Too Much Information, Too Little Interest: Local Newspapers and the Communication Paradox of EU Politics

Abstract

To understand the current state of affairs in European Union (EU) politics, it is important to consider the role of the media. Local newspapers play a distinctive role in this regard, as they demonstrate both the tangible local relevance and the impact of EU politics. However, critics argue that the EU suffers not only from a democratic deficit but also from deficiencies in legitimacy, communication, and the public sphere. This article presents a theoretical model that shows how local newspapers may influence the top-down and bottom-up dynamics of Europeanization and politicization and thereby help mitigate these deficits. It also reports findings from a qualitative analysis of 34 interviews with journalists, EU correspondents, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) as well as their staff, representatives of civil society and Europe Direct Information Centers (EDICs) from Germany, Austria, France, as well as interviewees based in Brussels. The analysis shows that the availability of EU information that is perceived as overwhelming, combined with a perceived low level of reader interest in EU affairs, hinders the positive effects of the dynamics of Europeanization and politicization.

1. Introduction

In earlier times, the media primarily served an informational function. In this capacity, they were described as “agents of environmental monitoring and surveillance” for those in power (McNair, 2009, pp. 292–293). Since the establishment of democracy and freedom of the press, however, they have taken on a number of additional (normative) functions. These include, among other things, the creation of public awareness or the provision of information through the selection and publication of events, as well as the definition of thematic agendas and the interpretation of these themes, a critical and controlling function as a “watchdog” or “fourth estate”, the communication of citizens’ interests and their representation, and a socialization function as well as educational and training functions (Gurevitch & Blumler, 1990, p. 270; Kambeck, 2004, pp. 49–57; McNair, 2009, pp. 239–241; Schulz, 2011, pp. 32–36). More generally, “[j]ournalism is not only understood to enable democracy but is also an essential part of it because it is the democratic forum for ideas and community debate” (Hess & Waller, 2017, p. 9).

Local journalism has been identified as “vital to civic life” (Neff & Pickard, 2023, p. 1878), with local newspapers being characterized as “keystone media” due to their ability to provide specific information and facilitate reporting in other media, thereby shaping “the local political information environment well beyond their own resources or reach” (Nielsen, 2015, pp. 1–3). In addition, the consumption of local news, particularly through newspapers, has been demonstrated to play a significant role in fostering a sense of community among regional news audiences and contributes “to maintaining community identity and cohesion by keeping citizens informed about local matters and providing a venue for participation” (Park et al., 2025, pp. 1248–1249). Despite the economic challenges confronting local newspapers, including a decline in circulation (e.g., 1.83 newspapers per district in Germany in 2023 compared to 2.26 in 1992; Janson, 2024; see also Abernathy, 2020, on news deserts) and a loss of readership, local print newspapers in Germany continue to be read daily by 26.73 million readers per issue, with a total reach online of 45.2 million unique users per month (65.4% of the German-speaking population aged 16 and over) (BDZV, 2026).1

In the context of the European Union (EU), the aforementioned functions and local newspapers are of particular importance. Local newspapers, and consequently local journalists, function not only as conduits for local issues; they also “interpret national and international affairs and how these shape economic, political, social and cultural aspects of daily life in local communities” (Hess & Waller, 2017, p. 6). Risse (2010, p. 113) underlines: “ordinary citizens do not have direct access to political processes, let alone to European policymaking. To the extent that they “know” Europe and the EU, they know it through the media. For most people, politics does not exist outside the media.” Local newspapers thus play a distinctive role in the comprehension of EU politics, as they serve to demonstrate both the tangible local relevance and the impact of EU politics. In addition, Firmstone (2024, p. 19) highlights “that the more political information available via the news media the better, with a high level of news about politics and public affairs most likely to meet the information needs of citizens.” Furthermore, Gioltzidou et al. (2023, p. 2) point out that the “EU’s image and reflection can be influenced by whatever is written or said about it,” thereby underscoring the significant impact that journalists’ decisions regarding the content of local newspapers may have.

Critics argue, however, that the EU’s communication deficit is inextricably linked to its wider democratic deficit (Vidačak & Matan, 2026, pp. 31–33; see also Føllesdal & Hix, 2006, pp. 534–537; Gerhardt, 2013, p. 11; Fossum, 2023, pp. 932–933; Statham, 2008, p. 398). The gap in communication is being described as “not merely technical but deeply embedded in institutional complexity, technocratic culture, and a historically top-down communication model” (Vidačak & Matan, 2026, p. 44; see also Statham, 2008, pp. 407–408). In this line of argumentation, the discourse surrounding the EU’s democratic deficit is “often synonymous with criticisms levelled at media coverage of EU affairs in member states, or at the failure of EU institutions to communicate effectively with its citizens” (Firmstone, 2008, p. 424). The EU’s presence in news media is characterized by irregularity, cyclical reporting (de Vreese, 2001, p. 298), a predominant national perspective, and a high degree of dependency on major events (Vidačak & Matan, 2026, p. 34; see, e.g., Frangonikolopoulos & Papapadopoulou, 2021, p. 1117). For example, Gioltzidou et al. (2023, p. 8) note that, when it comes to EU issues in national media, the “level of coverage is not satisfying,” albeit pointing towards a “more qualitative and less quantitative problem.” A similar observation was made in a focus group study, which indicated that media coverage of the EU was deemed inadequate. This deficiency in reporting was perceived to lead to a paucity of information among the general public, thereby fostering a lack of support for the EU among citizens (Wenzel et al., 2026, p. 163).

In order to address the EU’s widely criticized democratic deficit, the processes of Europeanization and politicization of the public sphere are found to be necessary conditions. According to Risse (2014b, p. 24) “Europeanization and politicization of public spheres represent a precondition for citizens to take an informed stance about the EU.” Furthermore, the process of Europeanization is regarded as “a potential remedy for the EU’s communication deficit” and described as “normatively desirable” (Plavec, 2020, p. 11). A European Public Sphere (EPS) is consequently regarded “as a prerequisite for European democracy and as the basis for the European Union’s legitimacy” (Benert & Pfetsch, 2022, p. 365).

However, the role of local newspapers and local journalists in these processes of Europeanization and politicization remains a subject of inquiry.2 What are specific factors that influence their EU reporting and in what ways do they influence it? Are local newspapers and local journalists capable of influencing the EU’s democratic deficit? The model of the top-down and bottom-up dynamics of Europeanization and politicization in local newspapers offers an empirical framework for understanding how (local) journalists and local newspapers may influence the EPS and, consequently, the EU’s democratic deficit via top-down and bottom-up dynamics of Europeanization and politicization and by which factors they are influenced in doing so.

This article and the model address a number of research gaps identified in the extant literature (see Wenzel, 2025, pp. 6–9).

While research on politicization mostly focuses on top-down processes and therefore on political parties and their manifestos, the media, and institutions (Baglioni & Hurrelmann, 2016, p. 106; Wiesner, 2018, p. 285), various authors have suggested including the public and other stakeholders in research on politicization (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2020, p. 312; Hurrelmann et al., 2015, p. 44; Anders et al., 2018, p. 22; Wenzel, 2025, p. 6). The model and analysis in this article are centered on the reporting and actions of local journalists (and EU correspondents), as well as on Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and their staff, representatives of civil society, and Europe Direct Information Centers (EDICs), thereby broadening the range of stakeholders. Especially the “factors that affect the journalistic coverage of EU affairs” have rarely been investigated; however, they are the focus of this study (Frangonikolopoulos & Papapadopoulou, 2021, p. 1109; see also Statham, 2008, p. 400).

The combination of the two concepts of Europeanization and politicization, as well as the resulting opportunity to examine their dynamics together, has been undertaken only sporadically or has previously been limited to a simultaneous analysis (Wenzel, 2025, p. 7; see Risse, 2010, 2014a, 2014c; Statham & Trenz, 2013a, 2013b, 2015; Saurugger, 2014; Liebert, 2012; Caune, 2018; Niedziałkowski, 2023).

Empirical studies or research into the European public have predominantly focused on national daily newspapers, while local newspapers have generally been excluded (Wenzel, 2025, p. 7; Hepp et al., 2012, p. 54; Machill et al., 2006, p. 140; Maurer & Reinemann, 2006, p. 109; Semetko et al., 2000, p. 121; Offerhaus et al., 2014, p. 13; Trenz, 2015, p. 238; exceptions can be found here: Vetters, 2007; Liebetruth, 2012; Rivas-de-Roca, 2022; Rivas-de-Roca et al., 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026; Offerhaus et al., 2014). In addition, there exists a research gap regarding local journalism and how topics are selected for local news (Wenzel, 2025, p. 7; Walter, 2019, p. 211; Baugut, 2017, pp. 346–347; Nazarewska, 2014, pp. 68–69, 122–124), and both of these aspects are the focus of this article.

In the following, Section 2 outlines the model’s underlying assumptions and operational mechanisms. Section 3 describes the qualitative analysis of 34 interviews with various actors from Germany, Austria, France, as well as interviewees based in Brussels. Section 4 applies the model to statements concerning reader interest and information availability. It shows that the perceived abundance of EU information, combined with low reader interest in EU affairs, constrains the positive effects of dynamics of Europeanization and politicization. Section 5 concludes and identifies areas for further research.

2. The Model of the Top-Down and Bottom-Up Dynamics of Europeanization and Politicization in Local Newspapers

The following Section presents the model of the top-down and bottom-up dynamics of Europeanization and politicization in local newspapers3 (see Figure 1). The model empirically explains how (local) journalists and local newspapers may affect the EPS and, consequently, the EU’s democratic deficit via top-down and bottom-up dynamics of Europeanization and politicization. It also identifies the factors that influence local journalists and newspapers in this regard.

The model is composed of six primary components that will be explained in detail: starting from the liberal-representative approach to the EPS and Europeanization of national public spheres in the middle (in pink); moving on to politicization and the role of local newspapers on the bottom left (in light blue); to the combined indicators of Europeanization and politicization on the top left (in green) as well as their normative indications on the democratic deficit on the right (red); and lastly looking at the role of (local) journalists at the bottom left (dark blue) and the factors influencing them at the top right (in white).

The model is, first of all, based on an understanding of representative democracy in the EU, which encompasses the notion of indirect citizen participation in the formulation of EU policies, facilitated through the conduit of representative processes “whilst upholding normative standards and utilizing oversight mechanisms”4 (Wenzel, 2025, p. 21). Secondly, the model aligns with the liberal-representative approach to the EPS (see Wenzel, 2025, pp. 38–40), which is predominantly employed in the communications policy of the European Parliament (EP) and the European Commission (Rohrer, 2010, pp. 73–75; Krzyżanowski et al., 2009, pp. 2–3; Wenzel, 2025, p. 97)5. The EPS (pink in the middle of Figure 1) is therein understood as a surveillance and communication system that ensures both passive (right of access to information) and active (institutional obligation to ensure accessibility of political information) transparency in EU decision-making (Wenzel, 2025, p. 39; Berkel, 2006, pp. 18, 71; Lingenberg, 2010, p. 31). The liberal-representative approach, in contrast to the deliberative approach (see Habermas, 1990, 2006, 2021, 2022), does not necessitate consent or argumentation. Rather, it emphasizes the reflection of diverse positions, opinions, and interpretations, with mutual acceptance and respect playing a pivotal role in the process (Gerhards, 1997, p. 11; Wenzel, 2025, p. 39). (EU-)citizens regularly participate via elections (Martinsen, 2009, p. 46). This requires an “enlightened understanding” (Dahl, 1989, 2015) that facilitates the comparison of social preferences with available options (Meyer, 2003, p. 234; Wenzel, 2025, p. 40). In this context, the role of the media is of paramount importance. The dissemination of information, the promotion of transparency, and the exercise of control are all facilitated by media outlets. Moreover, the impact of the media on the dynamics and structures of an EPS can be substantial (Berkel, 2006, pp. 18–19; Latzer & Saurwein, 2006, p. 13; see also Huber, 2012; Trenz, 2008a; Statham & Trenz, 2015). Thirdly, the model of the top-down and bottom-up dynamics of Europeanization and politicization in local newspapers is based on the assumption that an EPS is processually constructed in national media (in this case, local newspapers and local public spheres specifically) via “communication of the same topics at the same time from the same perspective of relevance” (Eder & Kantner, 2000, p. 328; Wenzel, 2025, p. 98)6. This means that mutual acknowledgement and observation in the media become relevant, but not a European perspective as such (Risse, 2010, p. 117). The media, in their capacity as a primary source of information about the EU, thus function as an “institutionalised forum of debate” (Pfetsch, 2004, p. 3; Wenzel, 2025, p. 98). The process of Europeanization in national and/or local public spheres7 (light blue on the left in Figure 1) in local newspapers can occur in two primary directions: vertically, through national actors addressing European institutions (bottom-up) or European actors addressing national actors (top-down); and horizontally, through reporting about other EU member states or direct communicative links between member states (Koopmans, 2007, pp. 16, 36–37; Wenzel, 2025, p. 98).

Following an understanding of politics as an activity8, at a macro level, politicization is understood as “naming something as political” (Wiesner, 2018, p. 286; 2019a, p. 5; 2021, p. 22). “It is actively triggered by participants, not exclusive and contingent” (Wenzel, 2025, pp. 77, 99). This understanding facilitates the incorporation of actors within and outside of the political system, encompassing a range of action orientations, including top-down, bottom-up, and lateral approaches (Wenzel, 2025, p. 99). At the meso or micro level, it allows for the differentiation between three levels in a multi-level, multi-stage model (Wiesner, 2019a, p. 16; 2019c, p. 258; Wenzel, 2025, pp. 78–79, 104; light blue graphic on the left in Figure 1): (1) an issue is named as political (e.g., by civil actors); (2) public resonance or salience arise (e.g., in local newspapers); and (3) the issue becomes a matter of institutionalized political conflict and/or decisions (e.g., via MEPs). Following this model, local newspapers can be conceptualized as an intermediate level, a venue, or a public arena, in which discourses are reflected, thereby “acting as a link between the various stakeholders from the political sphere, other mass media and civil society actors”9 (Wenzel, 2025, p. 105). The focus of research shifts toward the actions of local journalists and their reporting on the EU, because the model underscores the significance of politicizing actions that transpire outside the confines of the political system, such as those disseminated through local newspapers and public spheres (Wenzel, 2025, p. 102).

It is possible to operationalize the concepts of Europeanization and politicization by means of three indicators10 (Wenzel, 2025, pp. 110–112; based on Risse, 2010, 2014a, 2014c; dark green in Figure 1):

• At a thematic level via an increase in visibility of EU issues, increased EU reporting or public prominence;
• At the actor level through rising inclusivity and an expanding range of participants (including those from EU and other member states);
• At the substantive level, where the focus is either “the extent to which appeals or demands are directed at actors from other EU member states, as well as the use of similar frames and patterns of opinion in debates”11 (Wenzel, 2025, p. 111) or “growing contentiousness of an EU issue and the associated controversies and disagreements”12 (Wenzel, 2025, p. 112).

Depending on whether the indicators are classified as high or low in empirical analysis, four possible scenarios emerge (Wenzel, 2025, pp. 113–116; light green in Figure 1):

• Low Europeanization and low politicization resulting in only a few articles on the EU and a lack of controversy or debate on EU issues in local newspapers. These publications predominantly adopt a local or national perspective, eschewing the utilization of shared frames. Low vertical (meaning European stakeholders, e.g., MEPs or local (EU) activists, are underrepresented) and horizontal (meaning few references to other member states and few similarities in EU reporting) Europeanization prevail.
• High Europeanization and high politicization resulting in multitude of articles concerning the EU, numerous controversies, and coverage of contentious EU issues, similar frames and patterns of opinion across member states, as well as strong vertical (high presence of European stakeholders in the reporting) and horizontal (numerous references to other member states, many similarities in reporting) Europeanization.
• High Europeanization but low politicization leading to a substantial number of articles pertaining to the EU, as well as a high level of both vertical and horizontal Europeanization. Additionally, there is a notable similarity in the frames and patterns of opinion across member states. However, this is accompanied by little controversy or debate on EU issues in local newspapers, and there is a lack of critical reporting.
• Low Europeanization and high politicization resulting in numerous controversies and extensive coverage of contentious EU issues, but only low vertical and horizontal Europeanization.

Addressing the normative implications and influences on the EU’s democratic deficit (see Wenzel, 2025, pp. 100–102), Europeanization is described as a “civilising force in the sense of unifying european societies and enhancing their regulative and communicative capacities” (Trenz, 2010, p. 28). Therefore, it is deemed to be predominantly beneficial for European democracy, primarily due to its presumed capacity to foster consensus and identity (Vetters, 2007, p. 356; Wenzel, 2025, p. 100). From a normative and optimistic perspective, politicization is also found to be conducive to European democracy (Statham & Trenz, 2013b, p. 5). It is assumed to exert a democratizing effect, given its promotion of democratic activities and, by extension, support for the EU (Wiesner, 2021, p. 37; 2022, pp. 29–30; Wenzel, 2025, p. 100). Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that politicization does not inherently imply democratization. Instead, it can be conceptualized as a process that underscores alternative perspectives and facilitates the engagement of additional stakeholders. This contributes to the enhancement of democratic norms and practices (Wenzel, 2025, p. 100).

In sum, politicization can contribute to the establishment of the EU as “legitimate policy”. This process, in turn, can facilitate the advancement of Europeanization, even in the presence of Eurosceptic politicians (Oleart & Haapala, 2022, pp. 4, 8; see also Rapp, 2025). It can also contribute to the prevention of renationalization of European policies (Risse, 2014b, p. 23). Europeanization in turn is presumed to facilitate the politicization of European issues, thereby contributing to the politicization process (Risse, 2010, pp. 8, 232; Wenzel, 2025, p. 102).

In accordance with the aforementioned normative assumptions, the four situations exert varying effects on the EU’s democratic deficit (Wenzel, 2025, pp. 116–119; red in Figure 1):

• Minimal resonance and interest for EU issues are to be expected. Local newspapers dedicate little to no resources to EU-related content, leading to what is known as “permissive consensus” (Hooghe & Marks, 2009). This situation appears to be counterproductive to addressing the EU’s democratic deficit.
• Politicization and Europeanization promote EU democracy by facilitating transparency, informed opinion formation, and the inclusion of a diverse range of actors. It is possible that these processes reinforce one another, thereby making an even greater contribution to the improvement of the EU’s democratic deficit.
• The absence of debates and controversies leads to a deficiency in transparency, which in turn impedes the formation of opinions. This results in a predominantly negative impact on the EU’s democratic deficit. While a modest contribution may be feasible, it is based on the assumption that Europeanization and regular reporting on EU affairs serve as a preliminary step toward politicization (Risse, 2010, pp. 8, 232).
• Minimal Europeanization, both vertically and horizontally, gives rise to national or local treatment of EU issues. The EU is experiencing a decline in its relevance and importance, which is exerting a negative influence on its democratic deficit.

As previously explained, local newspapers are regarded as an intermediate level in the model of the top-down and bottom-up dynamics of Europeanization and politicization in local newspapers. Within them, journalists facilitate public discourse, empower citizens to become informed about EU issues, and foster transparency. Furthermore, they function as a conduit, thereby establishing a connection between various actors in the political and civic spheres (Wenzel, 2025, p. 105; van Aelst, 2014, p. 243; Monza & Anduiza, 2016, p. 502). Concurrently, in their capacity as gatekeepers (see Engelmann, 2016)13, journalists and EU correspondents in local contexts determine the content of local newspapers through selection processes that are influenced by a combination of external and internal factors (Firmstone, 2024, p. 100; Shoemaker & Reese, 2014, p. 4; Wenzel, 2025, pp. 46–47). Doing so, they adopt a dual role: (1) as chroniclers, when publishing the statements of other actors and reflecting the political system; or (2) as political actors and speakers who may be considered a “Third Estate” or “Popular Voice” (Tobler, 2010, p. 39; Trenz, 2008b, p. 293; Risse, 2010, p. 114; Wenzel, 2025, pp. 47–48).

The Hierarchy-of-Influences Model (H-o-I Model; white in Figure 1) explains how journalists select news and organize EU reporting. It was developed by Shoemaker and Reese (1996) (see Wenzel, 2025, pp. 120–126). The multi-method, holistic approach differentiates five levels: the individual level, professional routines, the organizational level, the level of social institutions, and the level of social systems (Reese & Shoemaker, 2016, p. 396; Shoemaker & Reese, 2014, p. 8). At each level, various factors shape journalists’ work, and consequently, their EU reporting. These factors may operate across several levels and interact with one another (Shoemaker et al., 2009, p. 82; Shoemaker & Reese, 2014, p. 94). Examples of such factors include personal characteristics at the individual level, news factors or time resources at the level of professional routines, bureaucratic structures at the organizational level, political news management at the level of social institutions, or ideologies and culture at the level of social systems (Shoemaker et al., 2009, pp. 81–82; Wenzel, 2025, pp. 123–126; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996).

In essence, the model shows how Europeanization and politicization, which are empirically discernible in local newspapers through the combined indicators (in green in Figure 1), may influence an EPS (in pink in Figure 1). Consequently, this influence may yield normatively positive or negative ramifications for the EU’s democratic deficit (in red in Figure 1). It also explains the manner in which the actions of local journalists and EU correspondents (in dark blue in Figure 1) within their dual role at the second level of the multi-level and multi-stage model (light blue in Figure 1) are influenced by external and internal factors and can be empirically measured (white in Figure 1; Wenzel, 2025, p. 128).

3. Materials and Methods

Building on this theoretical framework, the following Section outlines the empirical material and analytical procedure. The empirical part of this article and application of the model is based on a series of 34 interviews with local journalists, EU correspondents based in Brussels, MEPs and EP press officers, press officers from EDICs, and representatives from civil society and national ministries. The interviewees were contacted via electronic mail, telephone, or personal contacts. Since it proved difficult to recruit enough interviewees for the study, the snowball principle was employed. Under this method, interviewees recommended individuals who met the specified criteria (e.g., position, country of origin). 17 interviewees were from Germany, five from France, ten from Austria, and two were based in Brussels. In total, eleven representatives of EU institutions, ten journalists and EU correspondents, three volunteers, six representatives from EDICs, and four staff members from public institutions were interviewed. (see Wenzel, 2025, pp. 134–137, for details on the selection process). The interview participants generally expressed pro-European views and demonstrated a high level of familiarity with EU affairs. The interviews were conducted either in person or via WebEx (Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), with each interview lasting between 45 and 90 min. They were recorded between June 2022 and January 2023, after obtaining verbal informed consent from each participant.

Germany, France, and Austria were chosen because the initial two states are the largest EU member states and founding members, exhibiting a robust tradition of bilateral cooperation. A comparison of the Austrian and German regional press markets reveals a high degree of similarity between the two countries. This similarity extends to the political values and systems of both nations (Vonbun-Feldbauer et al., 2020, p. 127). The French regional press tradition and market differ from both, exhibiting a more centralized structure.14 Furthermore, the author’s language competencies in all three official languages enabled access to local newspapers, which are printed in the respective countries’ official languages.

For the interviews, specific lead questionnaires were developed for each group of actors. These lead questionnaires focused on questions relating to EU democracy and local newspapers. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized (the masculine form is used throughout the following text solely to preserve anonymity) in their original language (German, French, or English). The recordings and the transcripts were stored on a password-protected external hard drive to which only the author has access. The data were analyzed using Mayring’s (1989, 2015) qualitative content analysis method with MAXqda 2022 and 24 (VERBI Software GmbH, Berlin, Germany). The coding system was developed iteratively, incorporating inductive and deductive approaches in multiple iterations to ensure comprehensive and consistent coverage. The coding system was organized in eight categories, each including various subcategories and codes, e.g., resources/possible restrictions/space or EPS/own role/explain. Finally, the full coding system was implemented for all interviews. The coding system was supplemented by a series of memos and direct quotations that were methodically organized according to their respective topics and motives (see Wenzel, 2025, pp. 138–142, for details on the qualitative analysis and coding process).

It should be noted that the coding process involved subjective interpretation in the process of assigning categories and passages of text and was therefore shaped by the author’s individual interpretation (Mayring, 2008, p. 11; Gläser & Laudel, 2010, p. 201). The author’s theoretical perspective and research focus influenced the coding system. Thus, different researchers might have generated alternative interpretations.

The quotations employed in this article have been edited for the sake of clarity, with superfluous verbal fillers such as “hm” or “äh” being removed. The author translated all German and French quotations herself using DeepL (v3).

4. Reader Interest and Information Availability

The fourth Section examines two particular factors (situated on level two (routines) and four (social institutions) of the H-o-I Model) that have the potential to impact local journalists as well as EU correspondents and thereby their reporting in local newspapers. These factors include reader interest and the availability of information in the context of EU reporting.

Studying the perceived reader interest in the EU and the perceptions of public opinions of journalists matters because the perceived interests and preferences of their readerships can influence news selection and framing as journalists try to align their reporting (Prochazka et al., 2025, p. 1308). Previous research indicates that editors, in their reporting on the EU, tend to align their work with the presumed public interest and opinion. Conversely, EU correspondents place significant emphasis on national references and their distinct interpretations (Offerhaus, 2011, p. 272; see also Kümpers, 2022, pp. 14–15; Gleissner & de Vreese, 2005, p. 222).

Information availability strongly affects the visibility of EU reporting in local newspapers. Local newsrooms function within a series of stringent constraints (see Aldridge, 2007; Möhring, 2015) and heavily rely on readily accessible, comprehensible, verifiable, and localized information. When journalists cannot find relevant EU information, domestic news outlets often exclude EU issues from their coverage, even in cases where its political significance is evident.

In the following Subsections, statements made by the interviewees and findings of prior research will be investigated in order to ascertain the implications for the EU’s democratic deficit.

4.1. Reader Interest

Interviewees assessed readers’ interest in EU politics and reporting as relatively low. For example, a French journalist (pos. 138) clearly stated: “Nobody’s interested in institutions.” A German correspondent (I, pos. 22–24) explained in a similar way: “Many events in the European Parliament are not relevant. I think this is consistently very difficult to get into the newspapers. Reader interest is measurably very low.” Later on, he added (pos. 102–106): “There has to be an interest from the outset, and this is not the case with many European topics. Only with a naturally particularly interested audience. That always exists and it is measurably not the majority.” Similarly, the head of a German EDIC (pos. 98) stated: “So even local editors obviously have to report in the media what people are interested in, and Europe doesn’t always come first.”

These statements point first to a continuation of the “permissive consensus” identified in EU public sphere research (Hooghe & Marks, 2009), where citizens are perceived to remain largely disengaged from EU institutional politics unless directly affected. Second, they align with findings on a segmented/fragmented public sphere and EU coverage primarily reaching political elites and highly educated citizens, but failing to penetrate broader publics (see Kleinen von Königslöw, 2012, pp. 454–456; Kermer & Nijmeijer, 2020, p. 33).

Interviewees perceived that reader interest was particularly low in rural regions. An Austrian MEP (pos. 188–190) elaborated: “And I also see that there is certainly an interested target group for foreign policy and global issues, but I also think that a large part of the population, especially in rural areas or small-scale communities, is pretty much out of touch with this.” Similarly, the press officer of a German MEP (I, pos. 308–310) remarked: “And they [the journalists] all tell you that European topics are incredibly difficult for a newspaper like this [regional ones].” Later in the interview, he (I, pos. 468) added: “And the majority of people who live in rural areas, but also many who live in medium-sized towns and cities, would probably say to you: ‘Oh, that’s not important to us. What’s important to us is what happens here locally!’”.

On the one hand, all these statements highlight the challenge of making EU politics salient at the local level. This is where the spatial dimension of the democratic deficit becomes visible: EU politics appear geographically and psychologically distant from local communities, violating the news value “proximity” that is crucial for local journalism (Möhring, 2015, p. 26; Dorostan, 2017, p. 216; see also Gioltzidou et al., 2023, p. 5). On the other hand, the necessity of a “clear link to the nation state” is indicated (Firmstone, 2008, p. 427; Gleissner & de Vreese, 2005, pp. 228, 237–238). A link of this nature, also referred to as “national glasses” or “local glasses” (see for more detailed explanations Wenzel, 2025, pp. 53–54), can emerge during the framing process (Clausen, 2010, p. 132) as “domestication of the news” (Frangonikolopoulos & Papapadopoulou, 2021, p. 1117) or as “nationalistic bias” (Trenz, 2015, p. 235). Such national/local glasses include reporting on EU politics linked to domestic political issues, framing EU issues within the national context, and interpreting them based on national and/or regional interests (Eilders & Voltmer, 2003, p. 267; Firmstone, 2008, p. 427). Local glasses may facilitate the comprehension of the consequences or implications of EU policy and underscore the scope, impact, and relevance of these issues for readers (Eilders & Voltmer, 2003, p. 267; Liebetruth, 2012, pp. 20–22, 28–29). However, they also have the potential to introduce distortions in the portrayal and perception of the EU, as well as oversimplify representations of EU politics (Plavec, 2020, p. 19).

Another statement by a German journalist (III, pos. 50) reinforces the finding that EU news compete poorly in the attention economy of local journalism and often lack news values (see also Salovaara-Moring, 2009, p. 74; Harcup & O’Neill, 2017, on news values): “The politics section, i.e., political reporting from Berlin and Brussels, can never be the first point of attraction, but they are of course an important part of daily reading.” This is consistent with the conclusions of Lecheler (2008, p. 460), who conducted 14 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with correspondents based in Brussels, in which they emphasized the uninterested and uninformed nature of their audience at home regarding EU affairs. She found that the “majority of journalists agreed that their audiences’ disinterest likely stemmed from their inability to understand how events in Brussels could directly affect their lives” (Lecheler, 2008, p. 458), thereby pointing to a need for personal relevance and a visible impact on one’s own life in EU news. Relevance, defined as the scope and extent of impact, is one news factor15 that has been identified as salient for EU correspondents (Offerhaus, 2011, pp. 188–192). One key finding taken from the interviews is that relevance is essential: “Of course, it has to have a certain relevance for the readership we have” (Correspondent Austria, pos. 14). But research shows that EU affairs receive less attention than day-to-day events and their news value is considered comparatively lower in national newspaper editorial offices (Offerhaus, 2011, p. 192; see also Gioltzidou et al., 2023, p. 2).

In this context, a French journalist (pos. 72–76) emphasized the media’s pivotal role in fostering reader interest in the EU: “The reader isn’t necessarily interested. The reader is interested in the easy stuff. It’s only natural. We’re all the same. So if we want him to be interested in something else, it’s our job to explain to him precisely why it’s interesting?” Thereby, they hinted at another factor: complexity; which leads to conflicts between the media’s logic and the EU’s communicative approach (Balčytienė & Vinciūnienė, 2010, pp. 146–149; Nesti & Valentini, 2010, p. 401).16 Because of the EU’s increasingly coded everyday language, journalists require a high degree of specialization and expertise in various policy areas in order to facilitate understanding of EU politics (Michailidou & Trenz, 2020, p. 1). Furthermore, its multi-stage decision-making processes and structures necessitate a greater need for explanation and background information in the reporting (Gerhards, 2000, p. 298; see also Gioltzidou et al., 2023, p. 4). This complexity is also pertinent in the context of abstract EU topics, which are notoriously challenging to explain and where it is often difficult to demonstrate the specific effects for a local community. For instance, a German journalist (I, pos. 25) argued that overly abstract discussions of Europe are unsuitable for local newspapers: “There’s no point in having too abstract a discussion about Europe on the local level.”

Nevertheless, a German volunteer (pos. 350–352) expressed a divergent perspective on reader interest, stating: “And then there are also contributions from other countries. People are very interested in it. One woman once said at a citizens’ forum: ‘I don’t know, but the others have the same problems as we do. What are they actually discussing?’” The press officer of a German MEP shared a similar view (II, pos. 274): “And I believe that a moderately interested electorate/readership is already aware of this and also understands it and does not consider it too complex that there are somehow different political forces in Brussels as well as in Berlin.” Firstly, this indicates a perceived absence of horizontal Europeanization, and secondly, it highlights the existence of a demographic within the readership that, while interested in EU-related matters, constitutes a minority, but does not necessarily consist exclusively of the elite. It further suggests an untapped potential for EU journalism. However, the challenge lies in the expansion of this segment, given the difficulty in assuming universal interest in EU politics.

4.2. Information Availability

Despite the interviewees’ perception that readers exhibited minimal interest and that the coverage of the EU was inadequate, the interviewees concluded that a sufficient body of information on EU-related topics was available for reporting purposes (see also Wenzel, 2025, pp. 273–274, on information overflow). A German correspondent (II, pos. 16–18) recounted: “It’s like a huge ocean full of topics and you can basically choose anything from it.” The correspondent (II, pos. 18–24) added: “You not only have the feeling that you miss something every day, you actually miss something every day because you can’t tackle everything.” This underscores the point that EU institutions distribute large amounts of information through their various channels. Individual correspondents cannot process all this information, and local newspapers cannot publish it in its entirety—also because of resource-constrained local newsrooms (see Aldridge, 2007, p. 45; Neuberger, 2022, p. 283; Lauerer & Keel, 2019, pp. 132–133). It hints at a mismatch between institutional output and journalistic capacity. A study by Gioltzidou et al. (2023, p. 8) underlines this issue, identifying “a gap between the news that are produced by the European Union, compared to those that are broadcasted in a national level.” Later in the interview, the German correspondent (II, pos. 148–150) pointed out a „never-ending wave” and explained that “then there is a peak and then you pick something out and report on it.” On the one hand, this suggests cyclical and periodic EU reporting, which frequently peaks during significant events or when important decisions are made (see de Vreese, 2001, pp. 284, 298; de Vreese et al., 2005, p. 181; Boomgaarden et al., 2010, pp. 518–519). As a result, citizens may encounter EU news primarily during crises or controversies, reinforcing perceptions of dysfunction while obscuring everyday policymaking (see Vliegenthart et al., 2008, p. 434). Conversely, the interviews indicate that information is consistently available. News selection therefore depends less on access to information than on, e.g., editorial priorities, available resources, and perceived audience relevance. The correspondent (II, pos. 604–612) also noted that it is “no problem at all to find a topic. It’s more of a problem to deliberately not find a topic because you already have other topics that you’re dealing with.” He identified the issue as predominantly characterized by the temporary cessation of sources, which “bubble up by themselves”. This suggests the presence of various actors and their demands, visible on the fourth level of the H-o-I Model, who seek to influence journalists and secure placement of their topics in the news. In the context of EU reporting, these actors may range from local to international levels, from citizens to national politicians to MEPs and international actors such as Non-Governmental Institutions (NGOs). Nevertheless, analyses of EU reporting reveal an overrepresentation of elites (Koopmans, 2004, pp. 29–30; Walter, 2015, 2017, 2019).

Like the first German correspondent, a second correspondent from Germany (I, pos. 378) argued that: “The opportunities are there for local editorial offices. The topics are there.” This statement similarly shows that the lack of reporting does not result from a shortage of EU information. In addition, an Austrian correspondent (pos. 420) mentioned the “sheer volume of topics”, which also demonstrates that topics and information are available and, in most cases, readily accessible to media outlets. Brussels correspondents are generally described as “generalists rather than specialists” (Lecheler et al., 2023, p. 1737; see also Lecheler, 2008, p. 455). This means that they can report on a wide range of subjects, albeit with the understanding that they are compelled to present the intricacies and nuances of EU politics in an engaging and comprehensible way for domestic audiences.

Other interviewees, such as a public institution officer from Austria (I, pos. 106–108), had problems with the immense amount of information as well: “And that brings us to the small problem with the EU: They publish so many things in parallel that you can no longer cope with communicating.” The officer (Austria I, pos. 504–508) saw “a pattern that far too much happens at the same time and that they [EU institutions] don’t coordinate.” This shows that the EU’s communication strategy may also contribute to an information overload. In the event that EU institutions and agencies (and their members themselves) generate information in a simultaneous manner without implementing coordination measures, the result is likely to be an overwhelming and fragmented array of data, which may encompass redundant information or even competing narratives (see also Meyer, 1999).

In accordance with the assertions put forth by the correspondents and the public institution officer, press officers acknowledged an excess of information. This inundation of data is attributable, at least in part, to the plethora of events and issues within the institutions: “Because it’s impossible to really write press releases about every single issue that is going on in the European Parliament” (Press officer Brussels I, pos. 28–30). However, the press officer underlined that “as soon as there is a meeting, as soon as there is a development, as soon as there is something that can be happening in the future and that is already being analyzed, we were informing about it” (Press officer Brussels I, pos. 184), which demonstrates the objective of providing the greatest possible amount of information to the press, consequently resulting in correspondents grappling with an excess of data. This is also reflected in the statement of a French MEP’s press officer (pos. 54–58): “What happens is that we generally send out a lot of information and maybe 20 percent of it gets picked up by the press. But we send out information on everything and it’s the press sorting it out.” In general, the role of journalists as gatekeepers is emphasized here. Press officers are aware that not all information is suitable for publication, yet they strive to provide as much information as possible. Furthermore, standardized press releases and information might not align with the local context and circumstances, while enhanced targeting, such as directly contacting specific journalists in regions more affected by certain EU regulations, and more effective messaging, could yield a higher level of uptake by the journalists (see Vidačak & Matan, 2026, p. 44).

Simultaneously, the press officers acknowledged that relevance is interpreted variably among journalists and EU institutions. A French press officer (pos. 172–176) explained that “from the Brussels point of view everything is interesting. Everything is for the media. You can more or less sell everything. Which is not true when you’re on the ground.” This suggests that there may be discrepancies in how journalists and EU institutions assess the importance and relevance of EU issues, as well as in the different criteria used by media outlets and the EU institutions.

Finally, a press officer based in Brussels (II, pos. 280) found that “the access to the information […] is very easy”, which reveals a critical distinction between information accessibility (technical ease of obtaining materials) and information usability (journalists’ capacity to process and transform materials into news) that is immanent in most statements above. Despite the technical accessibility of the information, its usability for journalistic purposes appears to be impeded. This suggests an issue that may lie in the domain of communication design rather than transparency.17

4.3. Consequences for the Democratic Deficit

Taken together, these statements, and thus the interviewees’ perception, show, on the one hand, a situation in which there is an abundance of information on EU issues, contradicting claims that the lack of EU coverage stems from information scarcity. As a result of this abundance, local journalists and correspondents struggle to process the volume of information. This results in selective, often event-driven coverage that is almost exclusively conducted from a national/local perspective. On the other hand, because journalists perceive little reader interest, news organizations appear reluctant to allocate additional resources to training journalists, hiring additional correspondents, or expanding local newspapers’ coverage of EU-related issues. Nevertheless, the sheer volume of available sources necessitates a thorough and methodical approach to ensure the reliability and validity of the information presented.

These findings suggest that processes of horizontal Europeanization (connections between member states) and vertical Europeanization (EU-national linkages) remain underdeveloped in local media, thereby constraining the Europeanization and politicization of a local/national public sphere. According to the model of the top-down and bottom-up dynamics of Europeanization and politicization in local newspapers, a situation with low Europeanization and low politicization results from journalists being overburdened with covering the overwhelming amount of information on European issues while facing a lack of resources and little incentive to improve coverage because journalists perceive reader interest to be low. This situation not only exacerbates the EU’s prevailing communication deficit but also its democratic deficit, as it results in incomplete reporting on EU issues, hinders the formation of a cohesive European identity, and contributes to the perpetuation of intransparency.

This underscores the notion that transparency alone is insufficient for democratic accountability. Information must not only be available but also be digestible and actionable for journalists and citizens (see also Statham, 2008, pp. 407–409). Vidačak and Matan (2026, p. 43) note: “Without clear curation and narrative framing, even well-intentioned communication can appear fragmented and inaccessible.” This highlights the importance of ensuring that EU-related information reaches journalists in a timely, clear, and locally relevant form. Such an approach may increase the probability of EU-related issues being covered by local newspapers, because it reduces research time, enhances accuracy, and facilitates connecting EU decisions with the local community.

5. Conclusions

Within the model of the top-down and bottom-up dynamics of Europeanization and politicization in local newspapers, EU reporting in local newspapers appears to be constrained less by access to information than by factors such as information overflow, editorial priorities, resources, and perceived low audience interest. From a normative perspective, this suggests that improving EU coverage not only requires more information, but also better-coordinated communication from EU institutions that is easier and less resource-intensive for local journalists to use. EU institutions could improve communication by prioritizing key messages, timing press releases strategically, tailoring EU issues to local contexts, and reducing duplication.

Research has demonstrated that journalists seek to augment their evidence with additional information, frequently incorporating citizen quotes into their articles (Gioltzidou et al., 2023, p. 8). This finding underscores the necessity for further investigation into the effective implementation of EU journalism practices within the context of local media environments that are characterized by limited resources.

Further research is needed on the topic of information curation and filtering practices in EU journalism (quantitative and qualitative). Such research should be based on the following questions: How do EU correspondents and (local) journalists navigate overload, and what information gets systematically excluded? In this context, comparative research could be conducted to examine how diverse media (systems) (see e.g., Hallin & Mancini, 2004, 2012) manage the influx of EU information and the resulting coverage patterns.

Another potential option that merits consideration is the implementation of artificial intelligence algorithms for database management and information organization. Subsequent research endeavors may encompass the exploration of such applications (see, for example, Diakopoulos, 2019).

Furthermore, as mentioned in Section 3, the interviewees generally expressed pro-European views and demonstrated a high level of familiarity with EU affairs. This may have influenced the findings by producing interpretations that are more favorable toward, or informed about, the EU than those of the wider public. Their perspectives may also have led them to focus on the accuracy, relevance, and complexity of EU coverage rather than on more critical or emotionally driven aspects. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted with caution, as they may not fully reflect the views of less informed, Eurosceptic, or politically disengaged audiences. However, it would be worthwhile to interview EU-critical or Eurosceptic individuals to gain insight into how their perspectives diverge from those discussed in this article.