Calls for a verdict were loud in the editors this week. Not from all editors’ throats, but, as it happens, from the most lubricated throats. Who is now going to weigh things up against each other, worried colleagues wondered. Because there is a divisive issue, just now that we have been without an ombudsman for three weeks. Who acts as the, in the words of former ombudsman Sjoerd de Jong, the ‘stoic sheriff’ or the ‘sneue boa’ on patrol along the ‘journalistic virtue’?
On normal days I’m a reporter for the domestic editorial of NRC, where I write about events as I see them unfold, or as others explain them. So I will not hand out fines myself, but I will tell you how it went.
The issue arose around the publication of two stories about a ‘cold case team’ that tried to find out who handed over the residents of the Secret Annex. The research is described in a book, Anne Frank’s Betrayal, which appears in 23 countries and is released in the Netherlands by Ambo Anthos. “Who betrayed the Frank family?”, our front page ran on Monday: “An international cold case team believes it has solved one of the greatest mysteries of the Second World War.”
Especially after the publication of a second piece on Tuesday, things started to rumble in the editorial office and beyond. In the follow up the great study is actually being questioned by historians who have long been involved with the subject. Why weren’t those two sounds published at the same time?
The book editors had been eyeing the book for some time, also because publisher Ambo Anthos had recommended it in a folder. As is often the case, editor Jeroen van der Kris requested a proof well in advance of the planned publication, so that he could make a piece about it in time. An embargo contract was soon discussed. NRC would be allowed to publish on the night of January 16 to 17, after 2 a.m. The American program 60 Minutes got the scoop, was negotiated overseas. Simultaneously with NRC would de Volkskrant and the NOS publish. Also The Parool later turned out to have such an appointment.
The signatory to the contract stated that it would “consider all information relating to the publication and content of the work as strictly confidential”, and not to “disclose” such information to anyone.
This embargo later became one of the drivers of the turmoil in the editors, because in this way the author could not organize a scientific weighing before the book was published, while well-known Anne Frank specialists were not involved in the research.
Embargoes are quite common, according to the chief of Books and other editors – although in their view many agreements relate to the moment of publication, and not to strict secrecy. According to the publisher’s employee concerned, who does not wish to comment in detail, it is a ‘standard contract’.
There was no doubt by the book editors about signing. “We wanted to know what was in that book and whether it was really as newsworthy as the publisher claimed,” says book chef Michel Krielaars. “Only after reading would we decide what to do with that news.” The embargo agreement did not oblige publication.
In the course of that week, there was also interest in the research outside the book editors. Did it deserve a prominent place?
Both the author of the final piece and a co-reader of the editorial with a great deal of knowledge about the subject thought the extensive research was worth attention. In the run-up to publication, the author did say that the investigation would probably not hold up “in court”, but that interesting findings had been made. And he said there would be a comment section.
In the morning meeting on Friday, in which chiefs from different editorial boards also talk about the NRCproductions on Monday, the Anne Frank investigation was mentioned somewhere halfway through, says Peter Leijten, the news chief of that day. Initially it would not be possible in Monday’s newspaper, because the embargo lasted until 02:00 Monday morning and the online edition of NRC than is normally already online. It was suggested that an exception be made. “But only if it were for the front page,” says Leijten. On that day, it was also discussed by chefs and managers that de Volkskrant, which is seen by the editors as an important competitor, would also make the news. “That does add to the excitement about a subject,” says Leijten.
As a result of the consternation about the cold case productions, in addition to angry reader mail, there was also an email in my inbox from a disappointed colleague. “We got carried away,” he says. He finds the ‘silly photos’ that were also placed with the piece an illustration of this. It shows a detective-like investigative wall and an FBI jacket. “How come no one has yelled: this isn’t serious is it?” The designer of that evening thought that the image showed the ‘American’ to the research well.
Was it indeed a sophisticated PR campaign, as the colleague suspects? Perhaps, says deputy editor-in-chief Melle Garschagen, that photo was just a bit too much. “We should have thought about that more.” Garschagen finds the articles balanced and of high quality. But he did write in an email to the editors on Tuesday afternoon that NRC should be more open about embargoes in the future: “We could have formulated better on Monday why we did not immediately submit the findings of the research team to experts.”
Has NRC get carried away by orchestrated or unorchestrated excitement? “Of course we also do that with domestic political news,” says book chef Krielaars. If something is new, don’t bring it up a day later. Even though you may wonder if it should have been on the front page.”
A version of this article also appeared in NRC Handelsblad on 22 January 2022
A version of this article also appeared in NRC on the morning of January 22, 2022
#embargo #leads #unrest #editors