The European Union, as is well known, is a bureaucratic behemoth capable of hiding operations that are anything but transparent behind complex technical jargon. The latest in order of time involves a massive disbursement of 132.82 million euros earmarked for the media in the year of the European elections, a flood of money that, rather than ensuring independent information, raises more than a few doubts about the relationships between EU institutions and the media world.
Orchestrating this maneuver, under the banner of the European People’s Party, are Roberta Metsola, President of the EU Parliament, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission. The funds were not distributed directly to the media but entrusted to a private intermediary: Havas Media France, the advertising agency of the Vivendi group. This is not a minor detail, as it allows them to bypass transparency obligations and obscure the final destination of the money.
The issue, however, is not just the lack of transparency. If it were solely a matter of institutional advertising, there would be nothing to object to. But the problem is that these funds could influence the editorial line of media that should ensure independent information, especially when it comes to the European Union. Why do the European Parliament, Commission, and Council, all equipped with their own press offices and communication channels, feel the need to directly fund the media? It is legitimate to suspect that this system serves to ensure a narrative favorable to the EU, disguised as neutral information.
Metsola and von der Leyen, when questioned by Il Fatto, responded with bureaucratic formulas: the contract with Havas is regular and protects the operators’ “commercial interests.”
But the real question remains unanswered: how independent can a newspaper be that receives funding, particularly undisclosed, from the institutions it is supposed to monitor?
And above all: if there is nothing to hide, why all the secrecy?
