Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-12-Speech-4-051"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-05-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU information and communication strategy2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050512.4.4-051"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-05-12-Speech-4-0522
lpv:speaker	lp:Miguel Portas2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; CULT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; Bloco de Esquerda (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". I feel that Mr Chiesa hit the nail on the head when he said that there was an enormous chasm between the European institutions, their leaders and the citizens. This can be resolved first and foremost by means of good policies and, less so, by means of good techniques. Where our opinions strongly diverge, Mrs Wallström, is that when we say it takes two to communicate, we do not mean that one side provides the information and the other takes it in. This is a primitive concept that is still prevalent in the opinions expressed by Europe’s leaders. I should like to make three comments about the report, which makes great efforts to reach points of consensus or convergence. All culture is communication, yet the reverse is not true. We therefore disagree that the EU and the institutions can finance fictional works, films and artworks in order to disseminate and promote European ideas. Commissioned works damage culture, damage creativity and, in so doing, damage Europe. My second objection concerns the dividing line between information and propaganda. It is one thing for us in this House to seek to involve the institutions in referendum campaigns, but the truth of the matter is that we are talking here about communication, of which the primary objective is to guarantee the adversarial principle, the right of reply, yet this is not mentioned in the proposal before us. Thirdly, there is the issue of using public resources and money intelligently. The concept of a parliamentary channel is bureaucratic and dated. It is a terrible idea. Contrariwise, the right way forward is to invest in Euronews, in information built on the foundation of editorial freedom; this is the right way forward, the way in which we can see news stories that we do not like."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph