Feasibility study
for the preparatory action
“ERASMUS for journalists”
FINAL REPORT
February 2011
Feasibility study
for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Specific Contract No 30-CE-0343284/00-24
Implementing Framework Contract No 30-CE-0208146/00-01
Final Report
February 2011
Submitted to:
European Commission
Directorate General Information Society and Media
Directorate A – Audiovisual, Media, Internet
Unit A1 – Audiovisual and Media Policies
Submitted by:
The Evaluation Partnership (TEP)
Business address:
83 Baker Street
London W1U 6AG
United Kingdom
with
Economisti Associati
and
European Journalism Centre
The opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the European Commission.
© European Union 2011. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is
acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.
link to page 6 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 18 link to page 20 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 27 link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 32 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 38 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 43 link to page 46 link to page 51 link to page 52 link to page 55 link to page 55 link to page 56 link to page 58 link to page 58 link to page 58 link to page 59 link to page 63 link to page 64 link to page 65 link to page 65 link to page 66 link to page 69 link to page 69
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Table of Contents
0.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 8
2.0
BACKGROUND AND APPROACH TO THE STUDY .......................................................................... 9
2.1
THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY .............................................................................................................. 9
2.2
STUDY APPROACH AND METHODS ......................................................................................................... 9
3.0
ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMME INTERVENTION LOGIC .......................................................... 13
3.1
CONTEXT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.1 Political and institutional context ................................................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Economic context .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.1.3 Social context ................................................................................................................................ 18
3.1.4 Problem analysis ........................................................................................................................... 20
3.1.5 Other programmes ........................................................................................................................ 20
3.2
PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES, ACTIVITIES AND INPUTS .............................................................................. 23
3.2.1 General and specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 23
3.2.2 Operational objectives / outputs .................................................................................................... 25
3.2.3 Activities and inputs ....................................................................................................................... 29
3.3
UNCERTAINTIES, CONSTRAINTS AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS .................................................................. 29
3.3.1 General objectives ......................................................................................................................... 30
3.3.2 Specific objectives ......................................................................................................................... 31
3.3.3 Operational objectives, outputs and activities ............................................................................... 32
3.4
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 36
4.0
RESULTS OF THE FIELDWORK ...................................................................................................... 39
4.1
FOCUS GROUPS WITH JOURNALISTS.................................................................................................... 39
4.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 39
4.1.2 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 41
4.1.3 Approaches.................................................................................................................................... 44
4.1.4 Duration ......................................................................................................................................... 49
4.1.5 Practical issues .............................................................................................................................. 50
4.1.6 Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 53
4.1.7 Administration and lead of programme ......................................................................................... 53
4.1.8 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 54
4.2
INTERVIEWS WITH POTENTIAL HOST ORGANISATIONS ........................................................................... 56
4.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 56
4.2.2 General interest in an ERASMUS for journalists programme ....................................................... 56
4.2.3 Willingness to participate in the programme ................................................................................. 57
4.2.4 Costs .............................................................................................................................................. 61
4.2.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 62
4.3
STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ................................................................................................................ 63
5.0
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME FOR THE PREPARATORY ACTION ............................................... 63
5.1
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 64
5.2
KEY PARAMETERS OF THE EXCHANGE VISITS ....................................................................................... 67
5.2.1 Types of visits ................................................................................................................................ 67
1
link to page 70 link to page 72 link to page 73 link to page 75 link to page 75 link to page 77 link to page 82 link to page 84 link to page 86 link to page 89 link to page 89 link to page 90 link to page 91 link to page 93 link to page 93 link to page 95
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
5.2.2 Duration of visits ............................................................................................................................ 68
5.2.3 Journalistic tasks and themes ....................................................................................................... 70
5.2.4 Eligibility criteria ............................................................................................................................. 71
5.3
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 73
5.3.1 Role of the intermediary organisation ............................................................................................ 73
5.3.2 Application and selection process ................................................................................................. 75
5.3.3 Financial management .................................................................................................................. 80
5.3.4 Information and communication .................................................................................................... 82
5.3.5 Evaluation method ......................................................................................................................... 84
5.4
COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................................. 87
5.4.1 Participants’ travel and subsistence expenses.............................................................................. 87
5.4.2 Ongoing project management costs .............................................................................................. 88
5.4.3 Project set-up and initial communication ....................................................................................... 89
5.4.4 Total costs of preparatory action ................................................................................................... 91
5.4.5 Scenarios for a potential full-scale programme ............................................................................. 91
5.5
KEY RISKS ......................................................................................................................................... 93
2
link to page 12 link to page 15 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 39 link to page 45 link to page 66 link to page 75 link to page 77 link to page 78 link to page 79 link to page 81 link to page 42 link to page 43 link to page 68 link to page 69 link to page 83 link to page 88 link to page 90 link to page 91 link to page 91 link to page 92 link to page 92 link to page 93 link to page 94 link to page 96
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Figures
Figure 1: Phases of the Feasibility study ........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2: Elements of the intervention logic .................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3: The concept of “exchange” .............................................................................................................. 25
Figure 4: The concept of “mobility” ................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 5: General, specific and operational programme objectives................................................................ 27
Figure 6: Preliminary programme SWOTS ..................................................................................................... 37
Figure 7: Programme objectives as perceived by focus group participants ................................................... 43
Figure 8: “ERASMUS for journalists” programme intervention logic............................................................... 64
Figure 9: Approaches to project management ................................................................................................ 73
Figure 10: Approaches to application ............................................................................................................. 75
Figure 11: Proposed application process: De-centralised approach .............................................................. 76
Figure 12: Approaches to candidate selection ................................................................................................ 77
Figure 13: Timing of application and selection processes .............................................................................. 79
Tables
Table 1: Member States in which focus groups were held ............................................................................. 40
Table 2: Focus group participants by category ............................................................................................... 41
Table 3: Summary of key elements of the proposed pilot project ................................................................... 66
Table 4: Key approaches: exchanges or other forms of mobility .................................................................... 67
Table 5: Proposed subsistence rates per host country and duration of stay .................................................. 81
Table 6: Proposed data collection tools for the evaluation of the pilot project ................................................ 86
Table 7: Estimate of cost of administrative procedures directly related to visits ............................................ 88
Table 8: Estimate of ongoing project management cost ................................................................................. 89
Table 9: Estimate of project set-up cost .......................................................................................................... 89
Table 10: Estimated cost of promotional leaflet .............................................................................................. 90
Table 11: Estimated cost of project website ................................................................................................... 90
Table 12: Estimate of total costs for the pilot project in year 1 ....................................................................... 91
Table 13: Scenarios for total annual costs of a full scale programme ............................................................ 92
Table 14: Overview of key risks ...................................................................................................................... 94
3
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the EU‟s budget for 2010, the European Parliament proposed a preparatory action and
allocated a budget for it with the aim of preparing a preparatory action provisionally called
“ERASMUS for journalists” to “give journalists the possibility of exchange with journalists and
media from other European countries”. The present study was carried out between April and
December 2010 to analyse the feasibility of this initiative, as well as to elaborate an
implementation scheme for a preparatory action, in order to test the approach and provide key
information to feed into the development of a potential full-scale programme to be designed and
implemented at a future date.
Objectives
Based on an in-depth analysis of the proposed programme‟s intervention logic, the following
objectives were identified:
General
Contribute to the
Contribute to media
objectives
creation of a European
pluralism in Europe
(outcomes)
media sphere
Specific
Further journalists‟
Enhance journalists‟
Further journalists‟
objectives
understanding of
professional skills and
understanding of the EU
(results)
other MS
abilities
Operational
Facilitate exchanges or other forms of mobility for journalists
objectives
from different countries and media within the EU
(outputs)
The initiative is to pursue all objectives shown above. However, at the level of general objectives
(expected final outcomes), the emphasis should be placed on the contribution to the creation of a
European media sphere (through enhancing the quantity and quality of coverage of European
issues in the national media). Contributing to media pluralism is a secondary objective; while
exchanges between journalists can go some way towards providing citizens with access to a
variety of opinions and voices, they do not tackle the critical issue of media ownership.
At the level of specific objectives (expected intermediate results), the proposed programme‟s key
added value and unique selling point should be furthering journalists‟ understanding of other
Member States, their media and cultures. To the extent possible, the programme should also
further journalists‟ understanding of the EU (in the more institutional sense), and enhance their
journalistic skills and abilities (through peer learning).
Feasibility
Based on the analysis carried out during the study (including the review of similar programmes,
the views and opinions of the expert panel assembled for this study, the development and testing
4
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
of the intervention logic, and an extensive fieldwork programme), the study concludes that an
ERASMUS for journalists programme is feasible, and could potentially contribute (albeit to a
varying extent) to achieving all of the objectives that have been set.
Especially at a time of severe budgetary limitations, an initiative that allows for experience abroad
is intrinsically interesting for journalists. However, the current difficult situation of many media
outlets also brings with it significant challenges for the successful implementation of the
programme. While the fieldwork suggests that most media outlets would be interested in principle
in participating in an ERASMUS for journalists programme, the economic pressure limits the ability
and willingness of many to let staff leave their posts for any extended period of time, and/or invest
significant resources in hosting a foreign journalist.
In order to be practically feasible, a successful exchange programme aimed at working journalists
will have to take this factor into account, inter alia by ensuring that visits provide clear benefits to
all involved parties, that they serve a journalistic purpose (and not only very general learning
about other cultures), and that the duration of visits is in line with the needs of and constraints
facing all involved parties.
The mechanisms for matching journalists with appropriate host media organisations also need to
be carefully considered. Depending on his or her field of work, each journalist will tend to be
interested in visiting very specific types of media. Some media will be naturally more attractive as
host organisations, partly because of their size and prestige, partly because of the fact that they
work in languages that are spoken by a relatively higher proportion of the target audience. On the
other hand, the profile and skills (including language skills) of applicants are a key factor in
determining host organisation‟s willingness to host them. These factors have the potential to lead
to a mismatch between supply and demand, and potentially a geographical imbalance in the way
programme funding is disbursed.
The exchange visits
The feasibility study identified, explored and analysed several possible types of exchange visits
(or more precisely, forms of mobility) that could be supported (including group or individual visits,
unidirectional or reciprocal visits), as well as different parameters (such as the duration, tasks and
themes, eligibility criteria, etc.). Based on the results of the analysis, and keeping in mind the
challenges that were identified, the study recommends:
The test phase of the preparatory action should facilitate working visits of journalists to
media outlets in another Member State. The project should actively encourage, but not
require reciprocity (i.e. two-way exchanges, staged or simultaneous, between media
outlets).
In order to ensure the programme caters to the different interests and needs of the target
audiences, the match-making should follow a de-centralised approach. Rather than
applying to the programme in general and then being placed at a specific media outlet,
journalists themselves will have to identify, contact and obtain agreement from an
appropriate host organisation before applying.
The duration of visits should be set at between two and six weeks. This period of time
represents an appropriate balance between desirability (allowing for real learning and the
potential to have direct and indirect impacts) and feasibility (in terms of compatibility with
the economic and other realities of the journalistic profession).
5
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
The content and objectives of individual visits should be kept flexible and defined jointly by
journalists and hosts in order to cater to the differing needs and interests of both sides.
The basic premise is that visitors will be integrated to the greatest extent possible in the
work of their host media, but this does not preclude them from filing occasional articles
with their home organisation, and/or from collecting information that can be turned into a
journalistic output after they return to their posts.
Both journalists who are staff members of media outlets and freelancers with a minimum of
two years of experience are eligible to participate. Whether proficiency in the language of
the host organisation is necessary depends on the requirements of the host.
Project management
In order to ensure the effective implementation of the test phase, and guarantee editorial
independence for participants, the Commission should appoint an intermediary organisation (IO)
to run the project. The IO should ideally demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the journalism sector
and a good network of contacts among European media organisations; the ability to administer
exchange and/or scholarship programmes; and organisational, operational and financial
independence from the media corporations, national governments and the EU. Among the key
tasks of the IO will be:
Invite and review applications: Applications should be invited and reviewed every three
months. Under the de-centralised approach, journalists will have to have secured the
agreement of the media outlet they wish to visit before submitting their application. A
project database will facilitate this process. Applications will have to clearly state the
objectives of the visit, and be accompanied by a declaration signed by both visitor and host
and an endorsement letter from the editor of (one of the) media that the applicant works for
in his or her home country.
Select participants: Given the exploratory nature of the test phase, its limited financial
envelope and duration, and the importance of minimising administrative burdens and
reaching decisions quickly, it is proposed that participants should be selected on a first-
come, first-served basis (rather than competitively). However, in order to ensure a
minimum level of geographical balance, no more than 20% of visits should be to or from
any single country.
Disburse funding: Similarly to other mobility / exchange programmes, the ERASMUS for
journalists programme should cover the extra costs that participants incur, namely travel
and subsistence expenses. Funding should be disbursed as an advance payment. The
level of financial support should be in line with the EU Lifelong Learning Programme, and
depend on the length of the stay and the cost of living in the country visited.
Information and communication: In order to raise awareness and disseminate information
among the target audiences, a number of tools and activities should be used, including a
programme website, a press release and conference, and a promotional leaflet.
Evaluation and monitoring: To enable effective evaluation, relevant data and information
should be collected throughout the duration of the test phase.
6
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Budget
The budget for the first year1 of the test phase has been set at EUR 600,000. This will provide
support for approximately 180 individual visits. Based on the assumptions and estimates made in
this study, approximately two thirds of the funds will be disbursed directly to participants; the
remaining third will cover project management costs. Should the project be continued for a further
year, and/or eventually turned into a full-scale programme, the relative weight of the costs incurred
for project management is expected to decrease, to around 25% of the total available budget.
1 Preparatory Actions can run for three years without a legal base, assuming funding is allocated each
successive year. This study was funded by an allocation on the 2010 EU budget. It follows that there could
be a test phase of up to two years, assuming that funding is once again allocated in 2011, with the
possibility of a full programme being proposed in 2012, subject to evaluation and political support.
7
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is the fifth and final deliverable submitted by The Evaluation Partnership (TEP)
together with Economisti Associati (EA) and the European Journalism Centre (EJC) in the context
of the Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”.
The main purpose of this report is to present the complete results of the feasibility study itself (part
1 of the assignment),2 and provide guidance and orientation to the European Commission and
other relevant stakeholders for the eventual implementation of the “ERASMUS for journalists”
initiative.
This report consists of the following sections:
Section 2 briefly outlines the background and purpose of this study, and provides a
summary overview of the approach and methods that were used.
Section 3 presents the proposed programme‟s intervention logic, and analyses its context,
objectives, uncertainties, constraints and critical conditions, culminating in preliminary
conclusions regarding its feasibility.
Section 4 presents the main results of the fieldwork that was carried out to gauge the level
of interest among the potential target audiences for an “ERASMUS for journalists”
programme, and to test the different hypotheses, scenarios and approaches that were
developed during the previous stage of the assignment.
Section 5 builds on the analysis in the previous sections, and describes the proposed
implementation scheme for the test phase of the preparatory action “ERASMUS for
journalists”, including key project parameters such as the envisaged type and duration of
visits, aspects related to the implementation and management of the project, an estimate
of its costs, and a register of key risks.
The annexes (submitted as separate documents) contain a number of supporting
materials. Annex A contains the detailed results of the research that was carried out,
including the review of similar programmes, the fieldwork, and the stakeholder workshop.
Annex B contains technical specifications and materials related to the implementation of
the test phase, including draft versions of the manual for the intermediary organisation and
the applicant‟s guide.
2 It should be noted that the present report only covers Part 1 of the assignment, which relates to the
feasibility study as such. The results of Part 2 of the assignment, which compiled and analysed statistical
data on the current state of journalism and the media sector in Europe, will be presented in a separate
report in early 2011.
8
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
2.0 BACKGROUND AND APPROACH TO THE STUDY
2.1 The purpose of this study
In the EU‟s budget for 2010, the European Parliament (EP) proposed a preparatory action (budget
reference line 09 06 05) and allocated a budget for it with the aim of preparing, in due course, a
preparatory action provisionally called “ERASMUS for journalists”.3 In its justification, the EP noted
that the EU “should create truly European media”, and that one way to ensure this is to “give
journalists the possibility of exchange with journalists and media from other European countries”
so that they can “gain a broader understanding of the European Union and its different media and
cultures”. Furthermore, the EP stated that an “ERASMUS for journalists” could contribute to the
goal of ensuring pluralism in Europe by giving journalists “access to pluralism”.
As part of the preparatory action, the European Commission‟s Directorate-General for Information
Society and Media (DG INFSO) decided to commission an exploratory study to provide critical
information to feed into the decision-making on and design of an eventual test phase of the
“ERASMUS for journalists” preparatory action and a possible full-scale programme (to be
launched at a later date, depending on the outcomes of the preparatory action). This study is to
assess the feasibility and desirability of launching a mobility scheme, inter alia by assessing and
testing its underlying intervention logic and by consulting the envisaged target audiences.
Furthermore, provided the project is feasible, the study is to elaborate a scheme that allows the
project to be implemented in the most effective way, keeping in mind the objectives as defined by
the EP.
More specifically, the Terms of Reference defined the following six key tasks for the feasibility
study:
Task 1: Assess and test the intervention logic of the EP‟s proposal
Task 2: Elaborate an implementation scheme for the test phase and the larger programme
Task 3: Develop an evaluation method for the preparatory action
Task 4: Estimate costs for the test phase and main programme
Task 5: Elaborate communication-related issues
Task 6: Identify and analyse risks
2.2 Study approach and methods
This study was carried out between April and December 2010 by The Evaluation Partnership in
collaboration with Economisti Associati and the European Journalism Centre. An expert panel
consisting of experienced journalists and academic experts was set up to provide expert input and
3 The preparatory action has its legal base in Article 49(6) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities (OJ L 248, 16 September 2002, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30 December 2006, p. 1).
9
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
advice to the core study team.4 In order to meet its objectives and carry out the tasks listed above,
the feasibility study was divided into four main phases (see the diagram below).
Figure 1: Phases of the Feasibility study
Phase 1 was dedicated to primarily desk-based research with a view to a) undertaking an initial
assessment of the feasibility of the project and the likelihood of achieving its objectives, and b)
preparing for the ensuing fieldwork. During this phase, the following main activities were carried
out:
Compile information on the proposed programme and similar programmes: The study
team reviewed all available documentation on the proposed ERASMUS for journalists
initiative, and also met with its instigators in the EP and with the responsible officials in DG
INFSO. Furthermore, it identified a list of relevant existing programmes from which lessons
could be learned (including both journalistic exchange programmes and mobility
programmes in other sectors), and undertook an analysis of a sample of such programmes
based on the review of programme documentation and a series of interviews with
programme managers.
Develop and test the intervention logic: As a basis for the initial analysis of the proposed
programme‟s feasibility, the study team analysed its intervention logic, including its
context, the envisaged objectives, their interlinkages and the causality chain between
them, and the activities and inputs necessary to achieve these objectives. This analysis
built on the experiences of similar programmes, and the testing of their applicability to the
4 The expert panel consisted of Mr Richard E. Collins, Professor of Media Studies, Department of Sociology,
Open University, UK; Mr Grzegorz Piechota, senior journalist and Head of Public Awareness & Social
Campaigns, Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland; and Mr Mark Rogerson, Executive Director of CONSILIA Ltd, and
former TV journalist with the BBC, UK.
10
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
specific context. For this purpose, a full-day workshop with the expert panel was held. This
allowed the study team to draw preliminary conclusions as to the project‟s feasibility and its
key uncertainties and challenges, and led to the formulation of a series of working
hypotheses that were further explored and tested during the remainder of the study.
Prepare for the fieldwork: Based on the results of the intervention logic analysis, a series of
scenarios and tools were developed to gauge the target audiences‟ level of interest, views
and reactions during the ensuing fieldwork.
First interim report: The results of the first phase were presented in a report and discussed
with the steering group consisting of officials from DG INFSO and DG COMM.
Phase 2 of the study was dedicated to conducting fieldwork to consult potential project
beneficiaries and stakeholders, to test the initial hypotheses and gather further information on the
target audiences‟ preferences, concerns, level of interest, etc. During this phase, the following
main activities were carried out:
Focus groups with journalists: In order to gather input and feedback from the programme‟s
main intended beneficiaries, a series of structured group discussions were held. A total of
17 such groups were carried out in eight EU Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia,
Germany, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the UK). Each focus group lasted for
approximately two hours, and sought participants‟ feedback on the proposed programme
and its objectives in general, as well as their reactions to five concrete scenarios that had
previously been developed to illustrate how the programme could be implemented in
practice. A total of 120 journalists participated in the focus groups. They were recruited to
represent a good mix of nationalities, levels of professional experience, gender, types of
media, and contractual status (employed or free-lance).
Interviews with editors: To gauge the views of media outlets, a series of telephone
interviews were conducted with editors of media outlets from across the EU. During these
interviews, editors were questioned about the willingness of the media they represent to
participate in the programme, by hosting a journalist from another Member State and/or by
allowing their own staff to participate by spending time at a media outlet abroad. A total of
28 interviews were carried out with editors from 19 different Member States, representing a
broadly representative mix of nationalities, types and sizes of media outlets.
Phase 3 of the study was dedicated to analysing and triangulating the data gathered during the
previous phases, and developing a proposal for an implementation scheme for the test phase.
The following main activities were carried out:
Elaborate implementation scheme: Taking into account the initial hypotheses and the
results of the fieldwork, the study team developed a proposal for the concrete
implementation of the test phase, including the types of visits that should be facilitated, the
envisaged application and selection process, and key elements related to the management
of the project.
Estimate costs: The costs of the different elements (including funding to be disbursed to
programme participants and associated programme management costs) were estimated
based on available data for comparable initiatives, the contractors‟ own experience, and
indicative quotes from specialised service providers.
Identify and analyse risks: The uncertainties and challenges identified during phase 1 were
reviewed and re-considered in light of the fieldwork results, and a comprehensive risk
11
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
register developed. The key risks were taken into account in the development of the
implementation scheme, and mitigation strategies identified.
Second interim report: The results of the fieldwork and the proposed implementation
scheme were summarised in a report and discussed with the steering group. Relevant
elements were subsequently clarified, expanded or revised in response to the steering
group‟s questions and comments.
Phase 4 of the study was dedicated to finalising the proposed implementation scheme, and
developing further materials in support of the eventual implementation of the test phase. The
following main activities were carried out:
Develop evaluation method: The study team developed a framework for the evaluation of
the results of the test phase of the preparatory action after its finalisation, the results of
which should feed into the decision making process about the possible creation of a full-
scale programme.
Elaborate communication-related issues: A set of activities and tools is proposed for
raising awareness of the preparatory action among the relevant target audiences and
providing key information about the initiative. Guidelines were developed to summarise the
main requirements for each of these activities or tools.
Stakeholder workshop: A workshop with interested organisations and individuals was held
on 1 December 2010 in Brussels. This gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss and
comment on the draft results of this study. The feedback and inputs received were taken
into account for the final report.
Develop manual and applicants‟ guide: After the implementation scheme of the test phase
had been finalised, the study team developed a manual for the intermediary organisation
that is eventually chosen, and guidelines that contain all relevant information for journalists
wishing to apply to the project.
12
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMME INTERVENTION LOGIC
The development, analysis and testing of the proposed programme‟s intervention logic is a key
element of this study. It systematically clarifies the objectives of the programme, and highlights
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to its successful implementation. As such, the
analysis presented in this section, which was developed during phase 1 of the study, prepared the
ground for the ensuing data collection and analysis, and was one key factor in ascertaining the
programme‟s feasibility and optimal implementation mode.
The intervention logic of a programme or project is normally depicted as a series of layers, or
levels, of components or objectives (see the diagram below). By analysing the linkages between
the different levels, the assumptions underlying them, and the risks and uncertainties to their
fulfilment, one can draw important conclusions as to the solidity of an intervention‟s design, the
likelihood that its different objectives can be achieved, and the critical conditions that must be met
in order to enhance the intervention‟s chances of success.
Section 3.1 below analyses the context of the proposed ERASMUS for journalists programme,
and thereby lays the foundation for developing and testing its intervention logic. Section 3.2 then
constructs the intervention logic and introduces the different basic elements. Section 3.3 tests and
assesses this intervention logic by analysing uncertainties, constraints and risks. Section 3.4
draws preliminary conclusions as to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the
programme, and explores its overall feasibility.
Figure 2: Elements of the intervention logic
13
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
3.1 Context analysis
3.1.1 Political and institutional context
Two principal elements define the political and institutional context of a possible ERASMUS for
journalists programme, namely (1) the Commission‟s longstanding commitment to sponsoring
mobility across a wide variety of subject areas ranging from education to research through to
professional development and skil s; and (2) the EU‟s policies related to the media sector
specifically (primarily with a view to advancing the internal market, and to ensuring media
pluralism).
The idea of facilitating mobility stems from the fact that, at a basic level, the free movement of
persons between Member States is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU. But even in the
absence of legal and administrative hurdles to impede this freedom, cultural and linguistic
obstacles can prevent its realisation. This points to the need for Europeans to build language and
interpersonal skills and networks to enable them to take advantage of the internal market.
In recent years the Commission has released two Action Plans on this subject. In February 2002 it
published a Communication on the Commission‟s Action Plan for skil s and mobility.5 The Action
Plan addresses the need to increase occupational mobility of workers among the Member States,
noting that in 2000 only 0.1% of the European population had established their official residence in
another EU country. The priorities of the Action Plan were to expand occupational mobility and
skills development; improving information and transparency of job opportunities; and facilitating
geographical mobility. Later, in July 2003, the Commission adopted the Action Plan for the
promotion of language learning and linguistic diversity.6 This called for action across three broad
areas: extending the benefits of language learning to all citizens as a lifelong activity; improving
the quality of language teaching at all levels; and building in Europe an environment which is
really favourable to languages.
In practical terms, the Commission has pursued mobility priorities through a series of expenditure
programmes run by several Directorates General (DGs) working towards separate but overlapping
aims. Some of the more relevant policies include:
Lifelong Learning Programme (DG EAC): with a budget of nearly EUR 7 billion for the
2007-2013 period, this programme funds a range of actions including exchanges, study
visits and networking activities intended for students, those in vocational education,
teachers, trainers and other involved in education and training. This includes the „flagship‟
Erasmus programme for exchanges at higher education level, the Comenius programme
for schools, the Leonardo da Vinci programme for vocational education and training and
the Grundtvig programme for adult education.
European Research Area (DG RTD): in 2000, the EU decided to create a European
Research Area. Among its goals are to enable researchers to move and interact
seamlessly, benefit from world-class institutions and work with excellent networks of
research institutions; and to share, teach, value and use knowledge effectively for social,
business and policy purposes. Mobility for researchers is also addressed in the 2008
Commission Communication „Better careers and more mobility: a European Partnership
for Researchers‟, which specifically seeks to create a single market for researchers. The
5 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11056_en.htm
6 http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/archive/policy/index_en.html
14
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
EURAXESS initiative is a key tool to achieving this; inter alia, it funds a network of more
than 200 service centres to help researchers and their families relocate to another
country.
„Erasmus-like‟ programmes: against this backdrop of mobility as a high priority (and the
well known success of the Erasmus programme for university students), there have been
recent overtures to create similar programmes into other areas. This includes:
o Erasmus for young entrepreneurs programme, managed by DG ENTR, currently in
its pilot phase, which allows young entrepreneurs to spend time with an
established entrepreneur in another Member State.
o Erasmus for local and regional elected officials, managed by DG REGIO, currently
in the early phases of preparatory action.
o Erasmus for public administration, managed by DG ADMIN, which involves the
exchange of civil servants between authorities in different Member States.
As regards specific EU policies for the media sector, one key element is media pluralism. The
EU‟s commitment to protecting media pluralism can be traced back to Article 11 of the Charter on
Fundamental Rights, while current policy is embodied in the „monitoring approach‟ set out in 2007
by Commissioner Reding (then Commissioner for Information Society and Media) and Vice-
President Wallström. Their approach consists of three steps and uses a definition of media
pluralism that is much broader than media ownership, covering access to varied information so
that citizens‟ can form opinions without being influenced by a dominant source. It also includes
citizens‟ need for transparent mechanisms that guarantee that the media are seen as genuinely
independent.
A Task Force for Co-ordination of Media Affairs was set up to implement the three steps. First, a
Commission Staff Working Paper on Media Pluralism7 was presented in January 2007. This
outlined efforts to promote pluralism by third parties such as the Council of Europe, and presented
a brief survey of Member States‟ audiovisual and print-media markets, including indicative data on
media ownership regulations and regulatory models across the EU. The Staff Working Paper set
the stage for the second step of the approach, which was an independent study on media
pluralism in the EU Member States, carried out by a consortium of academic institutes and a
consultancy firm,8 released in July 2009. The main output of the study was a tool, the Media
Pluralism Monitor, designed to diagnose potential risks to media pluralism in Member States. To
follow will be a Commission Communication on indicators for media pluralism in EU Member
States, which will enable progress or other changes in media pluralism to be better recorded and
assessed.
Another EU policy objective is the creation of a „European media area‟. This is part of the wider
objective of creating a European single market; the objective is to “contribute towards a genuine
„European media area‟ that guarantees and reinforces citizens‟ choices (...) by ensuring freedom
of establishment for companies in the media sector and the free movement of the services they
offer”.9 The creation of a European media
area is thus primarily an economic objective, and
should not be confounded with the concept of a European media
sphere, which is not a formal
policy objective of the EU, but is nonetheless frequently mentioned by representatives of the EU
7 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/media_pluralism_swp_en.pdf
8 The consortium included Katholieke Universiteit Leuven – ICRI, Central European University – CMCS and
Jönköping Business School – MMTC along with Ernst & Young Belgium and the study can be found at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/pluralism/study/index_en.htm.
9
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/media/overview_en.htm
15
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
institutions. It refers primarily to the idea of strengthening the pan-European dimension of
reporting in the national media of the Member States, and thereby helping to create a European
public sphere.
3.1.2 Economic context
The most striking change in the economic situation of „legacy‟ European journalistic media (i.e.
newspapers and radio and television broadcasting) is the adverse impact of the internet on their
business models. The internet has reduced consumption of legacy media (people have a finite
time budget and time spent using the internet tends, though not invariably, to reduce time spent
using legacy media)10 and reduced legacy media‟s advertising revenues.
For more than 100 years, the price paid by consumers and citizens for European public media has
been subsidised by advertising revenues (with the qualified exception of a few countries where
public service broadcasters have not been advertising financed). But recently, in varying degrees
and with significant differences among EU Member States, advertising revenue has migrated to
the internet. The auction portal eBay has, to a significant extent, replaced classified advertising in
newspapers, while recruitment websites have supplanted job advertising in newspapers, and
„search‟ (Google, Yahoo etc) advertising has displaced display advertising in the press and
broadcasting. Between 2007 and 2008, European newspapers‟ advertising revenues generally fell
in nearly all Member States (except the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland and Romania); the
scale of the decrease ranged from just over 20% in Spain to less than 1% in France.11
Of course, these trends are experienced unevenly. For example, the UK is estimated to have
twice the global average proportion of its total advertising spend online and the shift from offline to
online seems to be accelerating. Of the 2007 UK advertising market of circa GBP 18.4bn, online
advertising accounted for around 15% (whereas television accounted for 21%, newspaper display
advertising for 20%, and newspaper classified for approximately 15%). Online advertising in the
UK grew by 41% between 2005 and 2007 and has now overtaken national press advertising (i.e.
not including regional and local papers).12
This structural change has been amplified by the cyclical decline in European economies, which
has reduced both consumers‟ incomes and overall advertising revenues, with both direct and
indirect effects on media consumption.
World Press Trends 2009 shows declining circulation,
2007-8, of paid-for-dailies in every European country (except Ireland and Ukraine) for which data
is available: falls range from 17.3% in Portugal to 0.21% in France.13 In the UK, in 1992, 59% of
UK adults read a national daily; by 2006 the total had fallen to 45%.14
10 In this context, it is important to note that while the print circulation and readership of newspapers is falling
nearly everywhere, the increasing online consumption of content provided by newspapers often more than
makes up for this. However, online consumption is much harder for media to turn into revenues, as the
average revenue per user of content on the internet is much lower than the one in print.
11 World Association of Newspapers 2009: 55
12 Source IAB/PWC survey 2007. See also Ofcom (2008)
Communications Market Report 2007. London.
13 World Association of Newspapers 2009: 52
14 National Readership Survey in House of Lords 2008: 582
16
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
We are seeing all the expected responses to such pressures: price rises, mergers and closures,15
declining standards in content, job losses and worsening working conditions for journalists and
media production workers. Again taking a UK example, the share price of Trinity Mirror, a leading
newspaper company with interests in both local and national newspaper publishing, fell from
GBP 4.77 per share in January 2007 to GBP 3.45 in January 2008 and GBP 0.42 per share in mid
October 2008. Not surprisingly, a financial analyst, commenting on the prospects and valuation of
Trinity Mirror, stated that “These are desperate times and they call for desperate measures”.16 Roy
Greenslade, formerly editor of the
Daily Mirror and latterly a highly reputed media expert, has
claimed: “media outlets wil never generate the kind of income enjoyed by printed newspapers:
circulation revenue will vanish and advertising revenue will be much smaller than today. There just
won't be the money to afford a large staff”.17
This intra-media crisis resonates beyond the media economic sector by actually, or potentially,
reducing the range and/or quality of media content available at affordable prices to Europeans.
Even where public support is established (e.g. through press subsidies and/or publicly funded
broadcasting) the worsening commercial media economy has an adverse impact on publicly
funded media which tend to experience increasing criticism as “unfair” competitors and as
enemies of media pluralism and diversity.
There are striking differences between Member States and between media. The structure of
national media varies: the newspaper sector may be highly centralised (a „national‟ press as in,
e.g., the UK) or localised (a „regional‟ press as in, e.g., Germany); internet penetration varies
considerably; some countries (for reasons of size, language and history) are less vulnerable to
competition from neighbours (and/or from outside the EU) than others. And various „cultural‟
and/or developmental differences between Member States may constrain or facilitate the move to
the internet (e.g. use of credit cards, efficiency of postal and other delivery services).
Generalisation on these matters is dangerous, and data across all Member States is uneven and
sometimes missing.
Nonetheless, the overall trends are clear. Essentially, what we are seeing is the effect of the long
anticipated convergence of electronic communication media. The UK regulator, Ofcom,
exemplifies convergence by claiming “operators are providing services which cross the traditional
boundaries of communications”.18 But the metaphor „convergence‟ conceals more than it reveals.
It suggests everything becoming similar. Although technology and markets may be converging,
products and services are becoming highly differentiated: new entrants abound; news aggregators
are changing consumption patterns and may (though evidence is, thus far, insufficient to make
any judgement definitive) be „cannibalising‟ their sources‟ by diverting readership away from the
source (with a negative impact on its advertising and other revenues) though using the sources‟
content; „legacy‟ services hybridise and proliferate; and consumers and providers metamorphose
into „prosumers‟.19
And here there are opportunities as well as threats. The internet has enabled Europeans to have
access to an enormous increase in sources of information: of course linguistic competencies and
affordable access to the internet constrain this augmented accessibility but intra-European
15
World Press Trends (World Association of Newspapers 2009: 95) tracks a general decline (though most
countries showed no change and a few, e.g. Albania, Russia, Slovenia and Sweden, showing small
increases) in European paid-for-non-daily titles in 2007-8 with Austria, showing a fall of 26.27%, Greece a
fall of 13.33% and Portugal a fall of 12.12% showing particularly marked declines.
16 ABN Amro on 1.7.2008
17 25.10.2007
at http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2007/10/why_im_saying_farewell_to_the.html
18 Ofcom (2008)
Communications Market Report 2007. London. 2008: 13
19 Providers and consumers.
17
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
sources (such as Le Monde Diplomatique, the BBC and the Deutsche Welle); services for intra-
European migrants, enabling them to access home country media (Poles in Ireland can read
Gazeta Wyborcza etc); and extra-European services (such as internet radio stations like
BlackMusic FM from Johannesburg and RadioWave Namibia) are now widely accessible across
Europe.
Moreover, the internet has enabled a new journalism to flourish. New sources are available,
ranging from e-zines (such
as www.openDemocracy.net and www.cafebabel.com ) to blogs, as is
a new “citizen”, “networked” or “user-generated” journalism. Web 2.0 applications, such as
Wikipedia and “citizen” journalism, employ and foster collaboration and dialogue and, at their best
accelerate and make more extensive and inclusive the collaborative processes of peer review,
critique, factual correction and consensus building that underpin offline scholarship. Citizen, Web
2.0, journalism has at its best an intrinsic self-correcting capacity. But at its worst falls prey to
systematic falsification and bias.
Nonetheless, the internet, both as a bearer of new journalistic practices, as a source of new
sources of information and a vehicle for established, offline, media to extend their reach has
engendered innovative and constructive hybridisation in and with „legacy‟ media to the extent that
it is sometimes hard to distinguish clearly between online and offline journalism and media
institutions.
At present, therefore, the European media landscape presents a rich ensemble of threats and
opportunities. There is an unprecedented opportunity to encourage, foster and develop an
extension of national media to new audiences
(www.presseurop.eu is a striking case in point) and
to meld the best elements of traditional journalistic practice (ex ante authority procedures of fact
checking, multiple sourcing of data, peer review) with those of the new, networked journalism
(“wiki” type collaboration and expert consensus building, collective deliberation and dialogue,
„deep‟ presentation of content – e.g. hyperlinks to sources, corrections, and authorial biographies).
The threats are no less apparent – despite the growth of web based „new‟ media it is „legacy‟
media that provide media content – notably news and current affairs – of a range and authority
that stil make Europe‟s flagship media indispensible.
3.1.3 Social context
As a result of these economic factors, and of globalisation in general, there has been a
considerable change of ownership in the media from strategic to financial investors. In Western
Europe, many long-established, incumbent publishing dynasties with a genuine interest in
providing public value (even if often out of partisan political motivations) were forced to yield to
private equity and hedge funds. The new owners applied their typical management toolboxes to
media companies in a similar fashion as they would have to any other business, thus effectively
reducing journalistic content to a mere marketing factor even at outlets which previously were
known to be quality-conscious.
In Central and Eastern Europe, many „legacy‟ media did not even reach maturity before they were
hit by these changes and/or taken over by international conglomerates or financial investors. Plus,
the independence and impartiality of public service broadcasting is very diverse within the entire
European Union. While some countries hold public television and radio at arm‟s length from the
state, other governments exert different degrees of influence over „pubcasters‟.
This is all leading to a major change in the appreciation of journalism as such, the self esteem of
active journalists, and career prospects in the sector. These developments affect even the biggest
18
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
media organisations, albeit usually to a lesser extent than smaller, regional, or otherwise
precarious organisations. Somewhat incongruously, however, journalism schools continue to
witness ever-increasing interest in their programmes, leading them to train a growing number of
journalists.
The immediate consequence of these twin factors is that an increasing proportion of journalists
and journalism graduates find employment not at traditional media but in corporate
communications or press offices, where working conditions are better and salaries higher. Indeed,
demand for positions such as press officers is rising, as even smaller companies and NGOs
consider professional PR management indispensable for effective communication. Often those
taking up such positions are lost for journalism, because their move into corporate
communications results in a loss of credibility; ironically, their work increasingly shapes the
reporting of ostensibly independent media outlets, since pre-fabricated content (e.g. press
releases or media briefings) is much more cheaply obtained than genuine journalistic work and
usually delivers good production value.
To maintain living standards, those journalists who stay with traditional media are with growing
frequency forced to work on fixed-term contracts or as freelancers, to cover larger geographical
areas than was previously the norm, or to take on more technical duties including web
development, translation and media monitoring. Others simply face pressure to produce more, for
multiple platforms at low cost. Journalists must also take on a marketing role, assessing before
producing a story whether it is sellable to an audience and / or advertisers.
With a growing proportion of work outsourced to freelancers, newsrooms are emptying out or are
being converted into multimedia control centres. Foreign desks, if they are able to be maintained
at all, see ever less travel to cover topics in the field. Instead, journalists rely on desk research;
networks of foreign correspondents are being scaled back or shut down. Many freelancers do not
receive travel reimbursement even when on assignment. Moreover, some legacy media are now
adopting the operating methods of the blogosphere, where instead of actual remuneration, being
published tends to be seen as its own reward.
Overall, it can be said that the social situation of journalists as a group is becoming increasingly
precarious. The numbers of those in adequate permanent employment are shrinking, and low fees
earned by freelancers are rendering the job of a journalist unattractive for all but those at the
beginning of their careers. Few are able to make a living off journalism alone and are in turn
forced to take on additional employment.
In this context, stakeholder journalism continues to gain traction and thus presents yet another
challenge to conventional full-time journalists. This stakeholder journalism comes in many shapes,
ranging from commercial or interest-driven PR to genuine material submitted by deeply committed
experts on specific subject matter to citizen contributors. It finds an outlet primarily in, yet not
limited to, blogs.
What members of this disparate group of stakeholder journalists have in common is that
publishing is neither their main profession nor a substantial source of income. As more
conventional journalists begin to blog on the side, while legacy media begin to draw on
stakeholder or citizen sources, the boundaries are blurring to a significant extent.
19
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
3.1.4 Problem analysis
Leading on from the political, economic and social situation outlined above, the main problems the
ERASMUS for journalists programme is intended to address can be summarised as follows: In the
view of the European institutions, there continues to be a relative lack of reporting on „European‟
affairs (i.e. issues related to the EU and/or its Member States) in the media in the EU Member
States, which continues to focus primarily on topics that are of national (and/or regional / local)
interest. In addition, there are concerns regarding media pluralism in Europe, which may mean
that citizens‟ ability to form opinions without being influenced by a dominant source is
compromised. The lack of a pan-European perspective in the media is confirmed by a recent
research paper, which found that:
“Empirically, we observe that citizens today can find more discussion of EU matters in
quality newspapers than 20 years ago following the increase of competencies of the
EU. Even in the quality press, however, people will not learn more about what is going
on in other European countries. Their opinions cannot be founded in listening more
closely to ideas and arguments from speakers from other European countries, as
mutual observation and exchange are not increasing. They are not much more likely to
read an explicitly European perspective in media.”20
The causes of these problems are likely to be manifold, and include cultural, economic, editorial
and other factors. In some cases, the focus of coverage on national issues and topics may well
correspond to the (explicit or implicit) preferences of the media‟s target audiences. However, what
seems clear is that the current and likely future economic difficulties facing media in Europe, and
the resulting social situation of journalists, mean that the fledgling European media sphere is
under ever greater pressure. As media outlets are forced to cut budgets in general, the
opportunities for international travel are reduced drastically, with obvious negative impacts for the
quantity and quality of reporting on international (including European) affairs.
By funding exchanges or other forms of mobility, an ERASMUS for journalists programme could
contribute to reducing the pressure on media to allow its journalists to experience the situation in
other European countries directly, and thereby potentially halting or reversing the trend of
stagnating or even declining coverage of European affairs in the national, regional and local media
in Europe.
3.1.5 Other programmes
Already existing Commission programmes have been examined in order to assess whether there
are potential synergies that could be exploited when setting up a future ERASMUS for journalists
programme.
Leonardo da Vinci: managed by DG EAC under its Lifelong Learning umbrella programme,
Leonardo was set up in 1995 to support participants in vocational education and training
by facilitating exchange at an enterprise or vocational education institution in another
Member State. Although this programme would potentially be open to journalists who are
20 ”Segmented Europeanization. The Transnationalization of Public Spheres in Europe: Trends and
Patterns”, TranState Working Paper, Bremen, 2006.
http://www.bruegge.net/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=1:publikationen&downl
oad=18:segmeurop_transtatewp&Itemid=1
20
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
in or have just finished their professional education, they do not form a specific target
audience and journalists in employment (the likely target group of any new programme)
would be ineligible.
Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs: managed by DG ENTR as a form of SME support, the
programme began its pilot phase in 2008 and facilitates placements for young
entrepreneurs with host entrepreneurs in another Member State. The aim is for the young
entrepreneur to build skills and make contacts that would be useful for the entrepreneur
when starting or building his/ her own business in the home Member State. There does not
appear to be any scope for this programme to involve journalists.
EJC seminars: the EJC holds a framework contract with DG COMM to organise seminars
for journalists, whereby groups of journalists from across the EU are invited to Brussels
and/or to other relevant locations within and beyond Europe to experience EU politics first-
hand. The seminar programme presents potential synergies for any new exchange
programme for journalists (inter alia since they seek to further participants‟ understanding
of the EU, and represent a forum for journalists from different Member States to meet and
network). One could explore whether a new programme might include a seminar
component.
In addition to programmes run by or in co-operation with the Commission, a series of other
programmes for journalists were identified and considered in order to avoid risks of duplication
and uncover best practices that could be emulated.
International Journalism Exchange: run by the American Society of Newspaper Editors
bringing a small number of journalists from developing countries to the US for a one-month
period of training at host newspapers.
Asian fellowship programme: programme run by the EJC whereby a small number of
journalists from Japan and Korea are brought to Brussels for a period of three months in
order to learn about European policy and culture. During the fellowship participants attend
EU institution meetings, visit EU institutions and visit other European cities, while
continuing to contribute to their home publications. In addition, European journalists take
part in a shorter (two week) exchange in Japan or Korea during which they visit relevant
media outlets and institutions and attend seminars.
Nahaufnahme: one-to-one exchange for a small number of German and developing-
country journalists to spend one month at each others‟ media outlets, with a view towards
supporting cultural exchange. During the exchange participants contribute to both their
home and host organisations.
German-Dutch journalists‟ bursary: run by International Journalists‟ Programmes (IJP), the
bursary gives up to eight Dutch and eight German journalists a year the opportunity for a
working visit in the other country. The delegates work for six to eight weeks in Dutch or
German newsrooms of their choice while also researching stories for their home
organisation.
Reuters Institute: programme at Oxford University accepting 25 mid-career journalists per
year to tackle subjects of their choice in greater depth than possible under normal deadline
pressure, lasting from three to nine months.
21
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Programa Balboa: programme offering 20 Latin-American journalists per year the chance
to spend approximately six months in Madrid, Spain, where they work for a media outlet for
four days per week, and undergo academic training on the remaining day.
In addition to these programmes, an exchange between the U.S., Canada and Mexico was run
during the 1990s, giving print journalists the opportunity to spend ten weeks at a host newspaper
in one of the other countries, with the aim of increasing mutual news coverage and providing a
forum for cultural exchange.
For more information on some of the programmes listed above, please refer to annex A1. While
the programmes examined do present potential best practices, it is evident that no pan-European
programme for the exchange of journalists between different Member States currently exists.
22
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
3.2 Programme objectives, activities and inputs
3.2.1 General and specific objectives
The European Parliament‟s decision on the preparatory action for an “ERASMUS for journalists”
programme stated the following objectives:
Ensuring pluralism in Europe is one of the most important goals of EU media policies. An effective
way to enhance pluralism is to give journalists access to pluralism. This could be achieved by
financing exchanges of journalists between different countries and media within the European
Union. The goal is to enable journalists to gain a broader and more comprehensive understanding
of the European Union and its different media and cultures.
From this text, one can draw out two main aspects / goals for the programme:
Ensure / enhance media pluralism in Europe;
Enable journalists to gain a better understanding of the EU and its different media and
cultures.
Media pluralism (the first of these objectives) is the subject of the Commission‟s 2007 staff
working paper,21 which clarifies that media pluralism is not only about plurality or concentration of
ownership. Instead, ensuring media pluralism “implies all measures that ensure citizens' access to
a variety of information sources, opinion, voices etc. in order to form their opinion without the
undue influence of one dominant opinion forming power.”
A better understanding of the EU (the second objective stated above) could potentially be
interpreted to mean at least two related but conceptually different things. It could refer to the EU
as a supranational organisation, meaning primarily its institutions, policies, rules and procedures.
But “understanding of the EU” could also be taken to mean its Member States, their cultures,
societies, economies, politics etc. This second element is clearly also present in the EP‟s text,
which makes explicit reference to the EU‟s different “media and cultures”.
The documents drafted by the European Commission‟s DG INFSO on the potential new
programme22 reiterate the objectives listed above, but also spell out or expand on a number of
elements that are possibly implicit in the Parliament‟s decision. An internal reflection paper
mentions a number of aspects that confirm the potential trans-national learning element of the
programme, stating that among its objectives would be to:
Allow journalists to work for a limited time in editorial staffs in other EU countries;
Allow journalists to discover the political, economic and social situation in other Member
States and to write about it;
Allow journalists and readers to compare the situation across Europe – including the
situation with regard to freedom of the press.
21 Media pluralism in the Member States of the European Union. SEC(2007) 32. URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/media_pluralism_swp_en.pdf
22 DG INFSO Reflection paper on “ERASMUS for journalists”; Terms of Reference for the Feasibility study
for the pilot project “ERASMUS for journalists”
23
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
The Terms of Reference for this study mention another element, namely that of enhancing
participants‟ journalistic skills and knowledge (which is different from their understanding of the EU
and/or its Member States) through peer learning and exchange of experience. According to the
Terms of Reference, the programme should also:
Foster peer learning of journalism in other Member States of the EU;
Exchange experience with journalists of other nationalities who face similar obstacles and
challenges;
Facilitate the search for potential partners for European collaboration;
Provide the possibility to learn how to manage and address various issues of journalism
and media pluralism;
Ensure that journalists improve their abilities in the domain of journalism.
There is one additional objective that is not explicitly stated in any of the above, but emerged as
an important objective of the proposed new programme during the study team‟s conversations
with both the European Parliament and the European Commission. This is the objective of
fostering the emergence of a “European media sphere”, understood as a sphere where, although
the media will almost certainly continue to be primarily national, it increasingly covers and reports
on issues that concern more than one country, or even Europe as a whole. A stronger European
media sphere would favour the emergence of a genuinely European public sphere, i.e. a situation
where citizens increasingly consider and discuss societal issues and problems at the level of the
EU (rather than only their respective nation states).
Summing up and synthesising, one can thus identify five conceptually different key objectives of
the proposed new “ERASMUS for journalists” programme:
1. Contribute to media pluralism in Europe (i.e. ensure citizens' access to a variety of
information sources, opinions, voices etc.)
2. Further journalists‟ understanding of the EU (i.e. its policies and institutions, and their
impact)
3. Further journalists‟ understanding of other EU Member States (i.e. their cultures, societies,
economies, politics and media)
4. Enhance journalists‟ professional skil s and abilities (i.e. their knowledge and command of
journalistic tools and techniques, media management, etc.)
5. Contribute to the creation of a European media sphere (i.e. enhance the quantity and
quality of coverage of European issues and topics in the media in EU Member States)
The hierarchical order of these objectives appears fairly obvious: While the first and the fifth
objectives refer to desired ultimate outcomes, the other three objectives are about intermediate
results that should help to achieve these outcomes. Thus, the general and specific objectives of
the programme can be depicted as follows:
24
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
General
Contribute to the
Contribute to media
objectives
creation of a European
pluralism in Europe
(outcomes)
media sphere
Specific
Further journalists‟
Enhance journalists‟
Further journalists‟
objectives
understanding of
professional skills and
understanding of the EU
(results)
other MS
abilities
3.2.2 Operational objectives / outputs
The European Parliament‟s decision clearly specifies the foreseen outputs: the programme is to
finance “exchanges of journalists between different countries and media within the European
Union.” However, this text is less clear than it may appear at first, mainly because the term
“exchanges” can be used and understood in a number of different ways, which can lead to
ambiguities.
The word “exchange” implies an element of reciprocity. In the strictest sense, an exchange is the
act of giving something in return for something received. In the educational context, the concept of
an exchange student originally implied two students swapping their places at their respective
schools or universities for a certain period of time. Such a direct exchange is therefore a mutual
and simultaneous trade between two individuals, as illustrated in the diagram below.
Figure 3: The concept of “exchange”
Exchange in the strict sense
Organisation
Organisation
1
2
However, the term “exchange” has come to be used in different ways. Today, most student
exchange programmes are programmes in which a student, typically in secondary or higher
education, chooses to live in a foreign country to learn, among other things, language and culture.
These programmes are called 'exchanges' because originally the goal was an exchange of
25
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
students between different countries. However, no trade off is actually required, so a student is
allowed to go to another country without finding a counterpart in that country to exchange with.
Although participants in the EU‟s Erasmus programme are typically referred to as exchange
students, the programme is actually primarily a
mobility (and not an exchange) programme. The
concept of mobility is more flexible than a direct exchange: it facilitates individuals moving from
one organisation to another, but does not rely on direct reciprocity or simultaneity. Instead, it
creates a pool of eligible host organisations. This also means that in a given period of time, an
organisation may send out more individuals than it receives, and vice versa. Some organisations
may even only send, or only receive, as exemplified in the diagram below.
Figure 4: The concept of “mobility”
Exchange in the wider sense (“mobility”)
Organisation
Organisation
1
2
Organisation
3
Given the prevalence of the “mobility” approach in most pertinent EU programmes (including
Erasmus itself), as well as most other similar programmes that were examined for this study, it
appears clear that the term “exchange” needs to be interpreted in a broad sense for this feasibility
study, and that other mobility-related approaches also have to be considered.
In fact, the expert panel for this study suggested that another promising approach may be a
“twinning” model, in which pairs of journalists would be constituted (in a similar way to the strict
exchange model discussed previously). However, rather than swap places, one journalist would
host the other at his or her organisation, after which the favour would be returned. A further option
that could be explored is group (rather than individual) mobility and co-operation between
journalists from different Member States. Finally, it is also clear that seminars for journalists in
Brussels or other relevant locations (such as those that are already being provided through DG
COMM‟s framework contract) could also achieve at least some of the objectives envisaged for the
ERASMUS for journalists programme. Such seminars could also be combined with some of the
other options to add specific value.
Therefore, during the early stages of this study, the operational objectives / desired outputs of the
programme were defined in a relatively flexible and open way. Rather than using the European
26
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Parliament‟s wording (“exchanges of journalists between different countries and media”), the
operational objective is defined as:
Facilitate exchanges or other forms of mobility for journalists from different countries and
media within the EU
Thus, the full set of objectives is as follows:
Figure 5: General, specific and operational programme objectives
General
Contribute to the
Contribute to media
objectives
creation of a European
pluralism in Europe
(outcomes)
media sphere
Specific
Further journalists‟
Enhance journalists‟
Further journalists‟
objectives
understanding of
professional skills and
understanding of the EU
(results)
other MS
abilities
Operational
Facilitate exchanges or other forms of mobility for journalists
objectives
from different countries and media within the EU
(outputs)
The next stages of this study (fieldwork and ensuing analysis) were dedicated to identifying which
form(s) of mobility is best suited to achieving the specific and general objectives defined
previously. The table overleaf shows the five “prototypes” that were identified during the initial
stage, as well as an initial overview of some potential pros and cons. When considering these
“prototypes”, it is important to keep in mind that they are primarily meant to il ustrate conceptual y
different approaches to mobility, but are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Thus, an ERASMUS
for journalists programme could potentially be designed in a way that is flexible enough to finance
more than one type of mobility (if the fieldwork and ensuing analysis shows that there would be a
strong interest from and added value to the target audiences). At the same time, it is important to
note that some of the approaches that are outlined in the table already exist (in particular the
seminars), or could potentially be implemented through other programmes (such as the proposed
Preparatory action for European research grants for cross-border investigative journalism, which
is currently being studied by DG Communication). The analysis in the ensuing phases of this
feasibility study took into account the need to maximise synergies with existing or potential new
initiatives, while avoiding unnecessary duplication or overlaps.
27
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Programme
Brief description
Pros
Cons
Programmes that use
prototype
a similar approach
1.
“Exchange”
In a direct one-on-one exchange, two journalists from
Opportunities for mutual
Difficulty of findings
Projekt
different EU Member States and media would swap their
learning
pairs could limit scope
„Nahaufnahme‟
work-places for a limited period of time. During the
Direct applicability if
Visitors may not be
exchange, journalists could potentially file reports both
exchanges take place
productive in an
for their host organisation and their home organisation.
between similar media
unfamiliar environment
2.
“Mobility”
Journalists would be placed with a host organisation
Several programmes
Hosts may be reluctant if ERASMUS, Leonardo
(media outlet) in a different Member State, but there is
have used this approach
there is no direct gain
da Vinci, ERASMUS
no direct reciprocity, i.e. it is not a necessary pre-
successfully
for them
for young
condition that a journalist from the host media spends
Pooling of opportunities
Risk of high demand for
entrepreneurs,
time at the visiting journalists‟ organisation, or at any
could help achieve
placements with high-
Trilateral Journalist
foreign media.
critical mass
profile media only
Exchange
3.
“Twinning”
The programme would facilitate twinning or pairing two
Focus on a concrete
Difficulty of finding pairs
journalists from two different news organisations in two
journalistic output
could limit scope
different countries. Basically, each member of the pair
Clear added value for
Timing / selection could
would in turn spend some time working alongside the
both partners, who in
be problematic – topics
other in his or her country. The pairings would be based
turn act as hosts and
need to be researched
on a common interest (e.g. in a common story).
visitors
“now”
4.
“Co-operation” The idea is similar to that of “twinning”, but would
Cost-effectiveness (no
Likely heavy reliance on
support groups rather than pairs of journalists. Such a
need for journalists to
intermediary
programme could inspire and support editorial projects
spend much time
organisations
run by groups of journalists with an interest in covering
abroad)
Possible reluctance to
topics relevant for several EU MS. Each member would
Provides comparative
participate in projects on
investigate the situation in their own country, and share
perspective across
pre-determined topics
the results of their research within the group.
several EU MS
5.
“Seminars”
Seminars or workshops held in Brussels or other
Good vehicle for
Limited potential for
EJC seminars for the
relevant European locations could bring together
conveying concrete
peer learning
EC, International
journalists from across different EU Member States to
content
Likely focus on EU
Journalism Exchange,
learn about specific topics, visit relevant locations or
Potential synergies if
affairs, but not national
Trilateral Journalist
institutions, and meet interesting interlocutors. Such
combined with other
media and cultures
Exchange (combine
seminars could be combined with any of the other
approaches
seminars with
models to enhance the value-added.
placements)
28
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
3.2.3 Activities and inputs
In order to facilitate exchanges or other forms of mobility, the European Commission would have
to engage in a number of activities, either directly or through an intermediary organisation. Based
on the experience of similar programmes, one can identify the following broad types of activities
that will almost certainly be necessary:
Selection of participants / host organisations: Journalists to participate in the programme
will have to be recruited, selected and matched with relevant host organisations. This
might involve defining appropriate selection criteria, running a competitive application
process, reviewing applications and selecting the most qualified journalists. Depending on
the type of programme, host organisation might also have to be identified / recruited /
selected.
Support of participants / host organisations: Depending on the type of exchanges /
mobility, there may be a need to provide regular or ad hoc assistance to participants
and/or host organisations, such as answering their queries, but also supporting them in
finding accommodation, suitable working facilities, contacts, etc.
Information and communication: A key element of any such programme will be the
dissemination of information to potential and actual participants and host organisations, so
as to raise awareness of the programme and encourage participation. Information to a
wider target audience may also be envisaged to communicate the results of the
programme.
Development of common elements / guidelines: Depending on the nature of the
programme, this could include the development of handbooks for participants or hosting
organisations, a programme syllabus and/or schedule, the definition of specific topics to
focus on, etc.
Financial management: This could include disbursing financial resources in the form of
grants or other mechanisms, monitoring spending levels, reviewing evidence that is
submitted, auditing accounts, etc.
Monitoring and evaluation: In order to ensure transparency and accountability, and to
understand the effectiveness, efficiency, impact etc., processes and tools should be put in
place to evaluate the programme, inter alia by collecting and analysing regular feedback
from participants.
The above is only an indicative list of broad types of activities. The exact activities, and the inputs
required (in terms of financial, human and possibly other resources), were analysed after the
nature and scope of the programme had become clearer (see section 5).
3.3 Uncertainties, constraints and critical conditions
The diagram below depicts the programme‟s complete intervention logic, reflecting the elements
outlined in the previous sections. It shows the general and specific objectives the ERASMUS for
journalists programme is intended to achieve, the expected outputs, the key programme activities
required to produce these outputs, and the kinds of input needed. The remainder of this section
takes a critical look at these elements and their inter-linkages, in order to identify any significant
uncertainties, risks and constraints, and based on this, the conditions that will be critical to the
programme‟s success. The analysis draws on the insights and views of the expert panel as well
29
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
as the relevant experiences gained through the examination of similar programmes (see also the
fiches in annex A1). It results in a series of working hypotheses, which were subsequently tested
with the programme‟s target audiences during the fieldwork (see section 4).
General
Contribute to the
Contribute to media
objectives
creation of a European
pluralism in Europe
(outcomes)
media sphere
Specific
Further journalists‟
Enhance journalists‟
Further journalists‟
objectives
understanding of
professional skills and
understanding of the EU
(results)
other MS
abilities
Operational
Facilitate exchanges or other forms of mobility for journalists
objectives
from different countries and media within the EU
(outputs)
Selection of participants /
Information and
Financial management
host organisations
communication
Activities
Support of participants /
Development of common
Monitoring and
host organisations
elements / guidelines
evaluation
Financial resources
Human resources
Other resources
Inputs
3.3.1 General objectives
Beginning at the level of the general objectives (or desired ultimate outcomes), there was
consensus among the expert panel that an ERASMUS for journalists programme has the potential
to contribute to both general objectives. All three specific objectives are relevant to the general
objectives. An enhanced understanding of journalists of the EU (in the more institutional sense)
and/or of its Member States is likely to have a positive effect on both the quantity and the quality
of coverage of European issues in the national media, thereby contributing to the emergence of a
European media sphere. Enhanced journalistic skills and abilities would also be likely to positively
affect the quality (albeit not necessarily the quantity) of reporting on European issues, and thus
also contribute to this objective.
There is also a link between the specific objectives and the second general objective (media
pluralism), but this is somewhat weaker and more indirect. To some extent, media pluralism (in
the sense of giving citizens access to a variety of opinions, voices etc.) could be a by-product of
the enhanced coverage of European issues just mentioned, to the extent that citizens receive
30
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
more information about issues they are currently less frequently exposed to. In addition, it appears
likely that the exposure of journalists to different ideas, media cultures, editorial practices or styles
of reporting (e.g. as concerns the extent to which media is critical of government) during their
stays abroad would potentially lead them to adopt different points of view upon their return, and to
become more aware of the situation regarding media pluralism in their own countries (be it more
or less positive than in the country they visited). However, it is important to note that journalists
would still have to comply with the editorial standards and practices of their employers, and
therefore not all new experiences they have gained will necessarily feed through to their
journalistic work.
In summary, both general objectives are inter-related and the programme, if implemented
effectively, is likely to contribute to both. The extent of this contribution is primarily a function of the
scale of the programme (i.e. the number of journalists who benefit from the mobility scheme). But
it is important to bear in mind that some of the linkages are indirect, and the desired outcomes are
likely to manifest themselves over the longer term only. It seems likely that an ERASMUS for
journalists programme would have a more significant impact towards the general objective of
contributing to the creation of a European media sphere; this should therefore be seen as the
main long-term measure of success for the programme. The contribution to media pluralism in
Europe appears less certain and more indirect, particularly since the programme would not tackle
one of the key dimensions of media pluralism, namely the issue of media ownership. Nonetheless,
some effect on media pluralism seems likely, mainly via the exposure of journalists (and by
extension of their audiences) to different ideas, opinions, journalistic practices, media cultures,
etc.
3.3.2 Specific objectives
The programme‟s three specific objectives (or desired intermediate results) as defined previously
are clearly complementary to each other. However, they are also conceptually and practically
different from one another, and the extent to which each specific objective will be achieved
depends on how the programme is designed and implemented. It is entirely possible for an
ERASMUS for journalists programme to be set up in such a way that it will only achieve one
specific objective, but not the others. For example, a mobility programme that allows journalists to
work for a period of time at a media outlet in a different Member State could be expected to have
a large effect on their understanding of the host country‟s culture, media etc., but the effect on
their understanding of EU institutions and policies might be negligible. A seminar in Brussels could
have quite the opposite effect. It is therefore important to weight the different specific objectives,
and to use these priorities to inform the design of the programme.
It is also crucial that the programme‟s specific objectives cater to an already existing need or
interest among the target audience. It would be potentially wasteful to expect the programme to
generate demand where none exists; rather, its offering should be aligned with at least one need
that journalists have and that is currently not being sufficiently addressed by existing initiatives,
programmes or mechanisms. In the view of the expert panel, the extent to which the different
specific objectives defined above correspond with the needs of the target audience varies:
From the perspective of journalists at the beginning of their professional careers (i.e. with
between two and five years of experience), enhancing their professional skills and abilities
would likely be the most important objective. It would be seen as most beneficial to their
professional development and career opportunities.
31
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Slightly more experienced journalists (i.e. with between five and ten years of experience)
would also be interested in developing their professional skills and abilities, but possibly to
a lesser extent than their younger colleagues. This category of journalists is most likely to
feel frustrated by the lack of opportunities to travel and the routine nature of their job, and
would therefore be likely to value the exposure to different countries, cultures and media
very highly (as well as the opportunity to further their professional networks).
According to the expert panel, most journalists do not perceive furthering their
understanding of the EU, its institutions and policies as an acute need. Instead, many tend
to feel that the reason for the relative lack of news related to the EU is that these issues
are not of interest to their audiences. Although the experience with the seminars for
journalists in Brussels and elsewhere organised by the EJC shows that there is a certain
level of demand for learning about the EU, this is unlikely to be a key motivating factor for
participation in an ERASMUS for journalists programme.
In light of the above, it seems important to note that in order to generate sufficient interest among
the target audience, the ERASMUS for journalists programme should not concentrate exclusively
on enhancing journalists‟ understanding of the EU, its policies and institutions. This is already
addressed by the seminars in Brussels, and is unlikely to generate sufficient interest in a new
programme on its own. Instead, the new programme needs to address at least one need of
journalists that is currently not sufficiently catered to. Given the manifold opportunities that already
exist for training to enhance technical skills and abilities, it seems that the most appropriate
“unique selling point” of the programme would be the exposure of participants to Europe – not
primarily in the form of the EU institutions, but in the form of other Member States, their media,
cultures, politics, economies, societies etc.
It is therefore proposed to treat “further journalists‟ understanding of other Member States” as the
programme‟s indispensable desired result. It is also the specific objective that is most likely to
make a significant contribution towards the programme‟s general objectives as defined previously.
This is not to say that the other specific objectives should be deleted or neglected; both continue
to be relevant and were investigated during the remainder of this study. However, the working
hypothesis derived from the analysis of the programme‟s intervention logic (and subsequently
tested with the programme‟s target audience – see section 4) is that “further journalists‟
understanding of the EU” and “enhance journalists‟ professional skil s and abilities” should be
treated as „secondary‟ objectives. In some form of a mobility programme for journalists, these are
desirable results, but mainly insofar as they are a consequence of the „primary‟ specific objective
(“furthering journalists‟ understanding of other Member States”) – including their exposure to
aspects such as the effects of European policies „on the ground‟, different approaches to common
European challenges, different media environments, ways of working, etc. If these „secondary‟
objectives are seen as „primary‟ objectives instead, there are likely to be more effective and
efficient ways of achieving them than a mobility programme (e.g. through seminars in Brussels or
through dedicated training courses).
3.3.3 Operational objectives, outputs and activities
Having clarified, analysed and tested the programme‟s key objectives and their inter-linkages, the
remainder of this section undertakes a preliminary examination of the most significant
uncertainties, risk and constraints that might limit the ERASMUS for journalists programme‟s
ability to effectively produce the outputs (i.e. exchanges or other forms of mobility) required to
achieve the objectives. Again, the analysis is based on the experiences of similar programmes
32
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
and on expert input; it should be seen as a series of initial hypotheses, which were tested further
during the fieldwork that took place in the ensuing stage of this study.
The single most significant uncertainty is the level of interest from the target audiences – including
both journalists and potential host organisations (i.e. media outlets).
Beginning with journalists themselves, the expert panel is convinced that there is strong interest
in
principle to participate in an ERASMUS for journalists programme, and the relative success of
similar programmes in Europe and elsewhere would seem to corroborate this. Especially at a time
of severe budgetary limitations, any initiative that funds international travel will be intrinsically
interesting for journalists. However, there are a number of factors that could act as constraints:
Most importantly, the economic difficulties facing most media (and the resulting decreasing
staffing levels) limit their ability and willingness to let staff leave their posts for an extended
period of time. At the same time, journalists themselves might feel they cannot afford to be
gone from their desks for something that might be perceived as a study visit, for fear of the
consequences for their media organisation but also for themselves, as their employers
might find during their absence that they actually are not indispensable.
The expert panel also feels that the prospect of spending time at a media outlet in a
different European country itself might not be a strong enough incentive for many
journalists to participate. It was noted that 20 years ago, the possibility of experiencing the
workings of any modern media organisation in Western Europe or the U.S. was very
appealing especially to journalists from ex-Communist countries. However, some experts
expressed the view that nowadays the differences between European media and cultures
are not so enormous that they are necessarily interesting per se.
As a result, the interest from journalists could well be concentrated on a few well-known
and prestigious publications or broadcasters that are seen as state-of-the-art. However,
experience from similar programmes in the U.S. shows that the largest and most
prestigious media are not always the best host organisations, as visitors can easily feel
lost. At the same time, the lessons learned tend to be more applicable, and therefore the
impact greater, if the host organisation is similar to the journalist‟s home organisation in
terms of size, scope, general outlook etc.
These potential constraints to the level of interest from journalists point to the same key success
factor for the programme: in order to maximise interest, the exchanges or other forms of mobility
should ideally be linked to a concrete journalistic interest or project. For example, a stay at a
foreign media outlet other than the likes of the
BBC, the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or
Le
Monde is likely to be more interesting and productive, and also easier to justify to an employer, if it
is undertaken to research and ultimately report on a topic that is of interest to the home
organisation, or to learn about a concrete topic, journalistic technique, or other skill that will
ultimately be applicable during the journalist‟s day-to-day work after his or her return.
Summing up, it seems clear that journalists will be interested in an ERASMUS for journalists
programme, even if the extent to which this general interest can prevail against the economic and
other constraints depends on if and how these constraints are addressed. However, the level of
interest from potential host organisations appears somewhat more doubtful. In the view of the
expert panel, the following factors are likely to limit media outlets‟ wil ingness to host a visiting
journalist from a different EU Member State:
It seems unclear whether most media outlets will see much added value in hosting a
foreign journalist for a few weeks or months. Simply having an „extra pair of hands on
33
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
deck‟ is probably not enough to make the experience worthwhile for the hosts, in particular
given that it takes time to get used to a different working environment, editorial style and
media culture, and therefore visitors are unlikely to be very productive during their stay
(particularly if it is relatively short).
Providing a work space and access to facilities would normally not be a problem, but
potential host organisations might be worried about having to allocate one of their staff to
provide guidance and orientation to the visitor – or, to put it very drastically, to „babysit‟ him
or her. The willingness to make this investment is likely to be limited in the current
economic climate, especially for smaller media outlets.
In terms of a potential return on the hosting organisations‟ investment, it is uncertain to
what extent the possibility for the host‟s own staff to also spend time abroad (either at the
media outlet of the visitor or at some other media outlet, depending on the programme
implementation model that is eventually chosen) would be a sufficient incentive. The
expert panel had serious doubts in this regard, in particular given the likely reluctance of
many to let their own staff leave their posts (see above). A token sum of money to
compensate hosts for the expenses they incur would also be unlikely to make much of a
difference. On the other hand, a larger payment might incentivise media outlets to host
journalists for the wrong reasons, and treat them less well than should be expected.
However, the scepticism expressed in the above is contradicted to some extent by the proven
ability of several existing programmes to find host organisations (albeit on a relatively small scale),
sometimes even when there is no possibility for those organisations to send one of their staff
abroad in return. For example, during the last 25 years the International Journalism Exchange
programme has managed to place 240 journalists from developing countries at U.S. newspapers
for a period of two weeks. The host organisations are recruited directly by the institute that runs
the programme, which uses its wide network to try to find newspapers that are similar to those the
participating journalists work for in their home countries. According to the project manager, many
U.S. newspapers are quite willing to make the investment of hosting a foreign journalist in return
for gaining insights into their countries and cultures. However, it tends to be much easier to find
placements for journalists from countries that already generate interest from U.S. readers (such as
Afghanistan); although irrespectively of the journalist‟s origin, the recent economic difficulties of
the sector have made it harder to recruit hosts. Similarly, the Trilateral Journalist Exchange
programme, which ran during the 1990s and involved Canada, Mexico and the U.S., reportedly
found it relatively easy to find placements for up to 12 journalists per year in all three countries,
partly as a result of the interest generated by the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), which came into force in 1994.
This leads back to the issue of journalistic interest. Among both journalists and hosting
organisations, the level of interest in participating in an ERASMUS for journalists programme is
likely to be much higher if there is a concrete journalistic interest to be catered to or project to be
implemented. For example, a UK media outlet may see little value in hosting a journalist from, say,
Slovenia. However, in view of the large numbers of Polish immigrants that have come to Britain
since Poland‟s accession to the EU in 2004, it may wel be interested in hosting a Polish journalist
to enrich its reporting on the issue of immigration, its causes and consequences. Similarly, some
media outlets may be particularly interested in hosting a journalist from a country where they do
not yet have a sufficient network of contacts. In general terms, it seems clear that the willingness
of media outlets to host journalists from other European countries cannot be taken for granted,
and ways will have to be found to ensure that any potential new programme offers them sufficient
value to merit their participation. The idea of a “twinning” approach is one possible response to
this challenge; this and other ways in which the programme could be made interesting for host
organisations were investigated further over the course of this study.
34
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
In addition to the uncertainties and constraints concerning the readiness of the target audiences to
participate in a programme, the following other key risks related to the programme and its outputs
have been identified:
Language: There are few professions in which a perfect command of the language is as
important as in journalism. In all similar programmes for journalists that were examined,
the proficiency of the participants in the language of their host country was one of the key
determinants of success, and in several instances language problems were reportedly the
cause of problems with individual participants. As a result, one programme decided to test
candidates‟ spoken English over the telephone as part of the selection process. In the
case of an EU programme, the number of languages that would potentially be involved is
even higher, and ideally, the programme should also accommodate small language –
small language combinations. However, in some possible approaches that include a group
element or seminar, one would have to rely on one (or a few) „lingua franca‟ that all
participants would have to be proficient in.
Definition of journalists: As noted previously, the professional situation of journalists is
changing, and the boundaries of who is or is not a journalist can often be fuzzy. Ideally, the
growing number of free-lance journalists should also be able to participate in the
programme, but depending on the implementation mode, this could raise a number of
practical issues. In particular, reciprocity (i.e. the idea that an organisation that hosts a
journalist also gets the opportunity to send someone to a different media outlet – whether
simultaneously or at a later stage) might not work if the programme were opened to free-
lancers. Another issue that will have to be clarified is whether or not the programme should
be open to bloggers. The growing importance of blogging is clear, but again, how this
could fit into an ERASMUS for journalists programme will need to be further investigated.
Critical mass: All of the mobility programmes for journalists that were examined were quite
limited in size (between 6 and 20 journalists per year), making it relatively easy to recruit a
sufficient number of participants and especially hosts based on existing networks and
contacts. If the proposed programme is to have a significant impact, it should ideally
facilitate a much larger number of “mobilities”, and achieve a critical mass of participants.
This would require different approaches, especially to recruiting host organisations. Also,
some possible implementation modes (such as the “direct exchange” or “twinning” models)
rely not on a large pool, but on individual pairs of journalists and/or media outlets to find
each other. Rolling out such an approach on a larger scale could be particularly
challenging, and will have to rely on taking advantage of synergies with existing or newly
created fora that bring together journalists from different European countries.
Red tape: European programmes have a reputation for being overly bureaucratic and
complicated as regards the application procedures etc. This could potentially be a factor
that keeps potential participants from applying, particularly since (unlike for example
academic institutions) journalists tend to shy away from investing significant time in
bureaucratic processes. To prevent this from happening, the rules and procedures should
be as light-touch as possible.
Potential for „bad press‟: Given that the programme is aimed at journalists, there is an
obvious risk that any perceived or real shortcomings or inefficiencies would be widely
publicised. This could extend to the rules and procedures (see above), but also to the
programme objectives (in particular if it is perceived as attempted propaganda, i.e. to
disseminate positive stories about the EU) or its implementation (“EU pays for tourism”). At
the same time, there is a real risk that journalists who participate in the programme then
35
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
write negative articles not about the programme itself, but more generally about the
policies or institutions of the EU or of other Member States. If one takes respect for the
freedom of the press seriously, it seems difficult to eliminate this risk.
The above should not be taken as a comprehensive list of all possible risks and uncertainties (for
a final risk register that takes into account the results of the fieldwork, see section 5.5), but based
on the analysis that was carried out in the initial stage, they seem to encapsulate the most
important aspects. Summarising, one can list the following critical conditions for the realisation of
the programme‟s objectives:
1. Clarity as to the objectives that are afforded top priority: Different possible approaches /
models of mobility are more or less likely to achieve different objectives.
2. Addressing existing needs of journalists: Learning about EU institutions and policies alone
is unlikely to be a sufficient incentive for most potential participants.
3. Generating interest from journalists: This could be achieved by linking mobility with a
specific journalistic interest or project.
4. Generating interest from host organisations: Again, the existence of a concrete journalistic
added value is key.
5. Language: A high level of proficiency in the language of the host country seems
indispensable to making the experience worthwhile for both sides.
6. Definition of a journalist: The eligibility criteria for participants need to be in line with the
nature of the programme.
7. Critical mass: The process for recruiting and matching participants needs to reflect the
nature of the programme and the desired scale.
8. Red tape: Excessively bureaucratic rules and procedures can deter journalists from
applying.
9. Potential for „bad press‟: The programme needs to be able to come to terms with the
possibility that it might generate negative news about Europe.
3.4 Preliminary conclusions
The different elements discussed previously can be expressed in terms of strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats, and depicted in a SWOT diagram (see below). This is meant to provide
an overview of key factors that are helpful or harmful to achieving the programme‟s objectives,
and thus help to formulate appropriate responses or strategies. It is important to emphasise that
the SWOTs shown below only reflect an initial assessment of
potential rather than
real strengths
and weaknesses. It is meant to contribute to the analysis and definition of the attributes, nature
and scope of the proposed ERASMUS for journalists programme, and was used as a reference
framework during the later stages of the study.
36
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Figure 6: Preliminary programme SWOTS
HELPFUL
HARMFUL
To achieving the objective
To achieving the objective
WEAKNESSES
Programme priorities not sufficiently clear;
different approaches could achieve the
STRENGTHS
different objectives to a varying extent
Programme objectives are all achievable,
Unclear value proposition for host
can be mutually reinforcing
organisations
INTERNAL
(attributes
Initiatives to fund international travel
Success dependent on participants having a
of the
address a clear need of journalists
high level of language proficiency
programme)
Potential to link mobility proposition with a
No agreed definition of journalists;
concrete journalistic project / interest
pragmatic eligibility criteria might exclude a
part of the target audience
Achieving critical mass is a challenge,
particularly in approaches that depend on
pairing journalists
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
Current gap in the market – no EU-wide
Economic difficulties of media limit the time
mobility initiatives for journalists
journalists and their employers can dedicate
EXTERNAL
to study visits / training
(attributes
Similar existing (small scale) programmes
of the
show the potential of mobility initiatives for
Excessive bureaucracy could deter
environment)
journalists to make an impact
participants
Potential synergies with EJC and other
Risk that the programme could generate
seminars / briefings for EU journalists
„bad press‟
Based on the analysis carried out during phase 1 of the study (including the review of similar
programmes, the views and opinions of the expert panel assembled for this study, the
development and testing of the intervention logic, and the identification of preliminary SWOTs),
the study team concludes that an ERASMUS for journalists programme does appear feasible, and
could potentially contribute to achieving all of the objectives that have been set. However, the
extent of this contribution is likely to vary depending on the objective in question: the potential of a
mobility programme for journalists to have a significant impact on advancing a European media
sphere appears much greater than its potential to enhance media pluralism, particularly since the
programme would not tackle one of the key dimensions of media pluralism, namely the issue of
media ownership.
37
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
In order to achieve (some or all of) its objectives, the programme will have to address and
overcome a significant number of serious potential weaknesses and threats. The most critical
factor for the programme‟s success is likely to be its specific value proposition, i.e. its ability to
generate sufficient interest from both journalists and media outlets. In the expert panel‟s view, the
journalistic interest of the mobility is the key variable in this. Put simply, if the programme helps
participants get an interesting story that can be turned into a concrete journalistic output (e.g.
article), or helps them acquire a specific skill and/or further their professional networks in a way
that will add value to their regular journalistic activity, the buy-in from both journalists and their
editors will be much higher.
The study has identified a number of possible alternative basic approaches the programme could
adopt; these were further explored, analysed and tested with the target audiences during the
ensuing stages of this study (see section 4). It seems clear that different approaches would
address the different challenges and therefore achieve the programme‟s different objectives to a
varying extent. The analysis of the intervention logic suggested the following weighting of
objectives:
General objectives:
o The programme‟s main desired ultimate outcome is to contribute to the creation of
a European media sphere (i.e. enhanced coverage of trans-national and European
affairs in the national media).
o By doing so, the programme should also contribute to media pluralism in the EU
(i.e. provide citizens with access to a variety of opinions, voices etc.).
Specific objectives:
o The programme‟s main desired intermediate result is to further journalists‟
understanding of other Member States, their media and cultures.
o In addition, to the extent possible the programme should also further journalists‟
understanding of the EU (in the more institutional sense), and enhance their
journalistic skills and abilities (through peer learning).
38
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
4.0 RESULTS OF THE FIELDWORK
This section summarises the main results of the fieldwork that was undertaken to engage potential
programme beneficiaries, namely journalists themselves (section 4.1) and their editors, who will
play a key role in deciding whether media outlets will be willing to participate in the programme by
hosting foreign journalists and/or allowing their own staff to invest time in the programme (section
4.2). The fieldwork was structured so as to gauge the target audiences‟ level of interest in the
programme, and to discuss, validate, refute, qualify or add to the preliminary conclusions and
hypotheses outlined in section 3 of this report. In addition, this section also briefly discusses the
results of a workshop with stakeholders that took place after the fieldwork had been finalised in
order to gather further input and feedback on the preliminary results of the study (section 4.3).
4.1 Focus groups with journalists
4.1.1 Introduction
4.1.1.1 The focus group methodology
Focus groups are structured and moderated discussions among a small group of individuals
representing a particular target group, whose opinions and perceptions are of interest in a specific
context. They are a key element of the methodology for this study, as they provide detailed
qualitative evidence of the target audience‟s (i.e. journalists‟) views.
The primary, qualitative research carried out within focus groups allows the study team to
understand the real needs and expectations of the target group. It also helps the team to get to
the bottom of why certain opinions exist, shed light on the participants‟ true motivations, and
expose certain myths or misconceptions. The open discussions facilitated in the groups generate
valuable direct insights into the diverse range of circumstances of members of the target group,
which feed into the development of the final programme.
A total of 17 focus groups were held between June and September 2010 with journalists in eight
different EU Member States (MS). The key results are summarised below. For the full reports on
the focus groups in each MS, as well as the focus group discussion guide and the presentation
that contains an overview of the issues, objectives and scenarios that were discussed, please see
annex A2.
4.1.1.2 Selection criteria
To select a representative sample of countries for the focus groups, the study team has taken
several factors into account. This included a mix of northern, southern, western and central /
eastern European countries, as well as large and small MS. The following Member States were
selected for this task in collaboration with the European Commission in the inception phase of this
study:
39
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Table 1: Member States in which focus groups were held
Member State
Language in which focus groups
were held
Belgium
One in French / one in English
Estonia
English
Denmark
English
Germany
German
Poland
Polish
Romania
Romanian
Spain
Spanish
UK
English
In addition, the study team decided to carry out an additional focus group, in English, with
international journalists based in Brussels to compare the views and opinions resulting from a
discussion among journalists from a broad range of cultural backgrounds with the findings from
the national groups.
4.1.1.3 Representation
In order to recruit suitable participants, the study team was able to use the extensive network of
the European Journalism Centre (EJC) of national and local journalists. In addition, media
associations and universities were contacted in several countries for further details of potential
participants to the groups.
Each focus group consisted of up to 13 participants from a broad range of backgrounds, resulting
in a total number of 120 participants. To ensure diversity and coverage of different profiles,
participants were selected to achieve a good representation of different age groups and levels of
experience23. In addition, the study team ensured an appropriate balance between male and
female participants, permanent24 and freelance journalists, and journalists that work for different
types of media (print / TV / radio / web25). Please refer to the table below for details on the
representation of the criteria mentioned above.
23 The study team divided journalists into three segments based on years of experience. Journalists with
less than five years experience are classified as „early career‟; those with between five and 20 years
experience are classified as „mid-career‟; and those with over twenty years experience are classified as
„advanced‟.
24 Two retired, previously permanent journalists were counted as “permanent”.
25 Several participants stated to work in more than one media type. The total number of listed media types is
therefore higher than the number of focus group participants.
40
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Table 2: Focus group participants by category
Advan-
Early
Mid
Perma
Free-
ced
Countries
Print
TV
Radio
Web
career
career
-nent
lance
26
career
27
28
Belgium
6
3
7
1
1
1
5
4
-
Denmark
5
6
8
-
4
1
2
6
3
Estonia
14
2
16
-
-
-
2
12
2
EU
3
5
6
2
-
1
1
7
-
correspondents
Germany
3
14
6
9
4
6
8
7
2
Poland
8
8
9
1
3
3
9
7
-
Romania
17
3
8
6
6
2
11
6
3
Spain
10
5
4
4
2
4
1
14
-
UK
3
5
6
1
1
1
3
4
1
Total
69
51
70
24
21
19
42
67
11
4.1.2 Objectives
4.1.2.1 Prioritisation of objectives
At the outset of the study, three separate specific objectives of an ERASMUS for journalists
programme were identified, namely:
1. Further journalists‟ understanding of the EU (i.e. its policies and institutions, and their
impact)
2. Further journalists‟ understanding of other EU Member States (i.e. their cultures, societies,
economies, politics and media)
3. Enhance journalists‟ professional skil s and abilities (i.e. their knowledge and command of
journalistic tools and techniques, media management, etc.)
During the focus groups, participants were asked how relevant each of these objectives are
considering their respective needs and interests, and how interesting a programme that pursued
some or all of these objectives would be for them. It emerged that all objectives were considered
to be valid by the vast majority of focus group participants, but in terms of their prioritisation it
became apparent that all of the 17 groups suggested a prioritisation of objectives 2 (further
journalists‟ understanding of other MS) and 3 (enhance journalists‟ professional skil s and abilities)
over objective 1 (further journalists‟ knowledge of the EU). Furthermore, the majority of members
26 Less than five years experience
27 Between five and 20 years experience
28 Over 20 years experience
41
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
of almost all of the groups perceived objectives 2 and 3 to be strongly linked with each other: a
better understanding of other Member States and their media was understood to be an
enhancement of one‟s professional journalistic skil s and abilities. In particular, participants felt
that the opportunity for knowledge sharing and mutual learning with other journalists in a
stimulating new environment, as a result of a programme aiming to achieve objective 2, would
contribute to objective 3 in an effective way.
The focus group discussions around the feasibility of the objectives confirmed that objective 2 was
also seen to be the most feasible objective in terms of what an Erasmus programme for journalists
could achieve, as it corresponds directly with what was understood as the core element of the
programme, i.e. working in a media organisation abroad, which would inevitably increase the
participants‟ understanding of the country they visit.
When participants were asked if it would make sense for the programme to focus primarily on
objective 3 (with a view to a more tangible enhancement of the technical skills required of
journalists, such as writing reports, conducting interviews, editing film or radio material etc), the
prevailing view was that in order to enhance these skills and abilities it is not strictly necessary to
be placed in a completely new context within a media organisation in a foreign country. It was
suggested training courses running alongside of the journalists‟ work at home would be more
effective if an improvement of purely technical skills were the main objective.
Although some journalists from a minority of groups (e.g. Denmark, Poland) questioned the level
of benefit derived from mutual learning and knowledge sharing with countries that are less
advanced in the field of journalism, the vast majority of participants of all groups expected the
programme to be beneficial regardless of the countries visited. It was suggested that even
countries with an apparently lower technical standard or a less elaborate journalistic tradition
would provide a valuable experience for visiting journalists, and the principle of “broadening one‟s
horizon” in itself seemed to justify the effort of taking part in the programme for many participants,
again supporting the impression that objective 2 (and the aim to learn from new “colleagues” and
their surroundings) best reflects the needs and expectations of the target group.
Objective 1 was not dismissed as undesirable, but seen as much less interesting and relevant
than the other two objectives by nearly all focus group participants. The feasibility of achieving this
objective through the proposed programme was also questioned across all groups: journalists
tended to assume that an Erasmus-like programme would facilitate exchanges / mobility between
Member States, and therefore allow them to gain insight into a particular Member State as well as
an individual media organisation, but would not necessarily expose them to EU-related topics. In
addition, the prevailing view was that sufficient information about the EU is already provided and
readily accessible through the internet and other provisions such as EU-sponsored seminars and
workshops. Nevertheless, knowledge of the EU was seen to be an important tool for EU-based
journalists (and therefore contribute to objective 3), and the majority of participants agreed that
this would also be an outcome that could possibly be achieved through a programme relating to
objective 2 as its main objective (e.g. by adding EU-related seminars to the programme).
Summing up, the majority of focus group participants thought that learning about another Member
State and the functioning of a concrete media outlet within it (objective 2) would be the most
desirable and relevant outcome of an ERASMUS programme for journalists. This would almost
inevitably entail furthering their journalistic skills (objective 3) as a result of the observation of
different approaches and techniques, peer learning, exchange of experience and enhanced
professional networks, and therefore benefit their career development. However, if skills
development were the main objective of the programme, then there could be other, more cost-
effective ways of achieving this that wouldn‟t entail going abroad. Learning about the EU
(objective 1) was seen as important to some extent, although many journalists admitted this kind
of information is of limited relevance to them during their day-to-day work. Indirectly, a better
42
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
knowledge of EU policies and institutions could be a side effect of an exchange / mobility
programme, but if this were the main objective, then it could probably best be achieved by visits to
Brussels or other seats of EU institutions. The diagram below depicts this prioritisation of
objectives from the point of view of journalists.
Figure 7: Programme objectives as perceived by focus group participants
Objective
1
Objective 2
Objective 3
4.1.2.2 Level of interest
Overall there was a very high level of interest in an Erasmus programme for journalists amongst
the focus group participants. The vast majority stated that they would be open to take part in a
programme aiming to achieve all of the objectives discussed above, but in particular to gain first-
hand experience of how a media outlet functions and how journalists work in another Member
State (and thus improve their professional skills through peer learning), and more generally, to
learn about the culture, society, politics, economics etc. of another Member State.
The main benefits expected from taking part revolved around gaining insight into a different
(working) environment, and participants repeatedly mentioned the importance of broadening one‟s
horizon by observing how journalists work elsewhere. Networking was named as another core
benefit of the programme, and the majority of journalists across all groups underlined the
importance of creating networking opportunities, especially with journalists working abroad.
Again, the benefits expected from the programme correspond closely to objective 2: furthering
one‟s knowledge of another Member State by
working in a media organisation abroad would
“You need a network with journalists
both serve to broaden one‟s horizon and
from other MS and know how their
present an effective opportunity for networking
press and politics function”.
and establishing solid working contacts abroad.
43
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
4.1.3 Approaches
The following section presents the aggregated views of the focus group members on the different
approaches regarding the structure of the programme, which were introduced as individual
scenarios to the participants.
4.1.3.1 Mobility
A basic mobility approach29, where host organisations would accommodate individual visiting
journalists without necessarily sending a member of their staff abroad in return (similar to the
approach of the Erasmus programme for students), was viewed positively in principle by the
majority of participants across all groups. Participants found that the approach‟s flexible structure
and less complicated administration (in comparison to a programme where two partners would
have to be matched for an exchange; see below) particularly attractive.
Participants in all groups also liked the openness of the approach to freelance journalists, who
could participate in the programme without having to provide a place of work for an exchange
partner in return. This was seen as particularly important, as many journalists work in freelance
arrangements during some stages of their career and might effectively be excluded from a
programme that is based around a fixed, reciprocal exchange of journalists between media
organisations.
However, the lack of reciprocity was also seen
“The Mobility approach is
as a potential weakness of the approach: putting
less complicated and would
structures for an effective integration of the
work for freelance journalists
visiting journalists in place was expected to be a
as well.”
major challenge, and there was concern that the
shortage of resources experienced by many media organisations today could make it impossible
for host organisations to dedicate a member of staff to manage and integrate the visiting journalist
(also see section 4.1.5.2 on
Integration).
Although several participants in a number of groups were in favour of a programme lasting several
months, in order to make this approach workable for different groups of journalists with a wide
range of working arrangements most agreed that the duration of the programme should be kept as
flexible as possible (also see section 4.1.4 on
Duration).
4.1.3.2 Reciprocal approaches: Exchange and Twinning
Two of the suggested programme approaches were based on the idea of reciprocal visits:
Twinning30, a staged exchange of two journalists who would visit each other to work together on a
29 In the Mobility scenario individual participants are placed with a host organisation of any media type in
another Member State for a duration of 2-3 months, working primarily for their host organisation and filing
reports for their home organisation only to a limited extent. The scenario does not envisage any necessary
reciprocation of the visits between organisations.
30 The Twinning scenario envisaged two partners working for the same media type (e.g. print journalism) to
work together on a topic of mutual interest, spending one week together in each country, resulting in a total
duration of two weeks. The output was suggested to be the production of one report per participant for their
respective home organisation.
44
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
topic of common interest; and Exchange31, a one-to-one exchange of two journalists that would
take place at the same time.
Both reciprocal approaches were found interesting by most participants. Several participants
mentioned that host organisations might feel that a reciprocal programme is more valuable to
them, as in addition to hosting a visiting journalist, a member of their own staff would also be able
to benefit from visiting an organisation abroad. Rather than just “being burdened” with having to
look after the visiting journalist, they would also gain something from it, which in turn might lead
host organisations to be more involved and eager to make the participants‟ stay worth while. On
the other hand, several participants also pointed to the potential issues for organisations resulting
from a reciprocal approach in terms of the increased amount of resources that they would have to
dedicate to looking after the visiting journalist as well as to covering for their member of staff
during their time abroad.
Participants also felt that the intense collaboration of two media organisations that would have to
liaise to facilitate the exchange of their staff was seen to support the building of networks between
European media outlets. However, the potential problems for integrating freelance journalists
(without an attachment to a specific organisation) into the programme were acknowledged as well,
and deemed to be an obstacle for the feasibility of the approach.
From the two reciprocal approaches, Twinning
was the more preferred option (and also seen
“The contact that you can
as one of the most attractive approaches by a
establish through Twinning is
large amount of participants in all groups
one of the main benefits. It
overall). In particular, the “built-in mentor
would be long lasting.”
function” through working closely alongside a
twinning-partner in a staged exchange was
perceived to be practical, innovative and effective, assuming that twinning partners would bring a
similar level of experience into the arrangement. The opportunity to establish a long-lasting
contact was also valued very highly by the majority of members in all 17 groups:
Journalists also felt that language would not be as much of a problem for this approach, as
twinning partners could effectively act as each others‟ translators while researching together, and
the actual reporting would take place in each of the participants‟ home language anyway.
The majority of participants in most groups agreed that a Twinning programme would have to be
long enough for participants to benefit from the experience, and ideally be flexible in terms of
duration to fit around the different professional and personal arrangements of the potential
participants. As a general guideline a duration of two weeks per country was suggested.
It was debated whether the approach would be workable for freelance journalists, and several
groups reached the agreement that freelance journalists would have to be able to provide a
professional working environment, i.e. an office for their Twinning partner, in order to participate.
Logistically, Twinning was expected to be relatively complex due to having to match partners
working for the same media type with a common interest, corresponding language skills and
availability at the same time.
Participants had mixed views about the Exchange approach, and although the general idea of an
organised exchange for several weeks between two journalists did appeal to a number of
31 The Exchange scenario envisages that two journalists from different countries working for the same
media type swap jobs for a duration of 4 weeks at the same time. It was suggested that participants file
reports primarily for the home organisation and contribute to the host organisation to a limited extent.
45
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
participants, the one-to-one exchange taking place at
“Exchange journalists would
the same time was finally dismissed as not effective,
never be able to replace each
unrealistic and impracticable:
other on a one-to-one basis”.
The “built-in mentor function” of the Twinning
approach was also lost through the simultaneous
exchange of journalists, and effective integration
therefore seen as a major challenge for this scenario. As discussed in section 4.1.5.2 of this
chapter, all focus groups agreed on the importance of putting in place structures for effective
integration of the visiting journalist. In their view, integration into the host organisation would be
crucial for the success of the programme, as participants could otherwise run the risk of ending up
fulfilling purely administrative tasks not appropriate for their level of skill and experience. This was
seen to be a crucial issue for the Exchange approach, and although the Mobility approach
discussed above would have to face the same difficulty, it would nevertheless be less complex to
arrange (as the matching of compatible exchange partners would not be necessary) and was
therefore more attractive than the Exchange approach to most focus group participants.
In addition, the journalists in several groups noted that in a programme based on the Exchange
approach, the participating organisations would not only lose a member of their staff, but have to
provide the resources to integrate and manage the visiting journalist as well. As discussed above,
this would result in a double burden for the participating media organisations, which might make it
difficult to convince editors to let their staff take part. The staged exchange of the Twinning
approach would avoid this issue.
Finally, the inaccessibility for freelance journalists, who would not be in a position to provide an
environment where their exchange partner could effectively work for several weeks, was seen as
a major shortcoming of the Exchange approach by the majority of journalists across all groups.
4.1.3.3 Cooperation
The Cooperation approach32, where a team of journalists from different countries would be
matched to work together on a topic of common interest (initially on a remote basis before meeting
up to exchange findings and ideas in person), was generally found interesting during the
discussions. However, it did not convince the participants of its benefits in the end. While the
journalists appreciated the networking character of the approach as well as its openness to
freelance journalists, there was a feeling that the administrative effort of matching teams of
journalists and producing saleable outputs as a team working together remotely might outweigh
the benefits of this scenario. Several groups seemed to doubt that the final output would be a
professional, saleable journalistic product.
The Spanish and German focus groups
also
agreed
that
the
Cooperation
I’m not sure the outcome of this
approach might primarily have a positive
“cooperation” would be that useful.
long-term effect for the participants
The final product might be more like
(especially in terms of networking), rather
an informative paper, rather than a
than an immediate tangible benefit for the
saleable report.”
participating organisations, which might
make it less attractive for editors to let
32 In the Cooperation scenario, groups of 3-4 journalists research a topic relevant in several MS, meet to
discuss, share findings and produce a story for their home organisations. Contact with other participants can
extend over a period of a couple months, but actual time spent abroad together is limited to a few days.
46
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
their staff take part. In addition, members of several groups (e.g. UK, Germany) noted that the
intense teamwork character of this approach, initially perceived as its main strong point, could turn
into a weakness if the competitive nature of journalism would end up preventing real collaboration
and a fair exchange of material and research findings.
A number of groups also agreed that Cooperation was not appropriate to achieve any of the
objectives discussed in section 4.1.2.1 of this chapter. The time spent in another EU Member
State would simply not be long enough to realistically further the participants‟ understanding of
another country, and there would only be limited, if any, exposure to another media organisation
so that there would be less opportunity for knowledge sharing and mutual learning than in the
other approaches.
4.1.3.4 Seminars
The suggestion of seminars33, taking place in the space of several days either in Brussels or
another location of specific interest, generated very mixed views, ranging from
“unnecessary and
boring” to
“useful and essential for networking”. However, the vast majority of participants across
all groups agreed that seminars are already offered widely and are not in line with their ideas of
what an Erasmus-like programme should provide. However, many felt that within an Erasmus
programme for journalists, seminars could be combined with one of the other approaches (rather
than understood as a stand-alone element).
The usefulness of a seminar added on to one of the other approaches was appreciated by almost
all participants, although for different reasons. Networking was seen to be a major appeal of
seminars, possibly benefiting one of the approaches resulting in shorter programmes (such as the
Twinning or Cooperation scenarios discussed during the groups), where participants would spend
a limited amount of time abroad and therefore have less exposure to other journalists.
Overall seminars were seen to be a potentially useful addition to an Erasmus programme for
journalists that would benefit freelance and
“Seminars are essential for
permanent journalists from all types of media
networking and useful if
fields and of all levels of experience alike, if
focused on an interesting
they were added on to another programme.
issue.”
Participants also felt that, depending on the
seminar content, seminars could contribute towards achieving objectives 1 and 3, by either
focusing on EU-related information or other relevant areas that would meet the journalists‟ needs
in terms of enhancing their professional skills and abilities (e.g. how to carry out primary
research). However, finding a topic interesting and relevant for all programme participants would
present a substantial challenge, especially considering that participants would be going to a wide
range of member states to work on a variety of topics and might not have a common area of
interest suitable for an added seminar. A seminar element preceding the programme or added on
at the end would also impact on the timing of the programme, and the individual visits abroad
would have to be coordinated with each other to find a date suitable for the seminar to take place.
The majority of participants in most groups felt that this element of rigidity would make the
programme less attractive to them.
33 The Seminar scenario provides seminars for journalists on relevant European topics either in Brussels or
another relevant location in a EU Member State. The seminars would have a duration of 2-5 days.
47
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Participants of most groups also felt that seminars might not be innovative enough to convince
potential participants and editors of their added value, and suggested that attending a seminar
would be an additional aspect of the programme that would have to be justified by journalists in
terms of spending several days away from their regular employment, which might actually not be
necessary considering the range of seminars for journalists currently already on offer.
4.1.3.5 Twinning vs. Mobility
Overall, the approaches that were deemed most attractive and interesting by the vast majority of
focus group participants were the general Mobility approach and the approach of staged
reciprocal visits (Twinning). Although the Twining version of the reciprocity approach was
preferred overall, a large number of those preferring Twinning to Mobility also acknowledged the
fact that Twinning would potentially be more difficult to implement due to a number of factors
partly mentioned above. Firstly, suitable twinning partners with a common interest would have to
be found and matched, which would be logistically much more complicated than the simple
placement of individual journalists within organisations in the Mobility approach without the
element of reciprocity. The members of individual groups (e.g. EU) questioned whether the
programme would generate enough interest to attract a critical mass of potential twinning
partners, and suggested that the programme would have to rely on existing personal networks
between journalists at least initially.
The strong collaborative element of two partners working together was seen both as a strength (in
terms of the opportunity to establish a solid, long-lasting professional contact) as described above,
and as a weakness as the success of the approach would depend strongly on how well the
partners could work with each other:
As mentioned above, Twinning also bears potential
difficulties with regard to the integration of freelance
“The Twinning scenario real y
journalists, and the organisation responsible for
depends on identifying suitable
matching partners would have to establish a system
partners, and how well the
to ensure that freelance journalists would be able to
partners get on.”
provide a professional working environment for their
partner.
It was therefore acknowledged that although Twinning sounded more appealing to the majority of
focus group members initially, issues regarding the implementation of this programme could
impact negatively on the programme overall and reduce its appeal to potential participants due to
the more complex administrative nature of this scenario, e.g. in terms of waiting times. They would
also have to expect a lesser degree of flexibility when arranging the timeframe of the programme
as this would have to be coordinated with their Twinning partner.
Summing up, there was widespread agreement that due to their many potential benefits, Twinning
visits represent the ideal approach. However, there are a number of practical obstacles to
implementing such an approach, and participants voiced concerns that insisting on reciprocity
could significantly limit the scope and openness of the programme. Many therefore held that
reciprocity (ideally in a staged rather than a simultaneous way) should be facilitated, but not
required from all programme participants.
48
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
4.1.4 Duration
Although the majority of participants in most groups (apart from Spain and the UK) agreed that a
shorter programme would be more feasible to implement, views on the ideal length of the
programme differed greatly, ranging from one to two weeks to six or even twelve months. Clearly,
there is a tension between desirability (many journalists would like the opportunity to spend an
extended period of time abroad) against feasibility (longer stays abroad are difficult to reconcile
with the economic, professional, personal and other circumstances and realities of journalists and
the media they work for).
Generally it can be said that the majority of the younger focus group participants, usually at early
stages of their career and in less senior positions, were more in favour of a longer programme
(e.g. as discussed in the UK and Spanish focus groups) and felt that a longer duration abroad
would increase the benefit they would derive from participating. Their line of argumentation was
that a longer time spent abroad would give participants the chance to “real y find their feet” and
gain an in-depth insight into the procedures of the host organisation, which in their view would
increase the overall benefit of the programme substantially. Several of the younger participants
(e.g. in the Spanish and Polish focus groups) were also of the opinion that a longer programme
would provide a chance for the visiting journalists to improve their language skills, rather than
considering good language skills as a pre-requirement for participating in the programme.
Most of the more experienced journalists in more senior positions were much more cautious
regarding the length of the programme, taking into consideration the potential participants‟
individual professional as well as personal circumstances. Their view was that the programme
should be as compact as possible, striking a balance between minimising the resources used in
terms of the amount of time spent away from the participant‟s place of work and home and
maximising the benefits that can feasibly be derived for a journalist from working in a media
organisation abroad. In simple words, their opinion in terms of duration can be summed up with
“as little time as possible, as much as necessary”.
This group of journalists also suggested that the level of benefit of participating in the programme
would not be increased endlessly by extending the time spent abroad, but that a maximum level of
benefit would be reached after a relatively short time. This opinion is mainly based on the
assumption that the extent to which the participating journalists can contribute to the host
organisation‟s work in a meaningful way is only marginal, due to the language barrier that most
participants would inevitably face (unless their proficiency of the language of their host
organisation is extremely high). While the more experienced members of the focus groups didn‟t
suggest that the language barrier would prevent participants from benefiting from the programme
altogether, they did argue that for most participants the benefits would not be derived from
extensive, professional contribution to the host organisation‟s work, but from the overall
experience of working for another media organisation in a foreign country and the exposure to a
new working environment with different structures and processes, technical standards, codes of
conducts etc., as well as potentially research / work on a specific topic of interest. Based on this
assumption, their line of argument was that the benefit derived from this exposure would reach a
point of diminishing returns after a relatively short period of time (i.e. 2-4 weeks), after which any
further time spent abroad would be less useful.
One aspect participants of all ages and levels of seniority agreed on in terms of the duration of the
programme was
flexibility. The vast majority across all groups stated that participants should be
given the freedom to adapt the length of their stay abroad to their personal circumstances, to
make the programme accessible to the broadest range of journalists possible. This aspect is
especially important in the light of the vast array of working arrangements of journalists today,
49
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
ranging from journalists in full, permanent employment to freelance journalists producing material
for a number of different organisations and everything else in between.
4.1.5 Practical issues
4.1.5.1 Language
Almost all of the participants across all groups agreed that language is a key issue that has to be
considered when designing the programme. As the programme is based around giving journalists
the opportunity to work in another EU Member State with a view to deriving certain benefits from
this (e.g. increased knowledge of the country visited, networking, insight into the processes of a
different media organisation), the impact of the possible difficulties arising from the inevitable
language barrier on the usefulness of this experience has to be taken into account.
The majority of participants was of the opinion that in order for both visiting journalists and their
host media to benefit fully from the experience, at least an intermediate knowledge of the
language of the host country was an indispensable pre-requisite. At the same time, some noted
that even a very good knowledge of the language spoken in the host organisation would not
enable the visiting journalist to actually produce any professional journalistic output that can be
published by the host. Nonetheless, other participants argued that the programme could be
beneficial even if visitors did not have sufficient language skills to write or report for their host
media. Several groups were concerned in particular with low levels of language skills for smaller
countries (e.g. Estonia or Denmark), and several participants held the view that a good knowledge
of the English language as a kind of
lingua franca or a basic understanding of the language of the
host organisation would be sufficient to be able to achieve a learning effect and contribute to the
work of the host organisation in any country, even without actually producing any outputs that can
be directly published.
Similar to the discussion around the duration of the programme, the focus group discussions
revealed that whether participants felt that the language barrier is also a substantial barrier to a
beneficial experience on the programme overall or not, largely depended on their understanding of
the
type of benefit programme participants should ideally gain from their experience: participants
who were of the opinion that a general insight into a different organisation and Member State to
broaden the journalists‟ knowledge and provide opportunities for networking would be the main
feasible benefit from the programme didn‟t see a low level of language skills as a major concern.
Again, this view was mainly held by younger, less experienced members of the groups who were
visibly more enthusiastic about the general idea of spending time in a media organisation abroad.
Several of these journalists also suggested that the improvement of language skills could be one
of the objectives of the programme, rather than a pre-requirement.
On the other hand, participants who expected the main benefits of the programme to be gained
from solid, meaningful contributions to the host organisations‟ work including the production of
tangible outputs (i.e. reports published by the host) felt that the language barrier would prohibit
this and therefore reduce the scope for gaining something from the programme. These journalists
were therefore also of the opinion that an Erasmus programme for journalists should be short and
compact, as meaningful contribution could not be achieved anyway and the (nevertheless
acknowledged) level of benefit achieved from gaining insight into the new working environment
would be saturated after a relatively short time (see section 4.1.4 on
Duration). This was mainly
the opinion of experienced journalists in more senior positions, who were generally more cautious
regarding the cost-benefit ratio of the programme rather than being captured by the enthusiasm
50
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
for the general idea of an exchange programme for journalists, like the younger members of the
groups.
To summarise the debate around language it can be said that although views regarding the
negative impact of the language barrier on the level of benefit of the programme differed, the
majority of participants in most groups agreed that participants would be able to benefit to some
degree from a programme aimed at providing the opportunity to gain insight into another media
organisation and EU Member State even if only basic language skills were in place.
4.1.5.2 Integration
Effective integration of the visiting journalist into the host organisation was perceived to be crucial
for the success of the programme by the majority of the focus groups (and was discussed at
length in particular in the German and Danish groups). While the level of language skill needed
was seen to be strongly linked to the type of benefit that can be gained from the programme (and
therefore to the objective that the programme should realistically aim for), the journalists felt that
the effective integration of the participants was paramount, regardless of the type of benefit
expected.
The prevailing view was that integration can only be achieved if a member of staff of the host
organisation was designated to drive integration, ensuring that the participant‟s skil s and abilities
were matched to the type of work delegated to him/her. This poses the question of resources, and
the majority of journalists across all groups questioned that significant resources could realistically
be made available in host organisations to manage the visiting journalists, especially over longer
periods of time. There was a general concern that without proper orientation and planning of the
visits, journalists would only be dealing with administrative tasks not appropriate to their level of
skill and experience (or expectation), which could result in a substantial decrease of the benefit
gained from the experience.
This major concern explains why the majority of focus groups voiced a preference for the
Twinning scenario, where the “built-in mentor function” through the close collaboration between
the twinning partners would fully alleviate the problem of integration.
4.1.5.3 Content of work
When first discussing whether participants should primarily keep on working for their home
organisation or contribute to the work of the host organisation during their time on the programme,
participants throughout the groups had very mixed views regarding this issue.
The majority of the more experienced journalists stated that contributing to the home organisation
to a certain degree would be appropriate, especially with a view to convincing editors that the loss
of resources through sending their staff onto the programme will be kept to a minimum. It was also
mentioned several times that a media organisation that has agreed to keep on paying the salary of
their staff participating in the programme, would most likely expect to receive some type of
tangible output in return, such as a report filed by the participant that can be published by the
home organisation.
On the other hand, filing reports for the home organisation was seen as less useful for shorter
versions of the programme, and there was a general concern that this would be a barrier to
integration of the visiting journalists who would most likely prioritise the work assigned to them by
their regular employer (which would in turn reduce the interest of the host organisation in providing
proper orientation and integration). This could substantially decrease the quality of experience for
51
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
the participant as they couldn‟t fully concentrate on the host organisation during their relatively
short visit.
To summarise the different positions amongst the group members, it was suggested that
participants should be expected to continue filing reports for their home organisation if abroad for
a substantial amount of time (i.e. 4+ weeks). For programmes of shorter durations (which were
generally thought to be more realistic), participants should have the freedom to fully participate in
the host organisation‟s work, and only produce a limited amount of material for the home
organisation if this does not negatively impact on their work for the host.
The question of whether or not there should be a set of individual objectives for the journalists
attending the programme was also discussed, and while not all focus group members were
strongly in favour of this suggestion, no one was actually against it. A number of more
experienced journalists stated that having to fulfil a set of objectives whilst on the programme
could be a measure towards ensuring that the programme does not get abused as a “free
holiday”, and provide some guidance for the participant, as well as for the host organisation, with
regard to what level of involvement can and should be expected of the participant. The general
consensus was that a minimal level of objectives (or deliverables) should be set, taking into
account the individual circumstances of the journalist and the host organisation.
4.1.5.4 Matching partners
The issue of how to bring interested journalists and potential host organisations together was seen
to be an important aspect of the programme design by the majority of members in most focus
groups. Even for the Mobility approach, which doesn‟t have a reciprocal element, a system would
have to be put in place to match journalists to organisations that are willing to host them, which
will generally only be the case if there are likely to be benefits on both sides.
When discussing the Exchange, Twinning and Cooperation programmes in particular, many of the
group members across all groups declared their concern regarding the successful matching of
partners for these schemes. Firstly, the administrative effort for finding and matching compatible
partners was expected to be considerable and lengthy. Secondly, there was some concern about
the matching of freelance journalists, who had to be selected on the basis of being able to provide
a professional working environment for the Twinning programme.
Suggestions on how to organise up the matching process included to encourage interested
journalists to find their own partners at dedicated events (Exchange and Twinning); and an
internet platform where journalists could register their interest and availability (Mobility, Exchange
and Cooperation). Both provisions would be facilitated and administered by the organisation
managing the programme.
In addition, the groups in two countries (Romania and Germany) discussed the possibility of
engaging host organisations in the selection of the journalists visiting them, to ensure that they
had more control over who they were hosting. This in turn was seen to create a more positive
attitude towards the exchange journalists, and possibly more willingness to put more effort into
their full integration.
Similarly, another group (Denmark) largely agreed that home organisations should have some
level of control over the type of organisation their staff is being placed in. This way, home
organisations would be able to steer their staff towards hosts they perceive to be credible and
valuable contacts, and the opportunities for networking and collaboration arising from the
exchange of individual members of staff would benefit the entire organisation in the long term.
52
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
4.1.6 Funding
Funding was discussed at length as a key issue for the programme. Expectations regarding the
level of funding provided by the EC depended mostly on the duration of the programme. It was
generally agreed across all 17 groups that a programme of a duration ranging between 2-4
(possibly up to 6) weeks could be funded partly by the home organisation (most of which would
likely be willing to continue paying the participant‟s salary) and the EC (who would cover additional
costs such as travel, accommodation and sustenance). It was noted several times that the
continuous payment of the participant‟s salary by the home organisation was crucial for ensuring
that a degree of independence from the EC was being kept, although the majority of journalists did
also seem to feel comfortable with the idea of ensuring independence through other means, e.g.
contractual arrangements explicitly stating that participants would be free to produce journalistic
material without any limitations.
Focus group participants were very sceptical about the ability and willingness of media outlets
(home organisations) to continue to pay the salary of permanently employed staff members
wishing to take part in a visit with a length of more than a few weeks. Participants felt that editors
would generally not be convinced that the benefits of sending their employees on the programme
would outweigh the extra use of resources needed to cover for them. The only way in which such
a programme would be feasible would be if journalists took an unpaid sabbatical. In this case, the
EC payment to journalists would also have to cover at least part of the lost income. A few
participants also suggested that the EC should financially compensate home and host
organisations (as agreed on by members of the focus groups in Poland and Spain) for agreeing to
second or host a member of staff for longer periods of time.
Funding freelance journalists to participate in the programme was perceived to be a major issue
by some of the groups (e.g. Spain, Germany, Denmark, International group) and many of the
freelance journalists in the groups suggested that even a short programme wouldn‟t be accessible
to many freelance journalists if no compensation for the lost income (since programme
participants generally wouldn‟t be able to sell content to their usual outlets to the same extent
during their stay abroad) was provided in addition to covering their travel, accommodation and
sustenance costs. The additional difficulty of a decreased income for freelance journalists
after
their return from the programme due to work contacts that might have dried up was another point
made to back up the need for compensation for journalists in this position.
4.1.7 Administration and lead of programme
In terms of the administration of the programme, the participants of nearly all groups strongly
voiced their concern about too much influence from the EC. A strong involvement of the EC was
not seen to be desirable and perceived as a threat to
journalistic independence:
“The less we see EU officials,
This point was mainly made with regard to the
the better. Every journalist is so
output(s) produced while on the programme (as well
worried about his or her
as the programme funding received by the
independence.”
participants), and it was feared that participating
journalists would not have the freedom to produce
articles that are critical of the EU or an area related to this. It was suggested in several groups
53
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
(e.g. Germany, Denmark, UK, Spain, Poland, International group) that the EC should assume the
role of the funding institution behind the scenes, and appoint or establish an intermediary
organisation to run the programme on behalf of the EC:
Similarly, appointing an intermediary organisation as the face of the programme was also seen to
be beneficial in terms of branding: to make the
programme as appealing as possible for professional
journalists who are keen to add to their journalistic
“Having an intermediary is a
experience rather than taking advantage of a
good idea. And they really do
subsidised holiday, it was suggested that the
have to be in charge, deciding
branding of the programme should not be too EC-
who is there etc. and not just do
oriented, but headed by a respected institution
the Commission‟s job.”
associated with the journalistic profession.
4.1.8 Summary
The discussion around the objectives of the programme revealed that the prevailing view in the
focus groups was that although all three objectives were deemed valid and desirable to some
extent, objective 2 (further journalists‟ understanding of other MS and their media) was seen to be
the unique selling point, and the only objective that is currently not addressed by existing
initiatives. This objective can be most feasibly achieved through a programme that is built around
placing journalists in host organisations in other EU Member States (and not through seminars or
other looser forms of cooperation).
With regard to the structure of the programme, the parameters suggested in the individual
scenarios (based on the approaches of Mobility, Reciprocal Exchange, Cooperation and
Seminars) were discussed controversially in the focus groups, reflecting how different the needs
and expectations of different groups of journalists are. This points to the need to design the
programme in a flexible way. One of the main outcomes of the discussions around the parameters
of the programme was the need for a high degree of adaptability regarding the programme
duration, but also regarding the work content and the general structure, i.e. whether journalists
would engage in a type of reciprocal exchange or simply be placed in an organisation without
another journalist from their host organisation visiting them in return. Similarly, flexibility was also
required with regard to the type of media organisation participants would be placed in, and all
groups were in favour of allowing cross-media exchanges: although most journalists would be
most interested in spending time at a media outlet that‟s similar to their own, many journalists
today work across several types of media (e.g. print/online) and need broad skill sets to succeed
in the competitive environment of journalism.
In summary, all participants felt that in order to be attractive and accessible to as many journalists
as possible, the programme would have to be flexible enough to adapt to a wide range of
professional and personal circumstances, and working arrangements.
The wide range of views and opinions as to how the programme should be structured and what it
should achieve also suggests that giving journalists and their organisations a strong role in
deciding on the key aspects of the individual visits within the programme to leave room for
participants to adjust e.g. the nature and length of their visit as well as the content of work to suit
their specific needs and interests, would help to develop an offering that is relevant and accessible
for a sufficiently wide range of different sub-groups of journalists and media outlets.
54
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Although the views around the actual parameters of the programme (e.g. duration) differed
substantially, discussions revealed that a successful programme would have to strike a balance
between aiming to meet the broad range of needs and expectations of its target group(s) and
representing a provision with realistic objectives and a feasible economic and practical
(administrative) framework. In order to reach this balance between desirability and feasibility, the
programme would clearly have to prioritise some of the journalists‟ needs and expectations over
others, e.g. although many participants were in favour of a longer programme lasting several
months, the implications this would have in financial terms (for the participating organisations as
well as the funder) and logistic effort (mainly for the participants themselves) points towards the
merits of a shorter programme duration.
55
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
4.2 Interviews with potential host organisations
4.2.1 Introduction
To gain insight into the opinions and needs of potential host organisations, telephone interviews
have been carried out with a sample of 28 editors from media outlets located around Europe. In
order to ensure interviewees have sufficient expertise and authority, they were limited to senior
editors who would be in a position to influence whether their organisation would participate in the
programme.
Due to editors‟ hectic and irregular schedules, interviews were kept to a maximum of 30 minutes
and focused on the key issues affecting whether and to what extent their media outlets would be
able to benefit from a future ERASMUS for journalists programme. These included editors‟
opinions on the general feasibility of the programme, factors influencing whether they would be
willing to host programme participants, factors influencing whether they would be willing to send
journalists on the programme and costs the Commission would be expected to cover. In addition,
members of the study team recorded detailed profile data about the media outlets of each
interviewee, allowing responses to be considered alongside differences in media type (e.g. print,
TV, radio etc.), ownership structure (public or private) and size. This also allowed the study team
to ensure broad coverage of a wide variety of media organisations.
Overall, interviews were conducted with 28 editors. These were made up of a broadly
representative sample of Member States, including three editors from Germany, two each from
Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden and one each from Bulgaria,
Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia and the
UK. About half of editors worked for publicly owned media outlets, while the rest were at privately
run organisations. 13 of the 28 editors interviewed represented print and / or online media, while
there were seven working in radio and eight in television. The sample of editors interviewed also
included a wide variety of working environments, with 11 editors representing small or medium
sized media with less than 100 journalists, and 17 working for large media with over 100
journalists. The interview guide, as well as a table summarising key information about the profile
of interviewees, can be found in annex A3.
4.2.2 General interest in an ERASMUS for journalists programme
First reactions to the idea of an ERASMUS-like programme for journalists were very positive
among editors interviewed. There were a multitude of reasons given for this. Some editors, mostly
from smaller media, thought it would be interesting for their journalists to learn about more
advanced journalistic techniques being practised at larger media. Others considered participating
in the programme as a useful way to build a network of contacts and sources in another Member
State. One editor added that temporarily joining another news team would allow journalists to gain
new perspectives on their everyday jobs, while another mentioned „mutual understanding‟ as a
key benefit of any time spent in another Member State. Several editors explained that gaining a
sense of how other Member States work, both on political and cultural levels, would be a
worthwhile outcome of a mobility or exchange programme. In the words of one editor from
southern Europe, „When I look at Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania, I find it surprising to see how
little we know about our neighbours‟.
56
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
On a more practical level, some editors, especially those representing privately owned media from
smaller Member States, highlighted that a decreasing number of postings for foreign
correspondents reduces the opportunity for journalists to experience other countries and cultures.
An ERASMUS-like programme for journalists could partially remedy this problem. In addition, the
lack of foreign postings leads to a growing reliance on other media and agencies such as Reuters
in order for media from smaller Member States to report on foreign news. An ERASMUS-like
programme for journalists was also seen by these editors as a potential way for their media outlet
to gain their own perspective on events occurring elsewhere in Europe.
About half of the editors interviewed had participated previously in exchange or mobility
programmes aimed at students or journalists. These editors had had their perceptions shaped by
these experiences and were overall more enthusiastic than others about the potential benefits of a
future programme, and pointed to their previous experiences as important stages in their
professional and personal development. Benefits of their time abroad included a deepened
understanding of other countries and cultures, increased knowledge of journalistic techniques and
a broadened network of sources. Interviewees also noted the durability and continued usefulness
of relationships made during visits to other countries.
4.2.3 Willingness to participate in the programme
Nearly all editors were willing for their media to participate in the programme, either by sending
journalists to media outlets elsewhere in Europe and / or by hosting journalists from other Member
States. This was mainly because editors expected the programme to yield positive impacts for
their organisations. Building networks of sources and contacts was a prime motivator for editors,
both in their capacity to host journalists and send their own staff for visits abroad. Editors felt that
even as hosts their organisations would benefit from increased insight into another Member State,
as visiting journalists would share their experiences and views with their temporary colleagues.
Sending a journalist to participate in the programme would allow him or her to report
knowledgeably about the visited Member State in future. It would also provide the sending media
organisation with the opportunity to publish first-hand accounts of another Member State, an
especially enticing possibility given reduced budgets for travel and posting foreign
correspondents. In addition, several editors also mentioned that allowing journalists to participate
in the programme would improve staff morale.
However, while none of the editors were opposed to a new programme in principle, nearly all of
them expressed some reservations to participating and conditions that would need to be met in
terms of practicalities, logistics and the exact parameters of an eventual programme. These are
discussed below and grouped according the main issues that editors brought up.
4.2.3.1 Language
The language barrier was a crucial issue that all editors interviewed mentioned without prompting
from study team members. It was seen to permeate or hang over all other aspects of the
programme and would, in editors‟ opinions, need to be carefully considered in setting its
parameters.
Given that the majority of participating journalists would not share a mother tongue with their
hosts, language issues were seen to present significant problems. Concerns about inadequate
57
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
language skills were especially pronounced because the programme would likely entail
participants
working as journalists for host organisations, rather than simply observing others at
work or carrying out trainee-like tasks. There was not widespread agreement, however, as to how
big the implications of language issues on the programme would be. To some extent, editors‟
opinions varied in function of the types of media they worked for and the languages spoken in
their countries. Overall, editors for broadcast media, especially those working in countries whose
languages are not much spoken by foreigners, were most concerned about language issues. They
felt that a visiting journalist attempting to work as a journalist in such countries would face nearly
insurmountable obstacles. This was not only a concern for editors from small Member States,
such as Bulgaria and Portugal, but also for larger ones such as Poland.
Editors representing print media expressed a wide range of views on language, without a clear
consensus emerging as to how language would impact on the programme. Several editors,
principally from Member States with smaller languages, did not feel that the language skills of
visiting journalists would pose a large practical impediment to success. In addition, some editors
felt that the host media organisation would be able to translate articles written by participating
journalists on the condition that the programme was kept sufficiently short (maximum six weeks).
These articles would not consist of conventional pieces of reporting, but of special contributions
from the visiting correspondent. These could, for example, give a foreign perspective on the
national politics and culture of the host country, or offer readers insight into the participant‟s
Member State. Other editors did not feel it would be feasible to translate or extensively proofread
articles from visiting journalists, even to a limited extent. While these editors did not question the
validity of an ERASMUS-like programme for journalists, they pictured visiting journalists making
looser contributions, such as helping with research, acting as an expert on their own country and
sharing contacts, sources and techniques.
Editors were nearly unanimous in rejecting the notion that visiting journalists would be able
consistently to produce written reports for host organisations. They explained that language is the
„primary tool in a [print] journalist‟s arsenal‟ and that even foreign journalists with highly advanced
language skills would usually not be able to write as would a journalist from the country in
question. Only one editor dissented from this point of view, pointing to her own time on an
exchange with a media outlet in Germany. She explained that, since editors normally spend a
considerable amount of time proofreading and amending text written by their journalists, adapting
written reports from a non-native speaker would not take substantially longer.
As stated above, most interviewees were of the opinion that language issues would preclude most
journalists from contributing directly to a host media organisation in another country. Since
participating journalists would engage continuously with host organisations (no matter the tasks
they would carry out), it was unquestionable in the minds of editors that speaking the language of
the host country would be advantageous. However, they did not agree as to whether such
language skil s should be necessary. Overall, editors‟ opinions fell into two groups according to
the size of the language they spoke. Editors from countries with relatively widely spoken
languages, such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, expected visiting journalists to
speak their national language (or in one case even the regional language) in order to profit from
the programme. Editors from smaller Member States, such as Sweden, Bulgaria, Slovakia and
Slovenia, admitted that it would be difficult to find participants able to speak their languages.
Instead, this group of editors considered it more important to ensure staff at their media
organisation shared a
lingua franca with participating journalists. In most cases, this would be
English, though French and German were also mentioned.
58
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
4.2.3.2 Tasks journalists are expected to carry out while participating
Hosting journalists
Editors were asked if, during the programme, journalists would be expected to work primarily for
the
host media organisation, or whether they should continue to file reports primarily for their
home media. In this area there was considerable disagreement among editors.
Editors did mostly agree about what visiting journalists
would not be able to do: namely they would
not work as a „normal‟ reporter for the host organisation. While some editors felt that visiting
journalists would be able to file a few reports for the host organisation, these would be limited to
special pieces directly related to journalists‟ status as a foreigner. These could consist of (as
explained above), for example, articles looking at national issues from the perspective of someone
from another Member State, articles demonstrating similarities or differences in national policy or
how a European policy affected both host and sending countries.
A considerable proportion of editors doubted whether visiting journalists would be able to carry out
any useful work for the hosting organisation at all. This was especially the case among editors
from large, publicly funded broadcasters. In the words of one editor, „One can‟t just show up
somewhere and apply his [journalistic] skil s the way a teacher or architect would‟. With his
reasoning, a journalist needs to be attuned to political and cultural sensitivities that simply could
not be gained over a short period of time. This group of interviewees felt that visiting journalists
would mostly observe the host organisation‟s activities and thereby gain new skil s. Given the size
and resources of their organisations, editors in this group did not feel it would be difficult to provide
visiting journalists with a „mentor‟ who could introduce him / her to their organisation. At the same
time, participants could continue working for the home organisation by filing stories remotely.
Another group of editors, mostly from the EU-12, remarked that their human and financial
resources were severely constrained. However, this common problem did not lead them to agree
on whether a visiting journalist would serve as an additional „set of eyes and hands‟, or a further
drain on already scarce resources. Thus a number of editors from this group claimed it would be
impossible to host a foreign journalist without native-level language skills, while others welcomed
the prospect of extra help from an experienced journalist in the office almost regardless of the
visitor‟s specific (language) skil s.
About half of editors, mostly from print media, took another approach. They admitted that, except
in rare cases, visiting journalists would not be able to file stories as a native journalist would. At
the same time, they would be able to contribute as journalists through helping with research and
performing other ad hoc tasks. In addition, they would be able to share their own knowledge and
skills. Insight into the home countries of visiting journalists was especially sought after in two
ways. Firstly, media outlets from small countries with few foreign correspondents would be able to
improve their coverage of other Member States with the help of the participant, whether he / she
came from a large or small country. Secondly, visiting journalists from small countries would be
able to provide host organisations with previously unavailable information, since even media
outlets from larger Member States do not have correspondents placed in such countries.
Sending journalists
Most editors asserted that if their journalists were to participate in the programme they would be
expected to continue working for their home organisations during their stay abroad, at least to a
limited extent. This would vary considerably according to the eventual length of the programme.
For a programme lasting up to several weeks (most editors would not accept longer absences
unless journalists took an unpaid sabbatical, see below), journalists could file a number of stories
59
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
relating to the host country. In some cases, and depending on the country in question, the
journalist could carry out research and interviews for a feature or longer reportage.
Editors from print media in particular did not feel it would be difficult for journalists to stay involved
with their home media while away. For broadcast media, however, this presented significant
challenges relating to footage. Editors explained that sharing footage between media outlets
would be difficult, while the scope for sending a camera crew to another Member State for a story
would be limited. Therefore, editors from broadcast media, to a much greater extent than their
colleagues in print, did not expect their journalists to work for home organisations while
participating in the programme.
4.2.3.3 Duration
In terms of an appropriate duration for the programme, editors divided themselves into essentially
two groups: those in favour of a short programme (up to six weeks) and those in favour of a long
programme (from two months up to one year).
About half of editors fell into each group, with no discernable link between preferences and media
type and / or Member State. However, editors‟ favoured length for the programme did influence
their expectations of it. Overall, those editors who favoured a longer programme felt that
participants should primarily focus on increasing their journalistic skills. For these editors the
selection of host media was of utmost importance: they would only agree to their journalists
spending more than a few weeks abroad if they got to experience and learn the ways of a more
„advanced‟ host media outlet, such as the BBC or
Süddeutsche Zeitung. The editors who favoured
a shorter programme (duration of no more than a few weeks) placed the emphasis on learning
about the host Member State (rather than the host media). In their view, spending time with the
host media would enable participants to gain insight into another country, build a network there
and produce stories for their home organisations.
It is also important to note that for editors favouring a shorter programme, stays abroad of several
months were not at all feasible. According to these interviewees, it would be unlikely for journalists
to retain their original employment conditions if they chose to spend a long period away from their
desks. Editors that expressed a preference for a long programme, however, mostly felt that
shorter stays could also be useful.
4.2.3.4 Guidance / mentoring
All editors interviewed agreed that some form of guidance or mentoring for visiting journalist would
be essential. This guidance would likely start with an introduction to the host organisation and its
journalists and would extend to helping the participant build contacts, arrange and conduct
interviews and, in some cases, assistance in proof reading and copy editing contributions made by
the participant.
Overall, editors from larger organisations did not view providing guidance / mentoring for
participants as an obstacle to the success of the programme. Publicly owned media outlets in
particular were generally prepared to donate staff time to mentoring, with one editor stating that „at
public media, providing guidance to a visiting journalist fits with our brief as a public service
60
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
broadcaster‟. The larger teams present in such organisations, sometimes amounting to hundreds
of journalists, also increased editors‟ confidence that „someone would always be able to help‟.
Smaller media took a less sanguine view. Due to human resource constraints, they would not
easily be able to contribute scarce time to managing a visiting journalist. For these editors in
particular, some form of reciprocity, whereby the programme would consist of a more direct
exchange between two organisations, would to some extent address this issue.
4.2.3.5 Reciprocity
Editors expressed a wide variety of opinions when asked whether there should be some link
between hosting organisations sending their own journalists to participate in the programme. Over
half of interviewees did not feel that sending a participant on the programme would be an added
incentive to their willingness to host a visiting journalist. While most editors in this group claimed
that they would allow their journalists to participate in the programme, in their opinion the activities
of hosting and sending journalists were both valid and worth pursuing without being connected to
each other.
Moreover, a considerable number of editors expressed the view that matching journalists for a
reciprocal exchange would act as a significant constraint. There were several reasons for this.
One editor explained that the media outlets likely to be interested in sending a journalist to his
organisation would not necessarily be attractive for journalists from his organisation to visit. In
other words, he felt that journalists would see the programme as an opportunity to spend some
time at a more advanced organisation (e.g. a journalist from a national newspaper from a small
country would spend some time at
The Guardian or
Le Monde). Aside from this consideration,
matching journalists might be difficult for reasons such as differing language skills and interests.
Other editors pointed to competition between media outlets in different Member States. While this
would not pose problems for individual journalists from competing media outlets applying for the
programme, some editors felt that a reciprocal exchange would pose problems at an organisation
level.
Although in the minority, a significant proportion of editors were strongly in favour of a reciprocal
exchange. However, nearly all of these interviewees stressed that this should not entail a
simultaneous exchange. Instead, the exchange should be staged, i.e. the participants should visit
each other‟s media organisations at different times. In this way, participants in the programme
would be able to offer each other the guidance and mentoring that editors described as „crucial‟.
Such an arrangement would also leave options open for collaborative work (e.g. jointly produced
stories) between participants.
4.2.4 Costs
All editors interviewed agreed that the Commission should take charge of travel and subsistence
costs for participants. However, it was also noted that in order to pay expenses at home (e.g.
apartment, car insurance) journalists would in many cases be dependent on a continued ability to
draw their usual salaries. Most editors viewed participation in the programme as a form of training
and expressed a willingness to contribute to its funding, albeit on a limited basis given financial
constraints and downward pressure on costs.
61
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Therefore, with some variation in opinion, most editors interviewed explained that they should be
able to continue to pay journalists during stays abroad of up to about one month if the journalists
kept filing stories for their home organisation (although for a small minority of editors from
particularly resource-constrained media outlets, the maximum acceptable length was only one or
two weeks). With rare exceptions, those editors who favoured a longer programme conceded that
it would not be possible to pay journalists a salary during their time abroad. Instead, this group of
editors would allow journalists to take an unpaid sabbatical if they were to spend several months
with a media outlet in another Member State. A couple of editors added that even regular
contributors to their media worked on freelance contracts and were paid according to output.
Therefore, their ability to draw a salary while abroad, no matter the length, would be based solely
on their ability to continue filing reports.
4.2.5 Conclusions
Editors expressed an overall openness to an ERASMUS-like programme for journalists. All
interviewees found the idea both interesting and potentially useful, and with rare exceptions would
consider hosting journalists at their organisations as well as allowing their journalists to take part.
In terms of the programme objectives, editors felt, to varying degrees, it could increase journalists‟
skills and help them learn about other Member States. It is notable that editors did not express a
great interest in a programme seeking to improve knowledge and understand about the EU, both
because they consider ample opportunities for EU training already exist and because work with
another media outlet would not necessarily contribute to such an aim.
4.2.5.1 Favoured parameters
Editors did not have a clear set of favoured parameters to which they felt an ERASMUS-like
programme for journalists should adhere, but some conclusions can be drawn from the findings.
Though editors expressed preferences for a range of different lengths for the programme, they
also revealed that, in most cases, it would not be possible for journalists to keep receiving their
salaries during stays abroad of more than about four to six weeks. In addition, most editors
preferring a short (i.e. several weeks) programme were inflexible on this point, while many of
those favouring a long programme (i.e. several months) were also open to quicker options. Thus,
it can be said that overall editors found a shorter programme more feasible once all factors were
taken into account.
Similarly, while a significant proportion (but not a majority) of interviewees considered a reciprocal
exchange optimal, most editors felt that as a requirement this would impose severe limitations on
the programme. A flexible programme that encouraged but did not require reciprocal exchanges
would therefore suit the vast majority of editors interviewed.
Editors‟ opinions widely varied as to whether participating journalists should work primarily for host
or sending organisations. However, in order for journalists to remain in continuous employment
while participating in the programme, editors maintained that they would need at the least to carry
out some work for the sending organisation.
62
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
4.2.5.2 Challenges and solutions
The main challenges highlighted by the editors interviewed related to language, time and costs.
Interviewees consistently mentioned language issues as a limitation to the ability of visiting
journalists to contribute meaningfully to host organisations. While some editors at print media
outlets asserted that for a small number of contributions extensive proofreading and / or
translation could be carried out, it was clear that nearly all journalists would be prevented from
working as a local journalist during the programme (other factors, such as a lack of local political
knowledge, added to this challenge). To ensure visiting journalists did contribute to host media, a
number of editors suggested that, as part of a relatively short programme, a small number of
journalistic reports, reflecting the participant‟s unique outside perspective, could be translated.
Time (in terms of human resources) to acquaint the participant with the host media and journalistic
landscape was also mentioned as a concern, especially for larger media. For some editors, the
best way to address this challenge involved reciprocal (but not simultaneous) exchanges. In this
model, a pair of journalists would spend time first at one of their organisations, then the other‟s.
Each journalist would act as a mentor when at his / her own media outlet.
According to editors, some media organisations would not be able to pay a salary to participants
while they spend time away from their desks. However, the majority of editors asserted that it
would be feasible to continue paying salaries provided journalists were able to contribute to their
normal employer and the programme was kept to a maximum of about six weeks (though for
some organisations this would be shorter).
4.3 Stakeholder workshop
On 1 December 2010, after the fieldwork and initial analysis had been finalised, a stakeholder
workshop with interested organisations and individuals was held in Brussels. The purpose of the
workshop was to present, discuss and seek input and feedback on the draft results of the
feasibility study, including a preliminary version of the proposed implementation scheme for the
test phase as described in the following section of this report. The workshop was well attended,
with participants representing journalism associations, EU media, universities and journalism
schools, as well as individual journalists (both freelance and permanently employed) from a range
of EU Member States.
Overall, the results of the study and the suggested implementation scheme were very well
received, with reactions reflecting strong support for the basic principle and objectives of the
programme. A number of key issues were debated, in particular the main challenges and
envisaged benefits of the programme, eligibility criteria for participants, the appropriate level and
recipients of programme funding, the duration of visits, and the process of selecting participants.
The issues raised during the workshop provided both confirmation of the appropriateness of the
preliminary study findings and implementation scheme presented, as well as food for thought for
fine-tuning the parameters of the test phase. All feedback provided was considered carefully.
Where this was deemed beneficial and appropriate, the proposed implementation scheme was
revised and adapted in light of the comments from stakeholders.
Further details on the stakeholder workshop, the issues that were discussed and the way in which
the discussions fed into the final results of this study can be found in annex A4 to this report.
63
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME FOR THE PREPARATORY ACTION
This chapter of the report presents the proposals for an implementation scheme for the test phase
of the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”. This takes into account and builds on the
information and analysis presented in the previous sections of this report, namely the analysis of
the programme‟s intervention logic and the feedback from journalists and editors.
5.1 General considerations
The fieldwork has confirmed that, notwithstanding the challenges and risks that will need to be
overcome, there is a considerable level of interest in an “ERASMUS for journalists” programme
from both journalists and potential host organisations. This corroborates the conclusion that the
programme is feasible.
Before proceeding to the discussion of the proposed implementation scheme for the test phase, it
is worth recal ing the wider context of the “ERASMUS for journalists” initiative, in particular the
intervention logic developed in section 3 of this report. The diagram below shows the different
elements of the intervention logic as defined previously.
Figure 8: “ERASMUS for journalists” programme intervention logic
General
Contribute to the
Contribute to media
objectives
creation of a European
pluralism in Europe
(outcomes)
media sphere
Specific
Further journalists‟
Enhance journalists‟
Further journalists‟
objectives
understanding of
professional skills and
understanding of the EU
(results)
other MS
abilities
Operational
Facilitate exchanges or other forms of mobility for journalists
objectives
from different countries and media within the EU
(outputs)
Selection of participants /
Information and
Financial management
host organisations
communication
Activities
Support of participants /
Development of common
Monitoring and
host organisations
elements / guidelines
evaluation
Financial resources
Human resources
Other resources
Inputs
64
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
The analysis concluded inter alia that the different general and specific objectives are achievable
and complementary to some extent, but that the degree to which each of them would be achieved
depends on the way the programme is designed and implemented. Therefore, it is important to
prioritise the objectives, in order to ensure the proposed programme is based on realistic
assumptions and has a specific value proposition and a unique selling point that are as clear as
possible. To reiterate, the priority objectives as derived from the intervention logic analysis can be
summed up as follows:34
General objectives:
o The programme‟s main desired ultimate outcome is to contribute to the creation of
a European media sphere (i.e. enhanced coverage of trans-national and European
affairs in the national media).
o By doing so, the programme should also contribute to media pluralism in the EU
(i.e. provide citizens with access to a variety of opinions, voices etc.).
Specific objectives:
o The programme‟s main desired intermediate result is to further journalists‟
understanding of other Member States, their media and cultures.
o In addition, to the extent possible the programme should also further journalists‟
understanding of the EU (in the more institutional sense), and enhance their
journalistic skills and abilities (through peer learning).
The fieldwork has confirmed this prioritisation (in particular as regards the specific objectives) is
broadly in line with the needs and interests of journalists. It is therefore maintained for the ensuing
analysis, i.e. the proposed implementation scheme focuses on enabling the programme to
achieve primarily the specific objective of furthering journalists‟ understanding of other Member
States and their media.
The following sections of this report discuss the lower levels of the intervention logic as shown
above, namely the desired outputs or types of exchanges or other forms of mobility that the
programme should facilitate (section 5.2), the main activities related to programme management
and implementation that will be required (section 5.3), and the required financial and other inputs
(section 5.4). Finally, the key risks and possible mitigation strategies are analysed (section 5.5).
The box overleaf summarises the key elements that are discussed in more detail in the following
sections, and thus provides a quick overview of the optimal implementation scheme.
34 For more details on these objectives, how they are interpreted, and the reasons for the proposed
weighting, please refer to sections 3.2.1, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
65
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Table 3: Summary of key elements of the proposed preparatory action
Key element
For details see section:
The project is to facilitate visits of journalists to media outlets in another
Member State.
5.2.1
The project actively encourages, but does not require reciprocity (i.e. two-
way exchanges, staged or simultaneous, between media outlets).
Duration of visits: between two and six weeks
5.2.2
The content and objectives of visits should be kept flexible to cater to the
5.2.3
differing needs and interests of journalists and hosts.
Both journalists who are staff members of media outlets and freelancers
with a minimum of two years of experience are eligible to participate.
5.2.4
Whether proficiency in the language of the host organisation is necessary
depends on the requirements of the host.
An intermediary organisation will manage the programme, review
applications, disburse funds, and undertake information and
5.3.1
communication activities.
Journalists who apply for funding need to already have the agreement of
a specific media organisation to host them.
Objectives and tasks during the visit have to be agreed in advance
between the journalist and the host organisation.
5.3.2
During the test phase, funding in the form of an advance payment will be
provided to all eligible applications on a first come, first served basis.
Applications can be submitted and will be reviewed on a quarterly basis.
The programme will cover journalists‟ travel and subsistence expenses
(average of approx. EUR 2,300 for four weeks, depending on the cost of
5.3.3
living in the host Member State).
Effective dissemination of information and awareness-raising to potential
5.3.4
participants and hosts will be key during project start-up.
For the evaluation of the test phase, feedback will be requested from
5.3.5
journalists and host organisations through questionnaires.
The expected budget for the first year of the test phase of EUR 600,000
5.4
million will enable approx. 180 visits.
Key risks include a geographical imbalance and excessive bureaucracy.
5.5
66
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
5.2 Key parameters of the exchange visits
5.2.1 Types of visits
The study team defined five different types of exchanges or other forms of mobility that an
“ERASMUS for journalists” programme could potentially facilitate. The level of interest from
journalists in each “prototype”, as well as their specific pros and cons, were discussed during the
focus groups (see section 4.1 of this report). Based on the feedback received and the ensuing
analysis, the test phase (and presumably the eventual full programme, unless the results of the
test phase suggest otherwise) should offer journalists the opportunity to participate in visits
accommodating elements of three of the prototypes; the other two are judged as not appropriate
within the context of this initiative. The table below provides a brief description of each type.
Table 4: Key approaches: exchanges or other forms of mobility
Programme
Brief description
Recommended
prototype
for test phase
1.
“Exchange”
In a direct one-on-one exchange, two journalists from different EU
Member States and media would swap their work-places for a
limited period of time. During the exchange, journalists could
Yes
potentially file reports both for their host organisation and their home
organisation.
2.
“Mobility”
Journalists would be placed with a host organisation (media outlet)
in a different Member State, but there is no direct reciprocity, i.e. it is
not a necessary pre-condition that a journalist from the host media
Yes
spends time at the visiting journalists‟ organisation, or at any foreign
media.
3.
“Twinning”
The programme would facilitate twinning or pairing two journalists
from two different news organisations in two different countries.
Basically, each member of the pair would in turn spend some time
Yes
working alongside the other in his or her country. The pairings would
be based on a common interest (e.g. in a common story).
4.
“Co-operation” The idea is similar to that of “twinning”, but would support groups
rather than pairs of journalists. Such a programme could inspire
and support editorial projects run by groups of journalists with an
No
interest in covering topics relevant for several EU MS. Each
member would investigate the situation in their own country, and
share the results of their research within the group.
5.
“Seminars”
Seminars or workshops held in Brussels or other relevant European
locations could bring together journalists from across different EU
Member States to learn about specific topics, visit relevant locations
No
or institutions, and meet interesting interlocutors. Such seminars
could be combined with any of the other models to enhance the
value-added.
Taking the different types of visits in turn, the main reasons for the selection are:
“Mobility”: This approach, which is similar to the existing ERASMUS programme for
university students, was one of the favoured scenarios of focus group participants in all
67
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
countries. Key factors that make it attractive are its flexibility and openness to a wide range
of journalists, including freelancers.
“Exchange” / “Twinning”: The key difference between these approaches and “Mobility” is
the idea of reciprocity, i.e. that two media would actually swap their staff for a limited
period of time. This two-way exchange was found a very interesting and potentially
beneficial idea by most focus group participants as well as editors. Most tended to favour
the idea of a staged “Twinning” over the simultaneous “Exchange”, as the former would
allow the participating journalists to provide orientation and act as mentors for each other
during their respective visits. But the need for reciprocity was also seen as restrictive and
limiting in scope, since it would only allow a journalist to visit another media organisation if
an appropriate counterpart can be found.
“Co-operation”: Although a significant number of focus group participants expressed an
interest in this approach, it was seen as pursuing very different objectives from an
exchange or mobility programme. While it could lead to interesting stories, the level of
learning about other MS and in particular their media would be minimal. In addition, there
are a number of practical obstacles to the successful implementation of this approach,
inter alia the need to find and pre-define common topics, the difficulty of effectively
identifying suitable participants and managing co-operation between larger groups, and
many journalists‟ reluctance to share content and sources. Such co-operation sometimes
emerges naturally when there is a common interest and sufficient trust; an EU programme
would be unlikely to have a significant impact.
“Seminars”: While there is an interest in seminars on EU-related topics, the existing offer,
which includes EJC seminars and other opportunities for journalists to visit Brussels and/or
the European institutions, is deemed sufficient. Although there could be an added value
from specific seminars as an induction or follow-up to visits to other media (mainly
because they could add an EU dimension to the visits between Member States, and
facilitate networking and exchange of knowledge and experiences on a larger scale), these
are outweighed by the numerous practical difficulties (including the issue of timing and
location, and the challenge of finding topics that are of interest to the very diverse range of
journalists that would participate in visits).
Thus, the test phase should be flexible enough to encompass the “Mobility”, “Exchange” and
“Twinning” types of visits. Given that all three approaches are closely related, this should not pose
major conceptual or logistical difficulties. The basic approach would be “Mobility”, allowing
participating journalists to spend time at a media organisation in another EU MS. The programme
should also facilitate “Exchange” and “Twinning” visits, but the element of reciprocity should not be
a necessary pre-condition for participation. In other words, if pairs of journalists with an interest as
well as the appropriate profile (including levels of experience, areas of expertise and language
skills) to enable a two-way exchange (be it simultaneous or staged) can be found, then this is the
ideal case and should be enabled and actively encouraged. But this does not preclude individual
journalists from obtaining funding for visits to media organisations that are willing to host them, but
cannot or do not wish to send one of their staff abroad in return.
5.2.2 Duration of visits
The optimal duration of visits / exchanges was discussed extensively in all focus groups and in the
interviews with editors, as well as during the stakeholder workshop. Opinions varied widely: many
68
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
journalists (in particular younger journalists) favoured a duration of at least two to three months (if
not longer), often making reference to the ERASMUS programme for university students and
alleging that a relatively long period of time would be necessary to fully acclimatise, integrate and
fully benefit from the learning experience. However, many other journalists (in particular more
experienced ones) held the view that such a long duration would be incompatible with the
professional situation of most journalists, and that a significant learning effect could be achieved
during a visit of no more than a few weeks. Editors generally agreed that most media would find it
very difficult to let a member of their staff leave for several months, and also tended to favour a
duration of one month at the most.
Obviously, the duration of visits is also linked with the tasks to be performed by journalists during
their time abroad (see below), as well as with the available funding. But generally speaking, it
seems clear that visits and exchanges with a duration of more than one month would be very
difficult for most working journalists to reconcile with their professional (and sometimes personal)
life, and would also encounter significant resistance from most editors, few of whom would be
willing to allow their staff to participate in such a programme.
On the other hand, visits that are very brief (e.g. one week) would also run into a series of
problems. There is a strong argument that one week is indeed too short to allow visitors to gain a
sufficiently in-depth insight into the work of the hosting organisation and country. Many potential
participants and host organisations would be reluctant to make the inevitable investment in time
for applying to a programme with such a short duration. At the same time, there is a risk that the
programme would be used only to fund visits to other countries to cover a very specific event or
story for the home media, without making much use of the possibilities offered by immersion in a
host organisation.
Therefore, it is recommended that the duration of visits be set at between two and six weeks.
Based on the feedback from journalists and editors, this period of time represents an appropriate
balance between desirability (allowing for real learning and the potential to have direct and indirect
impacts35) and feasibility (in terms of compatibility with the economic and other realities of the
journalistic profession). It is expected that most applications would be for visits lasting
approximately one month, but defining a range of between two and six weeks provides an element
of flexibility to include different personal and professional circumstances, interests, and journalistic
projects. This duration is similar to that of several existing journalist exchange programmes,36
suggesting that it is in line with common practice.
This is not to say that there could not be a significant level of interest in longer visits. In fact,
several participants in the stakeholder workshop felt the duration of visits should be more flexible.
However, keeping the duration of visits relatively short not only reduces the cost (and thus offers
more journalists the opportunity to benefit from funding during the test phase), but also makes it
clear that the focus is on working visits seeking to achieve a specific journalistic objective, rather
than on more general cultural learning. A maximum duration of six weeks is consistent with this
focus. Nonetheless, if the experience of the test phase were to show a high level of interest in
(and significant additional benefits from) longer visits, it could be considered in the future whether
the maximum duration of visits should be extended to eight or ten weeks.
35 Direct impacts could include concrete journalistic pieces produced and published during or immediately
after the visits. Indirect (longer-term) impacts could include more and better coverage of the visited MS as a
result of knowledge gathered and networks created during the visit. It should be noted that this effect could
work in both directions, i.e. the contact with the visiting journalist could also enhance the coverage of this
journalists‟ country in the hosting media.
36 Including the International Journalism Exchange, the German project “Nahaufnahme”, and the EJC-
sponsored visits of EU journalists to Japan and Korea.
69
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
5.2.3 Journalistic tasks and themes
Another key question is: what are journalists expected to do during their visit abroad? Should they
work primarily for the host organisation or for their own home organisation? And should the visit
be arranged with a specific topic and/or journalistic output in mind (and if so, should this be
directly or at least indirectly related to EU policies or institutions?), or can it be left flexible, leaving
it for journalists and hosts to decide how to spend their time once they have made contact? These
questions attracted much debate during the fieldwork, and no consensus emerged among
journalists or editors. However, one key message that came through very clearly is that, in order
to accommodate a wide range of situations, circumstances and expectations, the programme
should provide a maximum amount of flexibility for journalists and host organisations to define and
agree the exact objectives, content and tasks to be carried out during the visit between
themselves.
Regarding which organisation journalists should work for, the main arguments in favour of
continuing to file articles primarily for the home organisation even during the stay abroad are that it
would ease the burden on the sending organisation (since it would not completely lose a member
of staff), and that it is obviously much easier for journalists to work in their own language.
However, in many situations or environments it seems unlikely that there would be demand for a
steady stream of articles about the visited country in the journalist‟s home media over a period of
several weeks. Perhaps more importantly, the integration in and learning from the host media
would obviously be enhanced if the visiting journalist were actually working for the host
organisation. It is also likely that media organisations would be much more willing to invest time
and effort into hosting a foreign journalist and providing proper mentoring if that journalist is
expected to make a contribution to their media.
Therefore, the basic premise should be that, unless both sides agree otherwise, visiting journalists
will work primarily for host organisations during their visit and be at their disposal for the duration
of his or her stay. Given the language constraints that most participants will face, the visitors‟
contribution to the host media will not necessarily take the form of a large number of articles or
other journalistic pieces. Nonetheless, there are numerous other ways in which visitors could add
value, including research and investigation, attending events or press conferences, shadowing /
supporting colleagues and sharing their own knowledge and expertise, producing specific
journalistic pieces or parts thereof (even if these need to be edited by a native speaker), etc. The
relatively short duration of the visits (see above) means that their regular employers should be
able to cope with the journalists‟ absence. At the same time, the fact that they are expected to
work primarily for the host organisations does not preclude journalists from filing occasional
articles with their home organisation, and/or from collecting information that can be turned into a
journalistic output after they return to their posts.
Another question is whether the content of the visit, i.e. a particular topic that will be the focus of
the visiting journalist‟s work (be it a specific story or a specific journalistic or editorial technique or
skill), should be defined in advance. On the one hand, what was stated in the analysis of
uncertainties, constraints and critical conditions in section 3 of this report remains true: the level of
interest from many journalists, sending organisations and host organisations will be higher if there
is a concrete journalistic interest to be catered to or project to be implemented. At the same time,
the fieldwork has also revealed that this is not necessarily true for all journalists and media, and
that, depending on the individual, country and media in question, a visit that is meant to establish
networks and learn “whatever there is to learn” can also be seen as valuable and interesting
(particularly in the case of countries and media that are perceived as more advanced). There was
70
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
also a fairly widespread feeling among journalists that by being too restrictive and trying to define
topics in advance, one might stifle spontaneous and open mutual learning and exchange of
knowledge. It was also noted in the fieldwork that editors would be unlikely to agree to publish or
air a story on a given topic long in advance.
It therefore seems most appropriate to leave it to visiting journalists and their respective host
organisations to define and agree the main objectives of the visit in advance. This could be the
production of a concrete journalistic piece, learning about a specific skill, process or editorial
technique, acquire knowledge about a specific topic (which may or may not be directly related to
EU policies or institutions), or more generally to facilitate mutual learning between the visitor and
the host. These objectives should be specified in the joint application for funding (see section 5.3
below for more details on the application and matching process). The main tasks and activities the
visiting journalist is expected to carry out in order to achieve these objectives should also be
listed. However, applicants should have the freedom to define the objectives and tasks freely and
in accordance with their specific needs. Because needs, interests and skills vary significantly
between journalists with different backgrounds, and working for different media in different
countries, it would not be realistic to pre-define concrete objectives, themes or tasks centrally.
5.2.4 Eligibility criteria
In principle, it seems clear that the programme should be open to all journalists. However, defining
who is and who is not a “journalist” is less clear-cut than one might imagine. As noted in a recent
report by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), in different countries there is a “wide
variety of systems and traditions relating to the definition of journalism”. Some countries rely on
accreditation, others on membership in a professional governing body or a union. Given that these
criteria vary from Member State to Member State, accreditation or membership of a professional
association or union is not a useful eligibility criterion for an ERASMUS for journalists programme.
Instead, a more open and flexible definition that can be applied across countries is required. In its
report, the IFJ emphasises the importance of five factors, namely (1) regular and professional
activity, (2) ethical commitment, (3) ethical exercise, (4) skill, and (5) membership of a
formal or
informal professional community. For the purpose of the programme, the first and last of these
criteria are particularly relevant; the others can be assumed to be fulfilled if the journalist works
regularly and professionally for a recognised news media outlet. Regarding the fifth factor, the IFJ
emphasises that this criterion is fulfil ed “when there is a formal (staff) or informal (freelancers) link
to a professional community such as a media newsroom.”37 Thus, for the purpose of the test
phase, a journalist is defined as follows:
''One whose occupation is to write (or in the case of broadcast media, otherwise
report) for any public or private news media (newspapers, magazines, radio,
television, or internet) based in a Member State of the EU; also, an editorial or other
professional writer for a periodical.''
This definition includes freelancers; the only difference is the fact that they work independently
and often for several media. The fieldwork has highlighted the need to make the programme open
to freelance journalists, who in many countries make up a significant (and growing) segment of the
workforce. In order not to exclude this large target population, it is crucial that the programme
37 IFJ: Journalism Unions in Touch with the Future, Brussels 2010, pp. 23-27. Available at:
http://congress.ifj.org/assets/docs/131/026/f757f83-48b2e1a.pdf
71
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
does not require all participants to have a
formal relationship with a single employer. In order to
prove their eligibility, applicants would have to provide a CV and a letter from the editor of (one of)
the news media they work for.
On the other hand, a pure blogger has neither a
formal nor an
informal link to a professional
journalistic community, and therefore should not be considered a journalist. Unlike journalists who
work for a media outlet, bloggers are not required to agree to a code of ethics and carefully check
their sources, and as a result, the information on blogs can sometimes be incomplete and
unreliable.
Unemployed journalists would not be eligible, unless they continue to produce published
journalistic content at least sporadically (and can provide a letter from an editor testifying this and
endorsing the visit). Although some participants in the stakeholder workshop pointed out that
journalists who are out of work could benefit greatly from the experience they would gain during a
visit to a news media abroad, there is a risk that their inclusion would detract from the
programme‟s focus on working visits (rather than training or study visits), and could weaken the
appeal of the programme for host organisations. Thus, journalists who are completely out of work
are ineligible, while those who may have lost their full-time job, but continue to be active to some
extent should generally be able to meet the eligibility criteria.
There are a few other factors that need to be taken into account when deciding who is eligible to
participate in the programme:
Age: While the programme would appeal primarily to younger journalists, an age restriction
therefore appears unnecessary, given that there is no reason why older journalists should
not be able to benefit from a visit to a media in another Member State. In any case, anti-
discrimination laws would make it very difficult to exclude older potential participants.
Experience: There is a strong case to require participants to have a certain minimum level
of previous work experience. The programme should not be seen as another internship
programme, but cater to journalists who are experienced enough to fully understand and
subsequently make use of what they learn, experience and observe during their stay
abroad. They should be in a position to use and apply this after they return home, leading
to an impact in terms of publishing journalistic pieces. At the same time, the skills,
experience and networks of visiting journalists, and their ability to share these, are also an
important incentive for host organisations. Therefore, a minimum of two years of
journalistic work experience (or the equivalent thereof) is required. This does not have to
be continuous or full-time work, but applicants‟ CVs should show that during their
professional career (i.e. since obtaining their first university degree or similar), they have
exercised and earned at least part of their income as journalists during a period or periods
of time totalling at least two years.
Language: The interviews with editors show that most host organisations will require
visiting journalists to have at least an intermediate level of proficiency in the language of
the country in question, so that they are able to follow and participate in day-to-day
activities, meetings, events etc. However, there may also be instances where media are
willing to host journalists who do not speak the language (especially in the case of media
in small countries where English or another major language is widely spoken). There is no
reason to exclude such visits, but the previous agreement of the host organisation is
crucial. Language skills should therefore not feature among the eligibility criteria, but the
guidance for both journalists and hosts should make it clear that this issue should be
considered carefully in their planning the visit.
72
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
As for the eligibility criteria for host organisations, this could be identical to the relevant part of the
definition above, namely “any public or private news media (newspapers, magazines, radio,
television, or internet) based in a Member State of the EU.” (Or did we lose a piece of text here
that was supposed to be included?)
5.3 Project management
As depicted in the intervention logic, there are a number of activities that will have to be carried
out to manage the project. This section is dedicated to outlining the proposed key activities,
mechanisms and processes to enable the test phase of the preparatory action to effectively and
efficiently facilitate the types of visits described above.
5.3.1 Role of the intermediary organisation
The test phase could either be run by the European Commission itself, or by one or more
intermediary organisations. Each of these approaches would have specific advantages and
disadvantages, as outlined in the boxes below.
Figure 9: Approaches to project management
Option 1: Direct management by the European Commission
The European Commission (most likely DG INFSO) manages all aspects of the test phase, including the
selection of participants and disbursement of funding.
Pros:
Direct control for the Commission over all aspects related to the project
Minimises the budgetary cost of outsourcing project management
Cons:
Direct management by the Commission could be seen to impinge on the journalistic independence
of the programme and its participants
Unclear whether the Commission by itself is best placed to undertake effective promotion of the
project
Unclear if and under what circumstances Financial Regulations allow for direct Commission grants
to individuals
Option 2: One intermediary organisation
The European Commission appoints a single contractor to act as intermediary organisation (IO) for the test
phase. The IO is responsible for all direct contact with project participants and beneficiaries; it disseminates
information, invites and reviews applications, disburses funding, and undertakes all other tasks required to
ensure the project objectives are met.
Pros:
IO‟s knowledge of and contacts within the journalism sector (and/or other exchange programmes)
would facilitate project implementation and promotion
Hands-off approach by the Commission guarantees journalistic independence
Reduced workload for the Commission
73
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Cons:
Financial cost of outsourcing project management
Single IO may not be able to cover all of Europe equally well
Option 3: Several intermediary organisations
The European Commission appoints several organisations to act as intermediary organisations (IOs) for the
test phase. Ideally, there will be one IO per Member State. Each of these will be responsible for interacting
with participants and managing aspects related to outgoing and incoming visits to/from their respective
Member States. One IO would have to play a co-ordinating role and be responsible for managing the
relationship with and reporting to the Commission.
Pros:
Wide network of relevant contacts through IOs in each Member State
Presence in each Member State ensures knowledge of local legal and other relevant aspects
Enables communication with (potential) applicants in all EU languages
Cons:
Large number of actors would make processes and co-ordination unwieldy and potentially more
costly, particularly in view of the envisaged limited duration and budget of the test phase
Unclear whether appropriate, politically neutral journalist organisations exist in each Member State
Given the nature and scope of the project, and the balance of the pros and cons outlined above, it
seems most appropriate for the Commission to select a single intermediary organisation to
centrally run the test phase. The key tasks of this organisation will be to:
Invite, review and select applications to participate in the preparatory action;
Disburse funding to individual participants, monitor overall spending levels, prepare
financial reports for the Commission, and other tasks linked with financial execution and
management;
Disseminate information about the programme among the relevant target audiences,
including (but not limited to) a project website and promotional material aimed at editors
and journalists;
Develop (in collaboration with the Commission) project manuals, guidelines, application
forms, templates for follow-up, and other relevant materials;
Any other tasks directly related to project management, information and communication,
liaison with the Commission and stakeholders, data collection for evaluation and
monitoring, etc.
The intermediary organisation should be selected through a Call for Tender or Call for Proposals
(the exact legal and administrative implications of these two options in accordance with the
relevant financial regulation will need to be analysed). Key criteria that the successful organisation
should meet include:
In-depth knowledge of the journalism sector and good network of contacts among
European media organisations;
Proven ability to administer exchange and/or scholarship programmes;
Organisational, operational and financial independence from the media corporations,
national governments and the EU.
74
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Some of the main tasks of the intermediary organisation and how they could be organised are
discussed in the following sections. A manual describing the prerequisites, role and tasks of the
intermediary organisation in more concrete terms is included as annex B1 to this report.
5.3.2 Application and selection process
There are two main ways in which the application and selection process of programme
participants and host organisations, and the matching of journalists to host media, could
potentially be organised.
Figure 10: Approaches to application
Option 1: Centralised approach
Journalists apply to the programme in general. The intermediary organisation selects the best candidates,
and is charged with finding a placement for them with an appropriate host organisation.
Pros:
Greater control over recruitment of host media
Potential for effective matching of host media with participating journalists
Cons:
Very difficult for any intermediary organisation to have access to information on a sufficiently wide
range of potential host organisations from across the EU
Process would be very resource-intensive and time-consuming for a relatively large-scale
programme
Option 2: De-centralised approach
Journalists apply for funding for a visit to a specific host organisation that they have identified (and reached
agreement with) themselves. The intermediary organisation reviews applications, and awards funding if
certain criteria are met.
Pros:
Greater control for both participating journalists to select host media that meet their needs and
interests (and vice versa)
Greater flexibility with a view to the timing of the visits
Much less resource-intensive for the intermediary organisation
Cons:
Relies heavily on the initiative of interested journalists
Risk that certain well-known / prestigious media outlets will be over-subscribed
The preferred approach for the ERASMUS for journalists programme is the de-centralised
approach. The fieldwork has shown how important it is for both journalists and potential host
organisations that the matching reflects their specific needs and interests (including language
considerations and topics of interest). It therefore seems much more appropriate for journalists to
identify potential hosts themselves, and for those media to have a direct say in who they would
like to host. Timing is another key issue: those existing programmes that centrally match
journalists to host media generally do so only once or a few times a year, whereas the ideal
situation for the initiative discussed in this report would be to keep the timing flexible, and allow
75
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
visitors and hosts to agree on the point in time that suits them best for the visit. Finally, for a
programme intent on facilitating hundreds of visits per year, the centralised approach (which
works well for smaller-scale programmes focused on only one or a few countries) would be too
resource-intensive and time-consuming to implement.
Figure 11: Proposed application process: De-centralised approach
Contact
Journalist
between
submits
journalist
IO reviews
application
Project
and potential
applications
for funding;
database
host to
and awards
agreement
establish
funds
of host
objectives
required
and tasks
The diagram above depicts the main steps in the de-centralised application process. Further
details on each step are provided below:
A project database of potentially interested host organisations should be set up, allowing
potential applicants to search for appropriate placements. However, it should be noted that
in the early stages of the project, the database will be unlikely to contain very many
entries; it will only gradually be populated as more media organisations become aware of
the programme and express an interest in participating. Initially, the programme will rely
heavily on journalists‟ own initiative to contact media that they are interested in visiting; the
database will only gradually develop into a widely used tool as the programme gains
traction.
Journalists who are interested in participating contact the media they would like to visit
(whether they are contained in the database or not) to discuss directly whether they would
be willing to host them. At this point, editors should also be made aware (or reminded) of
the possibility to arrange a reciprocal exchange (or “twinning”), inter alia through
communication material aimed specifically at potential host organisations. If there is a
mutual interest, the journalist drafts a short summary of the objectives of the visit and the
tasks to be performed and sends this to the editor of the host organisation, who may
propose changes or additions as he or she sees fit.
If both sides agree, the journalist submits an application for funding to the intermediary
organisation (for draft forms and templates see annex B3). The application should be
accompanied by:
o A completed template specifying the duration and objectives of the visit, and listing
the main tasks to be undertaken by the journalist during the visit. This form has to
be signed by both the applicant and the host organisation. It includes a declaration
76
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
committing both sides to a number of basic principles. Some of these commitments
are of a practical nature (such as to obtain adequate insurance cover, or to submit
the required evidence and documentation following the visit), while others relate
more to professional conduct and the commitment to the objectives of the visit.
o The applicant‟s CV.
o A letter from his or her editor confirming that the journalist works for his or her
media (be it as a member of staff or a freelancer), and expressing support for the
visit.
Within the de-centralised approach to application, there are two main ways in which the selection
of applicants could be handled: either through a competitive selection process, or on a first come,
first served basis. The main advantages and disadvantages of both approaches are outlined in the
box below.
Figure 12: Approaches to candidate selection
Option 1: Competitive selection
The intermediary organisation reviews the applications and checks whether the formal requirements are met
(see below). All those applications that pass this hurdle are submitted to a selection committee, which
compares the relative worth and merit of applications and awards funding to the best ones. The selection
committee could consist of three to seven media experts who are appointed for a term of one to two years.
These experts should come from different Member States, and represent a mix of academia (e.g.
professors from renowned journalism schools) and representatives of journalists as well as media
organisations and/or publishers. The initial appointments would have to be made by the Commission and/or
the intermediary organisation; once set up, the committee itself could play a role in selecting replacements
for outgoing members. The selection committee could be assisted by a key staff member of the intermediary
organisation and a Commission official (in an advisory capacity, without vote).
The committee would score the relative merit of applications, using a pre-defined set of award criteria.
These criteria should refer primarily to the concrete objectives of and tasks to be carried out during the visit.
The selection committee should consider (1) whether these objectives and tasks have been defined in the
application with the required degree of specificity; (2) the extent to which the objectives of the visit are in line
with the programme‟s objectives (in particular whether the applicant is interested in learning about and
eventually reporting on the host country or specific aspects related to it, as opposed to “only” enhancing his
or her own journalistic skills); and (3) the general credibility of the application, objectives and tasks, taking
into account the applicant‟s CV and the profile of the proposed host organisation.
The level of experience of applicants and the strength of their CVs should not be a factor in the decision
making process (as long as the basic requirements are met). Less experienced journalists who have not
had much previous international exposure are as much part of the target group as senior editors.
Pros:
Ensures that individual visits are in line with the programme objectives
Greater control over the allocation of funding
Cons:
Depending on the number of applications received, the selection process could be resource-
intensive and time-consuming
Ensuring the transparency and fairness of the selection process could be a challenge
77
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Option 2: First come, first served
The intermediary organisation reviews the applications and checks only whether the formal requirements
are met. These are: correctly completed application form (including specification of the objectives and tasks
to be carried out during the visit); proof that the applicant has the necessary level of experience; a letter of
endorsement from the editor of a recognised media outlet based in an EU Member State (home media); and
agreement of the editor of a recognised media outlet in another EU Member State (host media).
Eligible applicants are awarded funding on a first come, first served basis. In order to make the process
traceable and transparent, applicants need to receive confirmation when submitting their application,
including the exact date and time it was received, and an application number. This would require an
electronic submission system that automatically sends such a confirmation. A list with the numbers (but not
the names, due to potential data protection concerns) of successful applications will have to be published.
Applicants that are rejected because they do not meet the formal requirements will also need to be informed
of the grounds for the decision.
Pros:
Simple process that does not require a decision based on criteria that could be perceived as
subjective
Less time and resource intensive process will lead to faster decisions and award of funding
Cons:
Little control over whether applications are in line with the programme‟s objectives
Could lead to higher quality applications not receiving funding if they are received late
Given the exploratory nature of the preparatory action (during which it will be important to
experiment with different candidate profiles and types of visits, even if at first sight they may not
seem to be 100% consistent with the pre-defined objectives), the limited financial envelope and
duration of the test phase, and the importance of a streamlined process that minimises
administrative burdens and is able to reach decisions quickly, it is proposed that funding is
awarded on a first-come, first-served basis (rather than competitively). All applications that are
deemed eligible should receive funding, until the amount initially allocated for the test phase is
used up.
Based on the experience during the test phase, the approach could be re-considered for a
possible full-scale programme in the future. At that point, it could also be considered to set aside
quota for specific target groups to ensure the programme reaches the desired balance. As such,
preference could be afforded to applicants from or wanting to visit certain media types (e.g. local
or regional publications; radio or internet media); specific Member States that are otherwise
under-represented; or specific gender or age groups. A further option would be to build factors into
the selection process to favour certain types of visits. For example, it is clear that certain Member
States (often neighbours) have a far greater presence in other Member States‟ media than
others.38 In order to achieve maximum benefits with a view to fostering the creation of a truly pan-
European media sphere, the programme could afford priority to visits between countries that do
not have very close ties already. This could be achieved by awarding extra points to applicants
from “peripheral” Member States, or visits to such Member States, or by applying a corrective
coefficient to reflect the level of mutual media coverage between the two countries.
38 More information on the current level of coverage will become available through the media monitoring
exercise that is currently being conducted under Part 2 of this study (statistical review). Results are
expected to be available in early 2011.
78
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
For the duration of the test phase, and while the first come, first served approach is used, a
relatively simple system should be put in place to avoid a situation where, for whatever reason,
certain Member States benefit disproportionately. In order to ensure that the funds are adequately
spread across different EU Member States, limits should be set regarding the maximum number
of visits to and from individual Member States. Depending on the number of visits that are
envisaged, it is proposed that no more than 20% of these should be to or from any single country.
If a total of 180 visits are envisaged (see section 5.4 below), then no more than 36 Spanish
journalists‟ visits to media abroad, and no more than 36 visits by journalists from other MS to
Spanish media, would be supported. When either of these limits has been reached, no further
applications from Spanish journalists or to visit Spanish media would be considered.
A further question is how often application and selection processes should be organised. The
fieldwork has shown that a sufficient amount of flexibility in terms of timing is key. Journalism is a
dynamic activity that responds to emerging priorities and developing stories. Therefore, the
attractiveness of a programme that only accepts applications and awards funding once per year
would be severely reduced, as journalists and media will often be unable to plan that far in
advance. On the other hand, very frequent (e.g. monthly) application and selection rounds would
place an undue burden on the intermediary organisation, and would also make the effective
communication of the respective deadlines and award decisions difficult. Therefore, the main
options are either quarterly or bi-annual application and selection processes.
Figure 13: Timing of application and selection processes
Option 1: Quarterly
Applications are invited four times per year (i.e. at the end of three-monthly intervals). The intermediary
organisation reviews the applications and checks whether the formal requirements are met (in line with the
first come, first served approach described above). During each round, it awards funding for up to a quarter
of the total number of visits for which a budget is available, and informs applicants accordingly within one
month of the application deadline.
Pros:
Provides flexibility for applicants to arrange the timing of their visits and apply with short notice
As the preparatory action gains traction and awareness among the target audiences increases,
journalists would still have more chances to apply later in the year
Allows adjustment to be made in subsequent application rounds (e.g. if there was a geographical or
other type of imbalance in earlier rounds)
Cons:
Slightly higher cost of organising four application and selection rounds
Option 2: Bi-annual
Applications are invited twice per year (i.e. at the end of six-monthly intervals). The intermediary
organisation reviews the applications and checks whether the formal requirements are met (in line with the
first come, first served approach described above). During each round, it awards funding for up to half of the
total number of visits for which a budget is available, and informs applicants accordingly within one month of
the application deadline.
Pros:
Slightly lower cost of organising only two application and selection rounds
Cons:
Requires participants to plan their visits longer in advance (e.g. if applications were invited by
1 April and 1 October, a journalist wishing to visit a media in another Member State in September
would have to apply in March – a full six months ahead of the envisaged date for the visit)
Fewer possibilities to make adjustments in subsequent application and selection rounds
79
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Given that the higher cost (mainly in terms of time spent to communicate the application deadlines
and for reviewing applications) for the more frequent application and selection rounds would be
relatively minor, it is proposed that applications should be invited on a quarterly basis. The
benefits of this option would seem to far outweigh the additional costs. In any case, the decision
should be taken and communicated to the applicants within no more than one month of the
application deadline, in order to ensure visits can be arranged and implemented in a reasonably
timely manner.
5.3.3 Financial management
Similarly to other mobility / exchange programmes, the ERASMUS for journalists programme
should cover the extra costs that participating journalists incur by going abroad, namely
international travel to their destination and subsistence expenses, which include accommodation,
meals, local travel, insurance, etc. Regarding insurance, stakeholders at the workshop
emphasised that this is an important element that must not be overlooked; it should not be taken
for granted that all participants are automatically covered against all relevant risks during their stay
abroad. At the same time, the different legal situations in different Member States, as well as the
different circumstances of different journalists (e.g. permanently employed vs freelance
journalists) mean that a one-size-fits-all solution, whereby the programme would provide a
standard insurance coverage for participants, is impractical. Instead, all participants will need to
be informed that it is their responsibility to take out the necessary (health, accident, indemnity etc.)
insurance, and provide their hosts with proof of this if requested.
The envisaged financial support should allow participants to pay for all the expenses incurred
directly due to the stay, so that this does not require a significant financial investment from
participants themselves. In this context, it is important to note that some participants will be
permanently employed by a media outlet in their home country, but a significant number will
almost certainly be freelancers. The economic situation of freelancers is generally more
precarious, and this could be exacerbated during the programme: while most permanently
employed journalists should be able to continue to draw a regular salary (although some may
need to request unpaid leave), freelance journalists will generally see their ability to generate
income from their regular customers reduced during their stay abroad.
There have been suggestions (inter alia from participants at the stakeholder workshop) to
compensate freelance participants for this disadvantage by providing them with a higher level of
financial support. However, this approach risks creating a complicated and not entirely transparent
system for the allocation of funding that could be subject to abuse, and may not always lead to fair
results (given the very different specific circumstances of freelance journalists who work in
different countries and for different types of media). Furthermore, the economic disadvantage of
freelance journalists is to some extent offset by the greater flexibility their situation affords them;
many freelancers may well find it easier to participate in the programme than their permanently
employed counterparts, given that they tend to depend less on the permission of their superiors.
Therefore, for the sake of simplicity and coherence, the level of financial support should be equal
for all participants, irrespective of their professional situation.
The maximum subsistence rates under the Lifelong Learning Programme‟s (LLP) “Mobility” strand
are shown in the table below. Depending on the hosting country, they range from approx.
80
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
EUR 170 to EUR 85 per day during the first two weeks. The additional funding available for longer
stays is disbursed at a lower rate, primarily because it is understood that participants may be able
to switch from hotels to less expensive forms of accommodation during a longer stay. These rates
appear appropriate in the context of the proposed ERASMUS for journalists programme, and it is
therefore recommended they be used for this purpose.
Table 5: Proposed subsistence rates per host country and duration of stay39
Subsistence rates (EUR)
Category
Countries
Each additional
First two weeks
week (wks 3-6)
Group 1
(Norway)
2,450
280
Group 2
Denmark
2,352
269
Group 3
United Kingdom, (Liechtenstein)
2,156
246
Group 4
Ireland, Finland
2,058
235
Group 5
France, Sweden
1,960
224
Group 6
Italy, Netherlands, Austria
1,862
213
Group 7
Spain
1,764
202
Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece,
Group 8
1,666
190
Luxembourg, (Iceland)
Group 9
Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia
1,568
179
Group 10
Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta, Slovakia
1,470
168
Group 11
(Turkey)
1,372
157
Group 12
Lithuania, Romania
1,274
146
Group 13
Bulgaria
1,176
134
Average weighted by population size (EU MS only)
1,785
204
Median (EU MS only)
1,666
190
It should be noted that the subsistence rates used for the ERASMUS for Young Entrepreneurs
programme are significantly lower than those stated above (ranging from EUR 1,100 to EUR 560
per month). This is primarily a result of the fact that the feasibility study found that the majority of
both young entrepreneurs and host entrepreneurs would be willing to contribute towards the
financing of the programme, including by providing board and lodgings or even a small salary. The
situation is very different for journalists: although several journalists who participated in the focus
groups expressed their willingness to make certain sacrifices, it seems illusory to expect host
organisations to take on any financial burdens. Therefore, a higher subsistence allowance will be
required.
Furthermore, in the ERASMUS for Young Entrepreneurs programme, the funding is also
disbursed as an advance payment, but participants are subsequently required to provide proof of
the actual expenditure; if this is lower than the financial support received, the difference has to be
paid back. In the case of the ERASMUS for journalists programme, this procedure would be likely
to result in a significant administrative burden for both participants and the intermediary
organisation, particularly since the relatively higher amounts would mean that bills would have to
be collected and submitted not only for larger items such as accommodation, but also for smaller
39 Based on DG EAC LLP Guide 2010 Part I, p. 31. URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/llp/doc/call10/part1_en.pdf
81
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
items such as food. Therefore, if the relevant financial regulations allow for it, it would seem most
appropriate to award funding in advance and request participants to only submit proof that they
actually undertook the visit during the period indicated, and not proof of individual expenses
incurred. In order to minimise the amount of bureaucracy even further, it could be considered
whether travel costs could also be considered to be included in the rates listed above.
In terms of procedures, it is thus proposed that the intermediary organisation disburse the agreed
level of funding as an advance payment directly to journalists whose applications have been
accepted. Journalists would have to agree in advance to submit relevant information (including
proof that the visit took place, and a follow-up form specifying the outcomes and achievement of
objectives, as well as copies of any articles or journalistic pieces published during or as a result of
their participation in the programme) to the intermediary organisation within no more than one
month after the visit has been finalised. If this obligation is not met, the funds already disbursed
can be retrieved.
It is not necessary to compensate host media for their efforts. Financial compensation was not
seen as an important benefit by the interviewed editors, who instead emphasised the potential
benefits of mutual learning, networking and exchange of experience that comes with hosting a
foreign journalist. In addition, offering funding to host media may attract the wrong kind of hosts
(those interested primarily in the financial gain), which would almost inevitably detract from the
visiting journalists‟ experience. Moreover, among respected media organisations, many adhere to
impartiality codes that would prevent them from directly receiving payment for their involvement.
The same is true to some extent for sending media. Some stakeholders have argued that sending
media should be compensated, and that especially smaller media outlets may find it difficult to
cope without a member of their staff for a prolonged period of time. The burden could be alleviated
if the programme made a financial contribution to their outlay, e.g. by covering (part of) the
participants‟ salary during the time that they are abroad. However, such a proposition would run
into several problems. For one, the Commission is unlikely to be willing to be seen to provide
direct budgetary support to media organisations, or pay journalists‟ salaries. In addition, it would
be difficult to establish objective criteria as to which organisations should be compensated; as
noted above, some are clearly not in a position to accept such payments. The extent to which
journalists are still able to contribute to the work of their home media during their stay abroad will
also vary, further complicating the question of if and how specific media could or should be
supported. In view of these difficulties, financial support for sending media should be ruled out
categorically. In this way, journalists who work for media that would be unable to cope financially
would still have the option of requesting unpaid leave for the duration of their visit to a media outlet
in another Member State.
5.3.4 Information and communication
A key element of the test phase, and a key function to be carried out by the intermediary
organisation in collaboration with the European Commission, will be the dissemination of
information to stakeholders, in particular to potential and actual participants and host media
organisations, so as to raise awareness of the project and encourage participation. Once the
database for journalists and host organisations has reached a critical mass, the programme is
likely to be nearly self-sustaining from an information and communication point of view. However,
in the run-up to the project‟s launch some promotional activity wil need to be carried out.
82
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Additionally, a website will need to be developed, which will provide the backbone of external
contact with the programme.
At the launch of the pilot phase, when the project is new and unknown to the target audiences,
information and communication will be crucial to the success of the project. It is foreseen that the
intermediary organisation will be responsible for much of this, with a view to raising awareness
and encouraging participation in the programme. These activities will have to be proportionate to
the scale of the test phase, which is expected to have a duration of twelve months and a total
budget of EUR 600,000 (see section 5.4 below). Given the budgetary constraints (and the
resulting limits to the number of visits that can be funded during the test phase), a costly
promotional campaign in excess of the activities proposed below does not appear feasible or
desirable. However, if the pilot is successful and extended to a full programme, it will be worth
reconsidering the emphasis that should be placed on promotion. The following paragraphs list the
minimum communication activities that should be carried out. The intermediary organisation
should be encouraged to go beyond these activities, and also make use of any formal or informal
networks that it is a part of to disseminate information on the programme as widely as possible.
For more details regarding the specific content of / requirements for each of the activities listed
below, please see annex B2.
Stakeholder workshop:
As noted previously, a stakeholder workshop was carried out
during the feasibility study in order to give interested organisations and individuals the
chance to provide input and thereby shape the pilot programme. This workshop also
served a preliminary promotional function by alerting relevant stakeholders to the
programme‟s existence and imminent launch.
Press conference and press release:
A press conference should be hosted and an
accompanying press release produced to coincide with the programme‟s launch. This will
seek both to inform as many journalists as possible about the programme, and to generate
wider interest through achieving some coverage of the programme in the media. It is
foreseen that the press conference would be held in Brussels, with invitations sent to the
Brussels press corps. European Commissioner for Digital Media Neelie Kroes and MEP
Paul Rübig, in addition to the director of the intermediary organisation, would be expected
to speak and take questions from journalists. This would demonstrate political support for
the programme, lending it credibility and creating a high profile for the launch. In addition to
giving a basic overview of the programme, the press conference should emphasise that
the programme will not impinge on journalistic independence. The press release would
convey the same messages expressed at the press conference and should be sent out
both by the intermediary organisation, which is expected to have a large network of press
contacts, and the Commission.
Project website:
The project website will be the main communication tool. It will provide all
necessary information about the project, including links to a user‟s guide and application
forms. In addition, the website will incorporate a match-making database of potential host
organisations, where media outlets can register their interest and willingness to host a
journalist from another MS, as well as specify the profile they are looking for (in terms of
some parameters such as language skills, countries of origin, specific skills and
experience levels, etc.). The home page of the website will be translated into all EU
languages to help journalists from around the EU find out about the programme. However,
in light of the limited budget available for the website, high associated costs of translation
and the fact that prospective participants in the programme are expected to have
considerable language skills, the detailed parts of the website will only be available in
English.
83
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Promotional leaflet and direct mailing:
In the run up to the launch of the programme it will
be important to generate interest in the programme across a wide group of relevant
stakeholders. To raise awareness of the programme and provide interested parties with a
reference and first point of contact, a promotional leaflet will be designed and produced,
then sent to relevant stakeholders. These would include journalism and media umbrella
organisations in addition to media outlets around Europe. It is expected that for most
recipients, the leaflet will be the first point of contact with the programme. It therefore will
need to be professionally designed to a high standard. The leaflet will provide basic
information about the programme, encouraging interested parties to visit the programme
website for more information. The leaflet will present the programme as a prestigious and
useful opportunity that is funded by the European Commission but that seeks to maintain
journalistic independence for all participants and is not overly bureaucratic.
In the longer term, an additional communication tool could be an alumni network of project
participants. This idea was strongly supported by participants in the stakeholder workshop. An
alumni network could not only raise awareness of the programme, but also provide additional
benefits to former participants by linking them with each other, allowing for further networking and
exchange of experiences. In order to foster the network character, a website and periodic events
could be organised. Given the uncertain future of the ERASMUS for journalists initiative beyond
the pilot stage, it does not appear justified to invest significant resources into the creation or
facilitation of such a network immediately. However, this possibility should be considered after the
first or second year of the test phase, when it becomes clearer whether the initiative will be
continued. For this purpose, contact details should be stored for all participants in the preparatory
action.
5.3.5 Evaluation method
This section provides an overview of the proposed methodology for the evaluation of the test
phase of the “Erasmus for journalists” preparatory action, and briefly explores possibilities to
evaluate a possible future full programme. The evaluation framework outlined below is based on
the assumption that the evaluation will be carried out internally (either by the Intermediary
Organisation or DG INFSO) due to the short time frame and limited scope of the test phase.
Please refer to annex B4 for the complete set of indicators and more details of the evaluation
methodology.
Evaluation areas & indicators
In order to measure the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the “ERASMUS for journalists”
preparatory action, a series of indicators in four evaluation areas have been defined. The first
three areas are meant to assess the extent to which the project‟s general, specific, and
operational objectives have been achieved. The fourth and final area relates to practical issues,
and is meant primarily to assess to what extent the concrete programme parameters are
conducive to achieving the desired results in the most effective and efficient way.
General objectives: the general objectives relate to the ultimate impacts of the programme
(namely its contribution to the creation of a European media sphere, and to enhancing media
pluralism). It needs to be noted that these impacts will take time to develop and a significant
84
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
impact (given the size of the test phase in comparison to the size of the media landscape) is
unlikely to be measurable.
o Contributing to the creation of a European media sphere: in the short term, it will not be
possible to measure any impact of the test phase on the coverage of European issues in
the media. The only realistic possibility to measure impacts will be to undertake a partial
assessment by counting the number of journalistic articles on pan-European issues that
have been produced as a direct consequence of the exchange visits, and to ask
participants to assess to what extent the project has enhanced their
ability to report on
issues related to the EU or other Member States.
o Contributing to media pluralism: objectively measuring the test phase‟s (or full
programme‟s) impact appears impossible as (1) the project does not address the key issue
of media ownership, and can therefore only be expected to make a small contribution to
media pluralism; and (2) media pluralism is notoriously difficult to measure objectively, as
confirmed by a recent independent study.40 Therefore, the best the evaluation can aspire
to is to ask participants whether the visit has raised their awareness of the importance of /
shortcomings in the area of media pluralism.
Specific objectives: the specific objectives relate to the envisaged intermediate results,
namely the effect on the skills and knowledge of participants. The evaluation will have to rely
on the participants‟ own assessment of the extent to which the project has furthered their skil s
and knowledge in the key areas (knowledge about the EU and other Member States,
professional skills and abilities).
Operational objectives: the operational objectives of the project relate to the outputs
produced. Indicators relate to the number of applications received and visits facilitated, as well
as to the appropriateness of the balance with regard to geographical criteria, gender, media
types, etc. Furthermore, each participating journalist will have to define the individual
objectives of his or her visit in advance, and will be asked to assess the extent to which these
objectives were achieved following the visit.
Practical issues: the practical issues revolve around the management and organisation of the
programme. The extent to which participants and host organisations feel that the programme,
as well as individual visits, were managed and organised effectively and efficiently will be
measured by using post-placement questionnaires.
Evaluation methods and data collection tools
The data to measure progress against the different indicators will be collected through the
processes and tools set out in the table below.
40 K.U.Leuven – ICRI (lead contractor): Independent Study on Indicators for Media Pluralism in the Member
States – Towards a Risk-Based Approach. Leuven, July 2009
85
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Table 6: Proposed data collection tools for the evaluation of the preparatory action
Data collection tool
Timing
Purpose
Initial collection of
Application stage
Generates general applicant data to assess output
applicant data
indicators.
Includes information on operational objectives of
individual applicants / visits.
Post-placement
To be completed
Includes questions regarding the management
questionnaire for
immediately after the
and organisation of the programme in order to
participants
termination of the visit
assess how successful the programme has been
from a practical perspective.
Includes questions regarding the general and
specific objectives of the programme and revisits
the individual objectives stated in the application
form.
Participants asked to submit articles produced
during or as a result of participating in the
programme.
Post-placement
To be completed
Questions regarding the success of placement
questionnaire for host
immediately after the
from host‟s point of view and e.g. regarding the
organisations
termination of the visit
extent to which host organisations feel that the
visiting journalist was able to contribute to the
organisation‟s work and has added value to their
organisation during his or her stay.
Post-placement
6 months after
To assess longer term impacts of the programme
survey of participants
placement
in relation to the general and specific objectives of
the programme, e.g. regarding the estimated
number of articles on pan-European issues
produced since visit that benefitted directly from
placement.
Questions focus primarily on if and how journalists
are able to apply what they have learned during
placement in their day-to-day work, rather than on
what they have learned.
Case studies
At the end of the test
Telephone interviews to gain an in-depth
phase
understanding of the views and opinions of the
target group regarding all aspects of the
preparatory action. Feedback can then be used to
adapt and improve the programme if full
programme implementation will be approved.
Evaluation of a possible full programme
The results of the evaluation of the preparatory action are expected to feed into the decision of
whether or not a full “Erasmus for journalists” programme wil be implemented. If this were to be
the case, a future evaluation of a full-scale programme could largely follow the same approach as
the evaluation of the preparatory action. As the practical issues and the operational and specific
objectives of the test phase would be likely to remain the same for a potential full programme, the
evaluation methodology set out above would also be appropriate for the ongoing evaluation of
these objectives. However, in particular with a view to the general objectives, the evaluation of a
86
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
full-scale programme could include additional methods that are not feasible / proportionate over
the short term.
The Commission could consider two possible approaches towards measuring the programme‟s
final impacts: (1) a large scale media monitoring exercise to measure the extent to which
European issues are covered in the national media in the different EU Member States, and (2) a
comprehensive online survey on journalists‟ professional situation and interest in / knowledge of
European affairs.41 However, it should be noted that even with these methods, measuring the
impact of the programme (in terms of its contribution to its general objectives) remains a
challenge. While progress towards the creation of a European media sphere could be measured,
the attribution of any changes that are observed to the ERASMUS for journalists programme (as
opposed to other external factors) will almost certainly not be possible in an exhaustive and
methodologically robust way. Please refer to annex B4 for more details on the tools that could be
used and their limitations.
5.4 Cost estimate
The European Parliament has proposed a budget of EUR 600,000 for the preparatory action to be
included in the EU‟s budget for 2011. Although the final decision is stil pending, this amount has
been used for the budgetary estimates below, which focus on the costs of the different elements
of the test phase. There are three main elements to consider:
1. Funds disbursed directly to participants
2. Ongoing project management cost (including reviewing applications, liaising with and
reporting to the EC, etc.)
3. Project start-up costs (including the initial wave of communication)
The next sections discuss each main cost factor in turn, and provide an estimate of the likely
costs. The figures presented are based on the contractors‟ own experience, the data that is
available for various similar programmes, and, where available, preliminary quotes from relevant
service providers.
5.4.1 Participants’ travel and subsistence expenses
As noted in section 5.3.3 above, the programme should cover participants‟ travel and subsistence
costs at a level similar to the Lifelong Learning programme, which provides an effective and
appropriate system to calculate amounts based on the length of the stay abroad and the cost of
living in the different Member States. It is proposed that these same rates are used, but that travel
is considered to be included in the subsistence rates (both in order to reduce bureaucracy and to
incentivise participants to find inexpensive ways to travel). Applying these rates, the funds
available to participants would range from a minimum of EUR 1,176 (for a two-week visit to a
41 A media monitoring exercise and a survey targeted at the journalist population of Europe were carried out
under Part 2 of the Feasibility Study (Statistical Review). The data generated could be used as a baseline
for the results of any comparable exercises in the future.
87
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
media outlet in Bulgaria) to a maximum of EUR 2,890 (for a six-week visit to a media outlet in
Denmark).
In order to estimate the average funding per visit, one can assume an average duration of four
weeks per visit, and apply an average subsistence rate. The average rate weighted by the size of
each Member State‟s population is EUR 1,785 for the first two weeks, and EUR 204 for each
additional week. Using this rate would imply that the number of visits to each country is expected
to depend purely on its size (i.e. a larger number of visits to large Member States, and, for
example, a similar number of visits to Poland and Spain). However, it seems very likely that the
demand would be higher for some Member States than for others, especially considering the
issue of language. It is expected that a relatively higher number of visits will take place to Member
States with relatively widely-spoken languages (in particular English, German, French and
Spanish42). The countries where one of these is an official language (Austria, Belgium, France,
Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland, Spain and the UK) tend to be among the more „expensive‟, and
the average cost per visit should therefore be corrected upwards. The median of the rates for the
aforementioned nine countries is EUR 1,862 for the first two weeks, and EUR 213 for each
additional week, resulting in a total of EUR 2,288 for a four-week visit. For the purpose of the
budgetary estimates, this is rounded up to an average cost per visit of EUR 2,300.
5.4.2 Ongoing project management costs
There is a continuous cost for running and administering the preparatory action for the
intermediary organisation. Parts of these costs (for reviewing and processing applications,
disbursing funding and ensuring effective follow-up) are dependent on the number of applications
received and the number of visits implemented. Other costs (for programme monitoring and
reporting, liaison with the EC and stakeholders) will be incurred on a regular basis irrespectively of
the number of applications and visits.
The approximate time that will be spent on administrative procedures directly related to the visits
is estimated at 0.75 person-days per visit (see the table below). This is based on the experience
of similar programmes run by the European Journalism Centre and other institutions. An indicative
cost per person-day of EUR 500 is used, reflecting a mix of more experienced project
management staff and project assistants.
Table 7: Estimate of cost of administrative procedures directly related to visits
Activity
Estimated time
Unit cost
Cost per visit
per visit
(EUR)
(EUR)
Filing and reviewing applications, seeking clarification
0.25 person-days
500
125
where necessary, judging their eligibility
Informing applicants, transmitting necessary
0.25 person-days
500
125
documentation, disbursing the funds
Reviewing and filing information after the completion of
0.25 person-days
500
125
the visits
Total cost of administrative procedures per visit
375
42 Special Eurobarometer 237, Sep. 200
5. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf
88
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
In addition, managing the preparatory action will bring with it not insignificant duties in terms of
liaising with and reporting to the EC, as well as contact with stakeholders and (potential) project
participants, providing support and answering their questions. This is largely independent of the
process of administering individual applications and visits. It is estimated that on average, at least
5 person-days per month will have to be earmarked for contact with and reporting to the European
Commission. Another 5 person-days per month will be required to liaise with stakeholders, provide
information on demand and answer questions, etc.
Table 8: Estimate of ongoing project management cost
Activity
Estimated time
Unit cost
Total cost
per month
(EUR)
per month
(EUR)
Contact with and reporting to the EC
5 person-days
500
2,500
Liaison with and information to stakeholders
5 person-days
500
2,500
Total ongoing project management cost per month
5,000
5.4.3 Project set-up and initial communication
Apart from the running costs that will be incurred periodically, there will have to be a significant
initial investment of time to launch the project, develop the required documentation, forms,
processes and tools for collecting and processing information, training (and possibly recruiting)
staff, etc. For a project of this scope, the estimated effort required is at least 40 person-days
(estimated based on the experience of similar programmes and the EJC‟s experience with the
framework contract for providing seminars for journalists).
Table 9: Estimate of project set-up cost
Activity
Estimated time
Unit cost
Total cost
(EUR)
(EUR)
General staff familiarisation
6 person-days
500
3,000
Prepare and hold initial meetings with the EC
6 person-days
500
3,000
Finalise project documentation (forms)
5 person-days
500
2,500
Set up and test data storage and processing systems
10 person-days
500
5,000
Staff training / recruitment
10 person-days
500
5,000
Develop reporting templates and schedule
3 person-days
500
1,500
Total project set-up cost
20,000
Further to this, the initial wave of communication activities to raise awareness and disseminate
information about the project will have to be taken into account. The total estimated cost of the
89
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
information and communication tools and activities as outlined in section 5.3.4 is EUR 35,000.
These costs relate to the programme website and the promotional leaflet, further details on which
are presented below.
The leaflet will likely require the intermediary organisation to commission the design and printing
of the leaflet to an external subcontractor. There are also other costs involved in translating and
posting the leaflet to stakeholders. The table below offers indicative amounts associated with
these activities (based on typical daily fee rates of Brussels-based specialised I&C service
providers).
Table 10: Estimated cost of promotional leaflet
Task / activity
Units
Unit costs (EUR)
Total cost (EUR)
Leaflet design
2 person-days
800
1,600
Leaflet translation
21 languages
400
8,400
Leaflet printing
2,000 copies
1
2,000
Postage
1,500 copies
0.50
750
Total subcontractor costs
15,400
Setting up, maintaining and hosting the website and database will be the responsibility of the
intermediary organisation. It is foreseen that the intermediary organisation will need to subcontract
the original design and setup of the website and database. However, by employing a CMS
(Content Management System43), staff at the intermediary organisation will be able to update and
manage the site without external assistance. The table below summarises the activities that will
need to be carried out for the website and database by external subcontractors. The homepage of
the website should be translated into all EU languages. In addition to this, the IO can expect to
spend approximately two days per month to update the site.
Table 11: Estimated cost of project website
Task / activity
Units
Unit costs (EUR)
Total cost (EUR)
Website design
7.5 person-days
800
6,000
Website implementation
7.5 person-days
800
6,000
Website tutorial
2 person-days
800
1,600
Website maintenance
2 person-days
800
1,600
Website hosting
1 year
200
200
Translation of homepage
21 languages
200
4,200
Total subcontractor costs
19,600
43 CMS allows content to be uploaded without advanced knowledge of html or other web coding systems.
90
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
5.4.4 Total costs of preparatory action
Based on the parameters outlined above, one can provide a rough estimate of the number of visits
that the test phase of the preparatory action will be able to fund over a period of twelve months
with a total budget of EUR 600,000.
As shown in the table below, the fixed costs (related to project set-up, initial communication and
ongoing project management) will amount to a total of approximately EUR 115,000. This means
that an estimated EUR 485,000 will be available to fund journalists‟ visits to media outlets in other
Member States. The average funding disbursed directly to participants will be EUR 2,300 per visit.
Added to that, each visit will incur an estimated EUR 375 of administrative cost. Based on these
estimates, the test phase will be in a position to fund approximately 180 visits during the first year
of its existence. This would mean that just under 70% of the total budget for year 1 of the test
phase will be disbursed to participants, while the remaining 30% would be used to cover the cost
of running and managing the project. In the event that funding will be available to the preparatory
action beyond the first year,44 the percentage of the budget that is disbursed to participants can be
expected to rise, as the initial communication and project set-up costs would no longer be incurred
in ensuing years.
Table 12: Estimate of total costs for the preparatory action in year 1
Cost per visit
Cost factor
Number of visits
Total cost (EUR)
(EUR)
Funding disbursed directly to participants
180
2,300
414,000
Variable administrative cost
180
375
67,500
Project set-up
20,000
N/A
Initial communication
35,000
(fixed costs)
Ongoing management costs (12 months)
60,000
Total cost
596,500
Percentage of funds disbursed to participants
69%
Please note that the cost in terms of human resources for the EC (for the tender process, liaison
with and providing guidance for the intermediary organisation, press conference, contract
management, and eventual evaluation of the preparatory action) is not included in any of the
above estimates.
5.4.5 Scenarios for a potential full-scale programme
Following the implementation of the test phase, the EU institutions will have to take a decision on
whether the initiative should be continued in the form of a full-scale programme. If this were to be
the case, different scenarios can be envisaged as regards the budget of such a programme,
depending on the envisaged level of ambition.
44 Under the applicable financial regulations, a Preparatory Action can run for up to three years, after which
it needs to be either discontinued or converted into a regular programme with a firm legal basis.
91
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
As the estimates in the previous section have shown, the average direct cost (i.e. the amount of
funding disbursed as financial support directly to participants) is expected to be approximately
EUR 2,300. For the first year of the test phase, approximately EUR 0.44 of project management
and administration costs will be incurred for each Euro disbursed. As noted above, it is expected
that in an established programme, the ratio of funds disbursed to management costs will be more
favourable, as processes and tools are already in place, and promotion and awareness-raising
become less important. If one factors project set-up and initial communication out of the cost
estimates for the preparatory action, the management costs drop to approximately EUR 0.30 per
Euro of financial support to participants.
Background research into similar programmes (see annex A1) suggests that this is roughly in line
with the cost structure of other journalist exchange initiatives. In most cases, project management
and overhead costs account for around 25% of the total budget. The scenarios below are
calculated based on this ratio, i.e. the assumption that for each Euro spent on financial support to
journalists, EUR 0.33 of project management costs will be incurred. It should be noted that for
larger-scale programmes (i.e. those with a high number of visits), these are conservative
estimates; economies of scale may bring the project management cost down further. However,
given the uncertainties surrounding the process that will be applied (including e.g. the possibility
that applications may have to be reviewed individually by a selection committee), it seems most
sensible to stick to these conservative ratios at this point.
Table 13: Scenarios for total annual costs of a full scale programme
Cost per
Cost (EUR) for n visits
Cost factor
visit (EUR)
100 visits
500 visits
1,000 visits
2,500 visits
Financial support to participants
2,300
230,000
1,150,000
2,300,000
5,750,000
Project management cost
760
76,000
380,000
760,000
1,900,000
Total cost
306,000
1,530,000
3,060,000
7,650,000
The optimal size of the programme (in terms of the number of visits financed per year) depends
on the desired impact, i.e. the number of exchanges in relation to the overall target population.
The original ERASMUS programme for students currently supports approximately 1% of the total
EU university student population each year.45 The best available estimate of the total number of
journalists in the EU is around 250,000.46 Thus, reaching 1% of all journalists each year would
require 2,500 visits, at an estimated cost of EUR 7.65 million per year. However, such high
volumes appear unrealistic, at least in the short term, considering inter alia that it took the
ERASMUS for university students programme 30 years to achieve a similar penetration rate, and
the fact that the typical student only spends four to five years at university, whereas most
journalists exercise their profession for life.
An ambitious yet at the same time realistic objective would be for a full-scale ERASMUS for
journalists programme to provide between 2% and 3% of all journalists in the EU with the
opportunity to visit and work for a media outlet in another Member State
during the first ten years
of the programme’s existence. This would require financing between 500 and 750 visits each year,
45 Based on Eurostat data from 2007; see http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/stat/graph1.pdf
46 This estimate is based on a complex triangulation of sources including data from trade unions (especially
the EFJ) and industry associations (and notably, for newspapers, the World Press Trend database). For
more details, please see the forthcoming report for Part 2 of this assignment (Statistical Review).
92
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
at an approximate annual cost of between EUR 1.5 million and EUR 2.3 million (to be adjusted for
inflation in future years).
5.5 Key risks
A number of key risks and critical conditions for the programme‟s success were identified based
on the analysis of the intervention logic (see section 3.3). The fieldwork has generally confirmed
that these risks exist, and has also provided the study team with a better understanding of their
severity, potential implications, and possible ways of addressing them. To the extent possible, the
implementation scheme proposed in this report attempts to mitigate these risks.
The table overleaf provides a register of key risks to the success of the test phase of the
preparatory action (and eventually the full programme) that have been identified, and provides an
indication of their likelihood and potential impact. It also outlines if and how the proposed
implementation scheme mitigates these risks. Based on the probability, severity of the potential
impact, and extent to which it can be mitigated, risks are categorised into green, amber and red
risks, to identify those that require the most careful consideration during the ensuing stages of the
study and the eventual design and implementation of the test phase.
93
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Table 14: Overview of key risks
Ref. Risk Category
Risk Description
Probability Impact
Risk Mitigation
Risk Ranking47
1
General response to
Insufficient level of
Low
Low number of applications
Possibility to link mobility to a concrete
programme
interest among
Inability to disburse all available funds
journalistic interest or project
journalists to participate
Robust promotional strategy among journalists
and relevant organisations
2
General response to
Insufficient level of
Low
Low number of potential hosts sign up Promotional activities geared towards editors
programme
interest among media
to database
specifically
outlets to host journalists
Demand for placements not met
Possibility to link mobility to a concrete
journalistic interest or project
Editors given possibility to vet journalists in
advance
Duration of visit tailored to individual needs
Journalists encouraged to contact potential
hosts directly, rather than relying on fledgling
database
3
General response to
Media organisations not
Medium
Low number of applications
Promotional activities geared towards editors
programme
willing to let their staff
Disproportionate number of
specifically
participate
applications from journalists who are
Possibility to link mobility to a concrete
de facto unemployed
journalistic interest or project
Duration of visits tailored to individual needs
4
Needs and interests of
Disproportionate interest
High
Such media outlets are flooded with
Programme designed to encourage reciprocal
journalists
in large, prestigious
requests for placements
visits
media outlets
Smaller media unable to benefit from
Journalists seeking a placement at an
hosting journalists
oversubscribed media outlet encouraged to
contact another organisation
47 Green: Low rank risk, Amber: Medium rank risk, Red: High rank risk. Risk rankings are based on the probability of the risk being realised and its potential impact, as
well as the extent to which the proposed implementation scheme is able to mitigate the risk.
94
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Ref. Risk Category
Risk Description
Probability Impact
Risk Mitigation
Risk Ranking47
5
Needs and interests of
Disproportionate interest
High
Media outlets in such countries
Visits to any one country capped at 20% of
journalists
in larger, more advanced
flooded with requests for placements
total number of visits
countries with widely
Media outlets in smaller Member
Individually tailored visits to facilitate
spoken languages
States with less widely spoken
placements with media in smaller Member
languages not able to benefit from
States even without knowledge of host
hosting journalists
country’s language
Movement of journalists not
geographically balanced
6
Skills and abilities of
Participants’ foreign
Medium
Editors not willing to host journalists
Hosts given chance to vet journalists before
journalists
language skills not
without sufficient language skills
agreeing to visit, if necessary testing language
sufficient to work as
Expectations not met for hosting
skills
fully-fledged journalists
organisations, participating journalists
Objectives and expected tasks agreed in
in other Member States
and / or sending organisations
advance of visit to ensure expectations are
met
Participants provided with adequate guidance
and mentoring at host organisation
7
Skills and abilities of
Mismatch between
Low
Visit not useful for journalists and / or
Objectives and expected tasks agreed in
journalists
hosts’ and participants’
editors
advance of visit to ensure expectations are
expectations of the visit
met
Participants provided with adequate guidance
and mentoring at host organisation
Participants required to have at least two
years of work experience
8
Administration
Excessive bureaucratic
High
Time from application to approval not
Flexible and timely administrative framework
requirements to
in line with needs of journalistic
for approving applications and dispersing
participate in the
profession
grants
programme too
Disincentive for potential host media
Lump sum payment (without directly
burdensome
outlets and journalists to participate in
reimbursable expenses) to facilitate
the programme
disbursement of grants
Frustration among participants
95
Feasibility study for the preparatory action “ERASMUS for journalists”
Final report
February 2011
Ref. Risk Category
Risk Description
Probability Impact
Risk Mitigation
Risk Ranking47
9
Promotion
Failure to raise sufficient
Medium
Low number of applications
Robust promotional strategy among journalists
awareness for the
Number of visits / exchanges taking
and relevant organisations
programme among
place remains low
members of the target
Low number of potential hosts sign up
group
to database
10
Promotion
Participants publishing
Low
Negative reputational impact for the
None (given that programme would not seek
articles that are critical
EU
to influence participants’ work)
towards the EU
Programme unlikely to make participants more
negative towards the EU than they are
11
Promotion
Programmes receives
Medium
Negative reputational impact for the
Robust communication strategy highlighting
bad press (e.g. EC
programme and the EU
benefits of programme
wastes taxpayers’
Decrease in number of applications
Programme designed so that the risk of it
money and/or seeks to
Politically impossible to continue
being perceived as ‘propaganda’ is low
‘buy’ journalists’ good
programme funding
will)
12
Abuse of programme
Journalists / media use
Low
EU funding wasted on activities that
Requirement to specify objectives of visit as
programme to finance
have no impact on coverage of trans-
part of application form
visits that are not in line
national or EU affairs
Agreement of host organisation required
with the programme
Reputational risk
Requirement of submitting a report after the
objectives
visit
Minimum programme duration set at 2 weeks
96