An Outbreak of Narcolepsy?
Published by the Centre for Policy Studies, this paper draws together five years of Minotaur Media Tracking research into the prominence, framing and range of viewpoints in the BBC’s coverage of the European Union.
Document type
Research Paper
March 2004
29 pages · PDF
Kathy Gyngell and David Keighley
This paper brought together evidence from five years of periodic monitoring of the BBC’s coverage of the European Union. The underlying research comprised 14 separate studies, more than 2,000 hours of broadcast output and 2,289 transcripts containing over one million words.
The authors examined whether the prominence and depth of EU coverage reflected the subject’s growing influence on British political life. They considered the amount of airtime devoted to European affairs, the stories selected, their placement within programmes, the contributors heard and the extent to which competing arguments were explained.
The paper did not claim to determine whether the BBC was biased. Instead, it argued that EU affairs were too often treated as marginal, technical or inherently uninteresting, restricting informed public debate. It concluded with practical proposals for improving the BBC’s coverage and strengthening independent scrutiny of its output.
Key findings
1. EU affairs occupied a consistently small share of output
During the 1999 European Parliamentary election campaign, EU election coverage accounted for only 2.6 per cent of the principal BBC television news programmes. Between September 2002 and June 2003, EU affairs occupied less than 5 per cent of BBC Radio 4 Today’s output, despite major developments involving enlargement, the Treaty of Nice and the proposed constitution.
2. Important stories were frequently absent
The low volume of coverage was not simply a consequence of limited news activity. Before the Seville summit, two or more broadsheet newspapers reported 34 EU-related stories, but Today covered only eight. Comparison with the press repeatedly identified political and economic developments that received little or no attention from the programme.
3. Coverage often lacked sustained explanation
Reports frequently acknowledged that an event had occurred without fully explaining its implications for Britain or the arguments surrounding it. During the 1999 election campaign, Radio 4 carried only eight hours of EU and election material across five weeks, while Newsnight broadcast just two principal campaign items before polling day.
4. Contributor selection narrowed the debate
The research found limited representation of perspectives critical of European integration. Across approximately 2,200 programme-feature transcripts generated during the monitoring work, UKIP spokespeople appeared only 13 times. Significant dissenting voices within the established parties were also sometimes overlooked or given little opportunity to develop their arguments.
5. The BBC appeared to regard the subject as inherently unappealing
Presenters and reports repeatedly framed European politics as dull, remote or impenetrable. The paper argued that this treatment risked reinforcing public disengagement: inadequate explanation could contribute to low interest, while low interest could then be invoked to justify continuing the limited coverage.