The Brief – Defund the Media

Today's edition is powered by NetworkNature

 Choose Nature: NetworkNature Annual Event 2025

Choose Nature on 16 September in Brussels to explore how Nature-based Solutions can align biodiversity and the economy in times of urgency. Engage with diverse stakeholders and discover pathways toward a resilient future for people and the planet. Learn more.

Register.

Brussels is a cosy place. So cosy in fact that many, if not most, people here have convinced themselves (and one another) that it’s perfectly acceptable, normal even, for the EU to directly fund the media that cover them.

‘What’s the big deal?’ was the response in some quarters to Euractiv’s revelation this week that the institution is spending vastly more than previously acknowledged: € 35 million per year on average.

What’s so shocking about this to anyone not born and bred in the “Bubble” is the double standard. How is it that the Commission, which is so proud of its efforts to ‘level the playing field’ when it comes to competition in European industry, has no qualms about manipulating the marketplace of ideas by not just subsidising, but in some cases creating, pliant media staffed by journalistic neophytes?

In most European countries (with the glaring exception of France), using taxpayer money to bankroll the national press in perpetuity would be taboo – and for good reason.

Imagine for a moment if Berlin were to write a generous cheque every year to help Der Spiegel maintain its political coverage. It would lose all credibility. And no, such payments are not analogous to national public broadcasters, which rely on license fees earmarked solely for them.

In Brussels, generous subsidies for media have long been par for the course, as the shocking example of Euronews, which has received nearly €250 million over the past decade, makes all too clear.

That dependency has consequences, most disturbingly in that it has created a passive and obsequious press corps. Journalists in Brussels like to think of themselves as the ‘fourth estate’. In reality, they often function more like a fifth column that works hand in glove with the people they are supposed to cover in exchange for access.

If that sounds like an exaggeration, consider the following exchange that transpired in a WhatsApp group this week between reporters who covered the Polish presidency and Poland’s press team.

“Thank you Wojciech, Magdalena, Katarzyna, Magdalena, Inga and the others that worked to inform the press in such a helpful and detailed way, day after day for the last six months. You have set a precedent, an example to follow for the future of the EU presidencies,” gushed a correspondent for Italy’s Askanews.

“I agree – you guys rocked,” responded a writer for the EUObserver.

Not to be outdone, a Bloomberg editor wrote: “I’d like to propose a binding measure to keep the PL press team in the current form for at least a year or so, to continue keeping us informed 😉 Then a well-deserved promotion. You guys rocked.”

That triggered a virtual orgy of praise with dozens of ‘journalists’ – including reporters for Mlex, Politico and Reuters – piling in to pay fealty to the Polish flacks.

“Denmark is freaking out rn,” a Politico man interjected at one point (This week Denmark took over the presidency from Poland).  

Once the elation had ebbed, the Bloomberg editor signed off with: “And they ended with dozens of reporters dancing to Love is in the Air.”

So much for holding power to account.

Such behaviour is symptomatic of a broken journalistic culture that encourages cheerleading and discourages critical voices. Even if the EU’s press subsidies are not the only cause of this dysfunction, they have contributed to making journalists dependent on the politicians who control their economic fate and skewing the market for everyone else.

There’s a simple way for the EU to fix that: defund the media.

The Roundup

EU budget breakdown – The Commission will present the bulk of its new budget proposal on 16 July, kicking off more than two years of difficult negotiations. Spending priorities will likely be radically redefined. Here are the five main debates that will shape the next MFF.

Google swipes at DMA – The company repeated earlier criticisms of the Digital Markets Act, arguing it impacts the online experience for Europeans. Notably, it claimed that changes to search results lead to a loss in direct booking traffic for businesses and make it harder for consumers to access best-price travel tickets.

Slow trains coming – The EU should significantly improve its high-speed rail infrastructure, as most citizens would opt for train travel over flying – if the option existed.  With the right investment, "high-speed rail has the potential to carry over half of all long-distance travellers within Europe by 2070," Euractiv heard.

Across Europe

Poland reintroduces border controls – Police checks will be conducted along borders with Germany and Lithuania from next Monday. Prime Minister Donald Tusk framed the decision as a reaction to a surge in irregular arrivals from Lithuania and to reports that German was sending illegal migrants to Poland.

Anti-government student protests in Serbia – Protests have flared in Serbia, with roadblocks disrupting traffic for three consecutive days as citizens demand snap parliamentary elections. A reported 140,000 people gathered in central Belgrade on Saturday, many of them students who challenge Serbia’s highly authoritarian President, Aleksandar Vučić.

Denmark expands conscription to women – A boost in military spending and compulsory military service for women (as well as men) will help the country meet the growing threat from Russia.