In the freely accessible and primarily descriptive - but not less interesting - article titled
Its journalists receive privileged access to low-, mid-, and high-level officials, leaving their jealous colleagues working for national newspapers behind.
Its news coverage also encompasses seemingly unimportant details of EU law-making, because these details are particularly interesting for the specific audience of the Financial Times: European political and business elites, those who care for bureaucratic details for a living.
The authors conclude that the role of the FT Europe is not that of a contributor to a general European public sphere. Precisely spoken, the FT is part of the European "elite sphere", the unaccountable network of EU administrators, specialists, and lobbyists.
Its exposed position in the wider Brussels system is grounded on this particular role and on the particular interests of its readers.
Based on these findings, Corcoran & Fahy come to much wider conclusions:
European identity may develop along two very separate tracks. One is a continuation of the ‘‘banal nationalism’’ [...] [t]he other track is towards a cosmopolitanism embedded in the transnational culture of European elites, whose material interests stretch beyond national boundaries and whose social imaginary is nourished by elite media such as the FT.This is, to a large extend, also a theme of this blog.
The question for me is, whether we are able to find a middle way, a communicative bridge between our individual elitist cosmopolitanism and the wider public, or whether there is no choice: We either have to be part of the EU elite sphere or to remain in the lows of the "banal nationalism".
I am afraid I know the answer, but I am still looking for another on.