit Type A channels Programmes specifically for, or adapted to fit Type B channels (specifying differences, if any,

between regional or local channels) Programmes specifically for, or adapted to fit Type C channels (specifying differences, if any,

between information channels, cultural channels, international channels, other theme - specific channels)



THEME VII VII.1 To end up with our discussion, I would like to submit to you various ideas that have been produced

regarding television programmes or programme contents about the European Union. I will ask you what you think of each one.

For each one, probe :

Degree and reasons of (greater or lesser) interest Any suggestions on programme content or form

1 A five minutes slot in each day’s TV news bulletins on current EU issues and decisions 2 A weekly one-hour programme including information and reportages on current EU issues 3 Programmes on sports in the other European countries including matches and competitions, but also

reportages on champions and sports teams, as well as sports in local people’s lives 4 Practical information programmes on the rights of European citizens: for example the right to study,

work and live in any EU country, the rights of consumers who make purchases from other European countries, the Erasmus programmes for students, … etc.

5 Interviews of our country’s ministers in charge of European affairs at regular periods 6 Interviews of European commissioners and members of the European Parliament at regular periods 7 Programmes about arts, culture and literature in the other European countries 8 Reportages about the life of the people living in different European countries 9 Entertainment programmes with artists and famous people from several European countries 10 Regional information programmes showing the impact of EU decisions and programmes on your

region or your city 11 Game programmes whose candidates must answer questions about Europe and the other European

countries 12 Reportages showing solutions implemented by other European cities to try and solve such problems

as transports, housing, urban security, school hours, access to public services, … etc. 13 Programmes devoted to the other European countries’ cinema, including films and series in the

original language, interviews with film directors, reportages, …etc. 14 Programmes on scientific subjects, health, or the environment, showing experiences and giving

views from different European countries 15 Debates on European issues between experts from the European Union and experts from our own

country

VII.2 On this sheet of paper you will find the 15 ideas of programmes which we have just discussed. For each programme, could you please answer two questions, by ticking the appropriate box in this questionnaire.

First question : on which (one or several) of the three channel types A, B, C which we discussed earlier would you prefer to watch such a programme ?

A National generalist channels addressing wide audiences B Regional or local channels, or channels having specific regional or local programmes

C More specialized channels, including information channels, cultural channels, international channels, or channels focussed on any other particular themes



Second question : trying to be completely honest, please note if it is a programme that you would really watch or not in fact, if it were broadcast.

Ask the respondents to fill in the questionnaires Ask them to make brief comments on their answers

THEME VIII We are carrying out this study at the request of the European Commission. The Commission would like citizens to be better informed on European issues through television ; for this purpose it is setting up a support system, including financial support, to television channels planning to develop programmes including some European content. What do you think about it ?

Spontaneous reactions Probe : ▪ Attitudes towards the Commission’s project to incite television channels to develop the

European content of their programmes (perception of the project as being legitimate, credible, realistic ...).

ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS OF VIEWERS IN TERMS OF ... · ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS OF VIEWERS IN...

Documents

Transcript of ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS OF VIEWERS IN TERMS OF ... · ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS OF VIEWERS IN...