Not entirely unexpectedly, the entrance of Ongehoord Nederland in Hilversum this year is accompanied by some noise. Ombudsman of the public broadcaster Margo Smit ruled on the new broadcaster of Arnold Karskens on June 7th. Service program Unheard of News according to her, violates the journalistic code of the public broadcaster by broadcasting insufficiently critical interviews, so that incorrect information remains undisputed. The central board, the NPO, intends to impose a fine on the broadcaster next week. This is a maximum of 5.4 tons: 15 percent of the annual budget of 3.6 million euros. Unheard Netherlands can come up with a defense until the end of June. If the NPO does indeed impose a fine for bad journalism, that would be unique in the nearly 100-year existence of the public broadcaster.
In substantiating her statement, Smit also called on other broadcasters to raise the journalistic bar. In other programs too, independence should be reflected in the way questions are asked, she said. At the same time, broadcasters are also asked to be recognizable and thus to demonstrate their own right to exist. The broadcasters are expected to represent a population group by propagating its beliefs. You could call it the NPO paradox: broadcasters must radiate unity and diversity. The question is: can you do both at the same time? As a broadcaster, can you show your colors and use a joint journalistic yardstick?
KRO-NCRV director Peter Kuipers thinks so. “I see no contradiction. There are rules for journalism, you just have to subscribe to them.” He considers it remarkable that Ongehoord Nederland is being punished: “That you no longer comply with the code after four months… News is not an opinion, is it?” he says. But isn’t the sanction for Ongehoord Nederland a consequence of the system that broadcasters have to profile themselves? Kuipers: “I expect my journalists to comply with that code, but that does not mean that we are not allowed to color. If you look at KRO-NRCV, you will see that we focus on the theme of ‘citizens in a pinch’. We try to unravel fake news. We definitely have an identity.”
Also read: NPO wants to impose sanction on Ongehoord Nederland after ombudsman report
After the pillarization the ‘bubble’
news houreditor Siebe Sietsma, as chairman of the editorial board, looks with ‘special interest’ at the journalistic achievements of Ongehoord Nederland. The editorial board of Nieuwsuur has been concerned for some time about the declining confidence of the viewer in the public news provision, he says. Earlier, the council asked the NPO for an opinion on the documentary about Sigrid Kaag and the role of presenter Jort Kelder in the debate program. On 1† That judgment was not forthcoming, while in both cases the independence would be at stake. The issue of Ongehoord Nederland touches on this problem, says Sietsma. “If colleagues do not adhere to self-imposed codes, it undermines the credibility of journalism.”
According to Sietsma, the appeal that broadcasters make to their own convictions dates from the time of pillarization, and is outdated. “A pillar is a group of people who set up a mini-society, based on ideological grounds. They hardly exist anymore. However, there is talk of ‘bubble’, fueled by algorithms. That leads to narrowing of vision.”
Sietsma observes that the legitimacy of pillarized broadcasters is crumbling, but people are still thinking along traditional lines. “We see that Ongehoord Nederland enters the system on the ticket of profiling and representation, but has its own views on journalistic standards. That creates tensions. In the meantime, the broadcasters are not at all ‘grass rootsmovements’ more, who else do they represent?” Sietsma therefore believes that the importance of neutral programs will increase. “Confidence in journalistic programs without ideology is high. NOS News In a survey by the Media Authority, the public received a score of 7.4 in confidence, the neutral RTL News gets a 6.9†
Neutral approach has a restrictive effect
Is there a way out of this dilemma between a single journalistic identity and one’s own ideological colour? Should the NTR and the NOS, the two task broadcasters responsible for neutral reporting, be given more influence within the NPO? NTR media director Willemijn Francissen advocates the pluralistic system, but also notes that neutral programs such as The story of the Netherlands are remarkably popular. “At the NTR we focus on themes and target groups that are not normally discussed. In that respect we can blame it on ourselves that Ongehoord Nederland and Omroep Zwart have come into the system. We have apparently missed those views in recent years.”
EO director Arjen Lock believes that the broadcasters are being shortchanged. “The public system is a wonderful construct that stimulates identity within certain rules of the game. That’s a delicate balance, but it works in the end. It is unique in the world and produces high-quality programs, made from inspiration. Unheard is a newcomer and we can show some leniency with that. You can also help them get involved.” Lock finds the strictly neutral perspective ‘limiting’. For example, Lock lacks ‘the faith perspective’ in reporting on the war in Ukraine. “An EO journalist offers a view of the conflict from his background that is now not being heard.”
Jan Eikelboom, reporter of news hour in Ukraine, does not believe that the faith component in the conflict is underexposed. NOS has reported on the struggle between the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. So that has been covered.” He also calls the broadcasting system outdated: “If we opt for pillars, they must also propagate their identity. Is that the case now? What does KRO-NCRV still stand for? Are they still Catholic? And how far will you go in propagating your mission? Too much profiling is at odds with the journalistic codes of the NPO. So you can’t get out of that.”
Also read: All broadcasters agree with NPO journalistic plan, except Ongehoord Nederland
consolation
Wouter Hins, emeritus professor of media law at Leiden University, sees the issue of Ongehoord Nederland as yet another attempt by the public broadcaster to include outsiders. “This is an eternal pendulum swing in public broadcasting. The common interest versus the evil outside world. You can be a bit rebellious and express your own opinion, but you must not undermine it at all.” He points out that there was previously plenty of opposition to the arrival of newcomers TROS (1965) and Veronica (1974). More recently, the rebels BNN (1998) and PowNed (2010) caused a stir.
Hins: “With Veronica there was already the question whether that broadcaster represented a movement. The then minister Harry van Doorn (PPR) did not think so. He thought it was a pseudo-commercial company without a social vision. The entry criterion was then quantified by the number of paying members. So it is nothing new, this debate. External pluriformity versus good taste. In the sixties it was about consolation.” This attempt to blow up the system will also fail, Hins suspects. The almost hundred-year-old order can withstand a beating. “I would be surprised if there was a heavy fine.”
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of June 27, 2022
#broadcaster #propagate #convictions #common #journalistic #yardstick