EU Commission Funds Legacy Media
In another example of the circular economy™, the EU funds journos and think tanks whose reports™ are then used by the EU and member-states to justify their policies
Who ever said crime doesn’t pay? Today, we’ll follow-up on a piece from half a year ago that detailed how the EU Commission used Maoist tactics to further their nefarious agenda (2030):
The below comes to you in my translation, with emphases and [snark] added.
EU Pays Mainstream Media: A Bought Positive Image?
Millions are channelled into EU media projects every year. But do they promote genuine journalism or are they used to spread political messages? A look behind the scenes.
By Franz Becchi, Berliner Zeitung, 14 July 2025 [source; archived]
Does the EU strengthen its own image by spending public funds? [this is a totally truthful picture of what usually occurs in downtown Berlin, I swear]
‘Facts count, the truth counts’, said Ursula von der Leyen in her speech to the EU Parliament at the beginning of last week, when the vote of no confidence against her was tabled. She was always prepared to engage in discussions—but only if they were based on ‘facts’ and ‘arguments’ [note that this is a legacy media journo™ who now places scare quotes before/after facts™ and arguments™ espoused by Ms. Von der Leyen: ‘bout damn time].
As expected, von der Leyen survived the vote of no confidence despite serious accusations of a lack of transparency in the procurement of coronavirus vaccines and an authoritarian management style. According to von der Leyen, the criticism came from an ‘extremist handbook’ [that’s as useful a textbook definition of a ‘crybully’ as any, if you’d ask me]. For many media outlets, the result was a victory for the head of the EU Commission: ‘Von der Leyen successfully defends herself against vote of no confidence and attacks right-wingers’ was the headline in Der Spiegel, while Deutsche Welle reported that the right-wingers had failed: ‘Right-wingers fail with no-confidence motion against von der Leyen.’ [I’m not linking to these pieces (the Berliner Zeitung doesn’t, by the way), because when I searched for these headers, I noticed that Der Spiegel had apparently already changed its headline…I also noticed that virtually all legacy media outlets ran with variations of that theme, hence the below screenshot
Note that I started out with the verbatim header and ‘Der Spiegel’ as quoted in the original German piece by Franz Becchi…]
But behind this political showdown lies another, largely ignored question: how independent are the media when more and more of them are funded directly by governments or international institutions such as the EU? Every year, the EU makes millions available for media projects—not only in its member-states, but also in countries where Euroscepticism is widespread, such as in parts of Eastern Europe. But what impact does this financial support have on journalistic freedom and the objectivity of reporting? [muahahahahahahahahaha, that’s the 80m euro question, isn’t it?]
EU Pays Legacy Media 80m Euros Per Year
Italian independent investigative journalist Thomas Fazi addresses this question in a report he published at the beginning of June [note the sleight-of-hand: the report by Mr. Fazi is linked to, but the title—‘The EU’s Propaganda Machine’—is not mentioned; in the Berliner Zeitung’s original piece, only a screenshot is linked to: what a coincidence™]. Fazi is a journalist, author and documentary filmmaker who lives mainly in Rome. He is known for his critical analyses of politics, economics, and EU issues. His books include The Battle for Europe (2014) and Reclaiming the State (2017, with William Mitchell). His most recent work is The Covid Consensus (with Toby Green). He writes for media such as UnHerd and Compact [that’s actually a quite fair and objective bio].
The report, which was published on the Hungarian right-wing conservative think tank MCC Brussels [guilt-tripping Mr. Fazi by association, eh?], shows that the EU spends almost 80 million euros a year on media projects both inside and outside the European Union. State broadcasters such as the Italian news agency Ansa, Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa), and Deutsche Welle are particularly in the spotlight. These and other news agencies and communications companies all receive funding, but what is it actually for? [oh, well, here’s my take: pay the piper, call the tune, and if you think that same doesn’t apply to experts™ and academics™, you’re very much mistaken; the one thing I’d add here is—most journos™, experts™, and academics™ are actually pretty cheap in terms of their per capita prices: exclusive™ access to high-profile politicos™ or globalists, some finger food at the margins of this convention, a somewhat nicer hotel for two nights or the like will make most journos™, experts™, and academics™ sing your praises without, formally speaking, rendering them subject to accusations of having been paid (what they’ll claim is that their expenses have been reimbursed, as per industry standards)]
Funding programmes are often framed with slogans such as ‘combating disinformation’ or ‘supporting fact-based programmes’. However, according to Fazi in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung, ‘at the same time, clear strategic objectives are being pursued in order to influence the public debate and promote the EU agenda’. Many of these projects would explicitly support pro-European narratives, including, for example, the promotion of European integration [no pointe].
On geopolitically sensitive issues such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, media outlets that receive this funding could be incentivised to repeat the official positions of the EU and NATO, Fazi warns. Last year alone, the EU awarded around ten million euros to Ukrainian media.
The EU Commission is the main funder of these media projects. Through programmes such as IMREG (Information Measures for the EU Cohesion Policy), 40 million euros have been invested in media since 2021, often via public broadcasters and news agencies. Another major programme, ‘Journalism Partnerships’, has provided almost 50 million euros since 2021.
The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), which supports networks to ‘combat disinformation’, has received at least €27 million over the past five years—an area that is closely linked to the promotion of pro-European narratives [sounds like a lot of money, for sure, but keep in mind that there are 450m EU subjects, i.e., that’s not too high a price for convenient-subservient reporting™].
For its part, the EU Parliament, through its Directorate-General for Communication, has provided almost 30 million euros for media campaigns since 2020. This funding was aimed, among other things, at increasing ‘outreach to targeted audiences’ and promoting ‘legitimacy for EP campaigns’, particularly ahead of the European elections.
In the run-up to the 2024 European elections, for example, eight million euros were made available to ‘inform citizens about the importance of the European elections and encourage them to exercise their right to vote’ as well as to ‘reach out to new voters’. ‘Independent media are essential for European democracy and the European Parliament supports them through transparent initiatives that protect editorial freedom,’ a spokesperson for the EU Parliament told the Berliner Zeitung. Furthermore, media reports had presented the maximum possible ceiling for inter-institutional framework contracts as the amount actually spent, thereby misrepresenting the extent of EU funding.
‘What counts is that this money is made available’, says Fazi, who considers his estimates to be conservative, as they only take into account direct funding to the media. Communications agencies that receive funds and then redistribute them to the media are not included in his calculation, explains the investigative journalist. A common practice.
This is How Much Money Media Corporations Receive From the EU
But how much money did the individual media receive? Euronews leads the ranking with a total of 230 million euros in funding—[German state broadcasters] ZDF and Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR) received significantly less with 500,000 euros and 600,000 euros respectively. The French broadcaster Arte received around 26 million euros. Large sums also went to Deutsche Welle (35 million euros) and Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa), with 3.2 million euros.
News agencies in particular are involved in several media projects. As part of the Multimedia Actions Programme, around 1.7 million euros were provided for the establishment of the ‘European Newsroom’ (ENR) in 2024. The newsroom, which is coordinated by [German Press Agency] dpa, brings together news agencies from 24 countries to produce and disseminate news on EU affairs. These agencies—including AFP (France), EFE (Spain), Ansa (Italy), Belga (Belgium), and many more—will work together to produce and distribute news that provides a pan-European perspective on EU issues [and they’ll all be super-dooper objective™, of course, I pinky promise you].
The content is aimed at media houses, citizens and institutions and will be distributed via agency networks, the European Data News Hub, newsletters, social media, and projects such as ChatEurope, and is intended to promote understanding of EU decisions and combat ‘disinformation’.
What is Behind the ‘European Newsroom’?
In relation to the dpa basic service, which provides a broad spectrum of global news for media customers, the ENR complements this with specialised EU reporting [sic]. ENR content can flow into the basic service, but remains focussed on EU topics. The basic service is primarily financed by subscriptions, while the ENR specifically supports EU-relevant content and infrastructure such as joint offices in Brussels [which makes sense as the EU pays for this BS].
‘In the current project, dpa is organising the central services and acting as a clearing house’, a dpa spokesperson told the Berliner Zeitung. The ‘European Newsroom’ would not develop any content on behalf of the EU Commission and would not coordinate any content with it. On the ENR website, however, it quickly becomes apparent that critical views on the EU are hardly represented here.
The interviews with MEPs and officials paint a rather one-sided picture of the Union. For example, the President of the European Council, Antonio Costa, claims that Albania could become a member of the EU before 2030. The Vice-President of the EU Parliament, Katarina Barley (PES), warns of ‘radical right-wing alliances’ and ‘disinformation’ that could jeopardise ‘democracy’—also without any critical voices on the EU’s positions.
The funds are linked to specific projects that contain explicit requirements, such as the promotion of certain EU policies, cohesion policy, or the ‘demystification’ of the EU. As the example of the ‘Stars4Media’ initiative shows, which has received more than eight million euros since 2019. One prominent project among them, ‘LucidAREurope’, aims to ‘create a citizen participation tool to demystify and expose the European Union and its institutions’. ‘These guidelines are basically editorial instructions that undermine journalistic integrity,’ says Fazi.
The EU Commission disagrees with this assessment:
The requirement to raise awareness of the benefits of cohesion policy is neither included in the text of the call for proposals nor in the funding agreement.
Thus a Commission official. All subsidised media would work in ‘complete editorial independence’, which would be supported by a declaration of independence [I may herewith likewise declare, e.g., my editorial independence, but you’d never be sure of that, right…].
However, a look at the ‘Strengthening Independent Media for a strong democratic Ukraine’ project paints a different picture. The EU has made more than 3.4 million euros available for the period from 2024 to 2026. The project, in which Deutsche Welle Akademie and the Ukrainian public broadcaster Suspilne are working together, aims to ‘strengthen the democratic media ecosystem to promote Ukraine’s integration into the EU’ [this is something Russia has now added to its list of demands: no EU accession for Ukraine, hence, this is a roadblock to peace if there ever was one]. The project documents explicitly state that this is the ‘main objective’. [but they at least ‘declared’ their ‘complete editorial independence’, you haters]
A particular focus of the project is also on reporting to younger sections of the population, for example in Ukraine: ‘We want to create an offer for children here in Ukraine, a place where they can find reliable news and distraction,’ says Olga Avrakhova, producer at Suspilne, in an article by DW Akademie [oh, look, this is what such ‘declarations’ are worth: one funded co-recipient interviews™ the other, and that’s journo-dom™ à l’européenne].
‘Children live in a news storm that makes it difficult to distinguish between true and false. They need a platform that speaks their language, that gives them reliable information and contacts they can trust’, Avrakhova continues. One of the aims is to help children better understand the new reality through cartoons, which are described as ‘therapeutic fairy tales’. [Orwell called from his grave, demanding to render his prose becomes fiction once again; note the casual assumption of the essential role of parents in child-rearing whose responsibilities include, believe it or not, imparting knowledge and wisdom upon their offspring to help them determining true and false].
Is the EU Losing Legitimacy? [I’d say no, if only because to lose something, one would first have to have it]
Over the past ten years, Deutsche Welle Akademie has received around 35 million euros from the EU Commission to implement projects like this one. Since 2020 alone, more than 14 million euros in funding has flowed in. Despite these considerable sums, the Academy’s media training courses are not freely accessible—media training for five people, for example, costs around 790 euros per person [of course not, because that would be anathema to this grift of grifts].
‘The EU is reacting to the loss of legitimacy and public trust with an escalation of propaganda and repressive measures,’ says Fazi. He had already exposed similar patterns in the funding of NGOs in an earlier report. He took criticism of the place where the report was published—MCC Brussels is funded by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán—with a wink: ‘It’s funny how nobody criticises the content of my reports.’ [that’s because the contents of the report are hard to be disputed in the first place]
His new report was not only picked up by alternative media, but also by mainstream platforms, for example in Italy and Denmark, and in a neutral tone. At the beginning of July, Euractiv published an opinion piece entitled: ‘Defund the media’. It states: ‘EU press subsidies make journalists dependent on the politicians who decide their economic fate and distort the market for everyone else.’ [we should have a new EU Commissioner for ‘media neutrality’ or the like, and if history is any guide, all the EU needs—is one more member to fill this position: the best fit, of course, would be Ukraine].
Bottom Lines
Despite the obvious thing that must be said out loud repeatedly—the EU is not your (or anyone’s) friend—nothing in Thomas Fazi’s report is new.
I encourage everybody to read the report carefully, entitled ‘The EU’s Propaganda Machine’, and to check carefully for cross-relations to outlets near you.
None of this is new, and perhaps the most insidious—dangerous—facet is loony Baltic politicos™ inviting journos™ on ‘defence trips’ to Brussels, which Mr. Fazi commented on in the following way (on pp. 36-7):
The significant funding the Commission allocates to security and defence think tanks can be seen as another form of self-lobbying. Many of these organisations actively promote narratives that align with the Commission’s policies— such as its hawkish approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict — and are in turn relied on by both the Commission and national governments as justification for their policies. Examples include:
Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and RUSI Europe: €30 million 2014–2023
Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI): €235 million 2014–2023
EGMONT – The Royal Institute for International Relations:
€22 million 2016–2022
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: €3.5 million 2018–2021
International Crisis Group: €7.5 million 2016–2023
For a legacy media piece on how these ‘defence trips’ are working in practice, see this piece from a few weeks ago:
Hence, the inevitable conclusion: the EU is no-one’s friend, and the sooner it disintegrates, the better.
!!