There have been signs of an increasing tolerance of intolerance in the media throughout Europe in recent years. The influx of immigrants has provided the spur by which the last vestiges of civil behaviour have been done away with. Politicians in Denmark speak openly of sending refugees home by parachute. Newspapers in Britain turn on would-be asylum seekers, declaring them to be scroungers and fraudulent confidence tricksters. From country to country the degree varies, but what emerges is the impression of a growing sense of distrust regarding people of different racial, ethnic and religious groups.

What is at stake is nothing less than the future of Europe. The question of what we want that future to be needs to be adressed openly and honestly in the public sphere. The role of the media in this matter is vital. The media have the power to influence public opinion, which in turn increasingly influences decisions made at governmental level.

There are no easy solutions and there are no simple answers. But the need for a balanced and free press is essential if we are to avoid dividing Europe and creating social inequalities that will lead to chaos and decay. The track record is not good. Complacency, poor journalism, political or economic motives all tend to guide editiorial lines towards the sensational, to over-dramatise or to underplay the facts in an effort to appeal to a broader audience. To some extent this factor is balanced by the range of publications and news stations available, but in the battle for survival in a global market the balance between ethical considerations and financial viability is a difficult one that few manage to maintain.

Another essential factor is a consequence of the failure to draw members of the ethnic minorities into the mainstream media. The alienation of these communities as a consequence of unfair discrimination has resulted in the maintenance of sterile approaches to the presence of new elements within society.

The continued pattern of exclusion also increases the tendency towards alienation and disenchantment. The recent case of the rape of a mentally disturbed girl in Denmark last year demonstrated the degree to which the social landscape is fissured by deep rifts.
Recent comments by Greg Dyke, director-general of the BBC, earlier this month, in which he declared that there was a serious lack of representation of Britain’s ethnic minorities in the broadcasting corporation’s ranks, particularly at the level of middle management, appear to be part of an on-going process of re-evaluation. As a result of a series of events going back over several decades, and more immediately as a consequence of the Macpherson Report into the Stephen Lawrence case, Britain is being forced to take a good look at itself. Greg Dyke’s comments are essential in this process because of the central role played by the BBC in defining what Britain is. A balanced society needs a balanced media. We no longer live as isolated nations, but as parts of a globally interdependent whole.

And while the reckless behaviour of the scandal sheets is to be deplored, it is perhaps even more worrying that the more balanced sections of the press continue to contribute to the ongoing ignorance and propagation of common prejudice by their adherence to rules of so-called journalistic objectivity.

The argument that journalists whose view is more closely in tune with public opinion are better qualified to provide a balanced picture, overlooks the fact that public opinion can still be biased, and disregards the mionrities’ lack of a voice in the first place. The Catch 22 reason why they have no voice is of course that the mainstream media consider that anyone coming from those minorities is incapable of being balanced enough to be objective.

To combat intolerance we need to expand our vocabulary. We need a press that is rigorous and thorough and unafraid of criticism. And we need representation of all parts of the social spectrum; real representation, not just somebody to read the weather, as Denmarks Radio installed a few years ago. A decision that was inadequate and clumsy, and by no fault of the person in question. The isolated presence, however, evoked the captive and passive African, an image that evoked the mental framework of bygone colonial days. Tellingly, this was an image which the Danes had never consciously distanced themselves from: It still appeared on the cover of coffee packets and cocoa products. Why? Because it was an image which offended only a silent minority – nobody was there to object. If society is to regain its equilibrium a new vocabulary must be found which redresses the pre-conditioned impulses imposed by the old. The only way to do this is to allow the minorities to speak for themselves.

Without this voice, asserting the rights and the interests of the ethnic minorities to participate in society, we remain at the mercy of the scandal mongers, the tabloids and the radical end of the political spectrum that wishes only to increase intolerance so as to further its own, rather limited prospects.

Without this literate, cognitive presence in the public space we are left with the illiterate caricatures which justify politicians in treating people as little more than animals. Intolerance cannot be overcome by passive tolerance but must be advocated by rigoruous measures.

The politics of Europe today are the politics of popularism, of rationalisation and economic liberalisation. Social responsability seems to come last in the list of priorities. Increasingly media conscious, government policies are decided by opinion polls, public relations firms and management consultants. The ethical or moral code to which people look to their governments is all too often abandonned. Europe’s ability to meet the challenges of the social changes which are being imposed by a changing world will depend on a reassessment of the values upon which Europe prides itself that it is based.

Europe prides itself on its press, and rightly so. In many parts of the world today freedom of the press is all too rare a commodity. Journalists put their lives at risk in the service of the right to express themselves freely. It is not to be taken for granted.
We need to ask what is that we believe Europe to be, and what we want it to be. Whether we want a Europe that respects all human life and dignity or whether we want an increasingly segregated society that is defensive, intolerant and in which we all live in fear. The responsibility of the media in this process cannot be overestimated.