FINNISH AND ITALIAN COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOR EU INFORMATION

1
FINNISH AND ITALIAN COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOR
EU INFORMATION

• Presented by
• Chiara Valentini,
• Ph.D Student in Organizational Communication and
  Public Relations,
• Department of Communication,
• University of Jyväskylä, Finland

2
The information and communication strategy for
the European Union

• AIMS increasing the public space, EU
  perception,credibility and support
• TYPES factual and neutral Information vs.
  persuasive and supportative communication
• ROLE OF MEMBER STATES amelioration of EU
  credibility diffusion of information
  limitations on decision-making where is the
  national control?

3
EU and its information

• the genuine communication by the European
  Union cannot be reduced to the mere provision of
  information it must convey a meaning, facilitate
  comprehension, set both action and policy in a
  real context, and prompt dialogue within national
  public opinion so as to enhance the participation
  of the general public in the great European
  debate. (COM (2004) 196 final)

4
Persuasive methods are based on(Aristotle,
Rhetoric)

• Speaker..
• Context..
• Actions

• Not applicable
• Promotion of European identity, exchange programs
  among students and professors, Twinning cities,
  European day, etc.
• No coherence between messages and actions

5
Finnish communication strategy

• Public characteristics Low level of involvement
  in EU, low support, trust in national government,
  less trust in the EU, confidence in mass media
• Finnish Government neutral position, only
  factual information, but dependent on EU
  decisions
• Communication strategy two-sided. Is it still
  applicable?

6
Italian communication strategy

• Public characteristics High involvement in EU,
  high support, poor trust for national government,
  more trust for EU, low level of information,
  media as entertainment, not information
• Italian government great support to EU,
  selectivity of information, control of the
  national media
• Communication strategy one-sided. Is it still
  applicable?

7
(No Transcript)
8
Main differences

• Italy
• One of the founding Member States
• Political influences in media
• Selectivity of EU information
• Increment of public consciousness about EU
  request of more information
• General mistrust in the national Government
  more public interest in decision making

• Finland
• Joined EU in 1995
• Independent media
• Different opinions about EU
• Mass media boom too much information public
  saturation
• General trust in national Government less
  public interest in decision making

9
The role of media as source of information

• Crucial role in the process of Europeanization
  and in the development of a new European identity
  
• Base for citizens' political participation
• Mass media in Finland from an independent
  position to a more European and supportative one
• Mass media in Italy from low attention to EU
  information to recently more interest and
  diffusion in all information channels.

10
Conclusions

• EU information strategies converged to one
  unique and similar ones
• Less attention to the national differences, more
  control in the national decisions
• Mass media, from freedom of information to
  necessary means of EU diffusion
• Effective information persuasion by people
• EU education or propaganda. Where is the limit?
  What about the role of each national Government?

11
THANK YOU FOR THE ATTENTION!

• QUESTIONS?!?
• Further information at www.chiara.valentini.org