Search

This chapter assesses the politicisation of the EU in six European countries, by looking at the media coverage of 29 legislative elections held between 2002 and 2017. Using a combination of automated and manual methods of content analysis, this chapter goes beyond the existing studies to examine how the Eurozone crises impacted the traditional media coverage of the EU not only in terms of magnitude but also in terms of framing and content. Using a unique dataset of 165,341 news items, from 12 mainstream newspapers, this study answers three questions relevant to the main goal of this book: (1) does EU politicisation vary between left- and right-leaning newspapers; (2) is there a difference between news and opinion articles in terms of EU salience and tone; (3) what dimensions of EU debates are more prevalent in the media. Our analysis shows that, after the crisis, the countries’ politicisation of the EU diverged more in terms of content than magnitude. However, when we only consider opinion articles, the differences within mainstream media, from the left and right, become more salient. These results confirm the role and importance of the media for EU politicisation and its potential impact on national politics.

The existing assessments of EU politicization have predominantly focused on the media and in the actors that are reported in that arena. This chapter offers a novel approach to the study of EU politicization by focusing, instead, on the institutional arena of six EU countries. Using the MAPLE dataset of parliamentary debates, with a total of 724,963 speeches covering a period of 20 years, this chapter offers a comparative and longitudinal analysis of EU politicization at the institutional level, assessing the impact that the Eurozone crisis had in the parliamentary debates of the EU. Automated and manual content analysis methods are used to answer three main questions: Has the EU been politicized at the institutional level? Did the Eurozone crisis affect the politicization of the EU in parliaments? What characteristics of political parties have determined the salience and contestation of the EU topic? Our results suggest that the EU has not been, in the past 20 years, a very salient nor contested topic at the institutional level. However, we find that the parties’ contribution to the democratic legitimacy of the European integration varies significantly, with the parties’ position on the EU topic being the strongest determinant of EU politicization.

This chapter assesses the politicisation of the EU in six European countries, by looking at the media coverage of 29 legislative elections held between 2002 and 2017. Using a combination of automated and manual methods of content analysis, this chapter goes beyond the existing studies to examine how the Eurozone crises impacted the traditional media coverage of the EU not only in terms of magnitude but also in terms of framing and content. Using a unique dataset of 165,341 news items, from 12 mainstream newspapers, this study answers three questions relevant to the main goal of this book: (1) does EU politicisation vary between left- and right-leaning newspapers; (2) is there a difference between news and opinion articles in terms of EU salience and tone; (3) what dimensions of EU debates are more prevalent in the media. Our analysis shows that, after the crisis, the countries’ politicisation of the EU diverged more in terms of content than magnitude. However, when we only consider opinion articles, the differences within mainstream media, from the left and right, become more salient. These results confirm the role and importance of the media for EU politicisation and its potential impact on national politics., This chapter assesses the politicisation of the EU in six European countries, by looking at the media coverage of 29 legislative elections held between 2002 and 2017. Using a combination of automated and manual methods of content analysis, this chapter goes beyond the existing studies to examine how the Eurozone crises impacted the traditional media coverage of the EU not only in terms of magnitude but also in terms of framing and content. Using a unique dataset of 165,341 news items, from 12 mainstream newspapers, this study answers three questions relevant to the main goal of this book: (1) does EU politicisation vary between left- and right-leaning newspapers; (2) is there a difference between news and opinion articles in terms of EU salience and tone; (3) what dimensions of EU debates are more prevalent in the media. Our analysis shows that, after the crisis, the countries’ politicisation of the EU diverged more in terms of content than magnitude. However, when we only consider opinion articles, the differences within mainstream media, from the left and right, become more salient. These results confirm the role and importance of the media for EU politicisation and its potential impact on national politics.

The existing assessments of EU politicization have predominantly focused on the media and in the actors that are reported in that arena. This chapter offers a novel approach to the study of EU politicization by focusing, instead, on the institutional arena of six EU countries. Using the MAPLE dataset of parliamentary debates, with a total of 724,963 speeches covering a period of 20 years, this chapter offers a comparative and longitudinal analysis of EU politicization at the institutional level, assessing the impact that the Eurozone crisis had in the parliamentary debates of the EU. Automated and manual content analysis methods are used to answer three main questions: Has the EU been politicized at the institutional level? Did the Eurozone crisis affect the politicization of the EU in parliaments? What characteristics of political parties have determined the salience and contestation of the EU topic? Our results suggest that the EU has not been, in the past 20 years, a very salient nor contested topic at the institutional level. However, we find that the parties’ contribution to the democratic legitimacy of the European integration varies significantly, with the parties’ position on the EU topic being the strongest determinant of EU politicization., The existing assessments of EU politicization have predominantly focused on the media and in the actors that are reported in that arena. This chapter offers a novel approach to the study of EU politicization by focusing, instead, on the institutional arena of six EU countries. Using the MAPLE dataset of parliamentary debates, with a total of 724,963 speeches covering a period of 20 years, this chapter offers a comparative and longitudinal analysis of EU politicization at the institutional level, assessing the impact that the Eurozone crisis had in the parliamentary debates of the EU. Automated and manual content analysis methods are used to answer three main questions: Has the EU been politicized at the institutional level? Did the Eurozone crisis affect the politicization of the EU in parliaments? What characteristics of political parties have determined the salience and contestation of the EU topic? Our results suggest that the EU has not been, in the past 20 years, a very salient nor contested topic at the institutional level. However, we find that the parties’ contribution to the democratic legitimacy of the European integration varies significantly, with the parties’ position on the EU topic being the strongest determinant of EU politicization.