My first letter writer has long since passed away. Arie de Werker, who put the whip over it by return of post after I took office, died last spring at the age of 94. From that first message he sent me in 2010: “Just read the editor-in-chief’s text with some crooked toes. What a haircut! Is an intelligent reader still supposed to be able to think for himself?” You recognize the NRC-reader. Because thinking for himself, that’s what he just read this newspaper for.
After his 329th comment, six years ago, I visited him for my column in his senior flat in Groningen. Over coffee he set his life with NRC Handelsblad apart: a daily confrontation with an enlightened-liberal worldview that he found naive and did not share, but which he liked to sharpen his mind – and pen – to, especially as a sober, born Rotterdammer.
With the turn of the year approaching, I was reminded of him when a former colleague quoted the saying that “readers know more than the newspaper.” That reference specifically referred to a series of letters about the op-ed by a historian who spoke up for the Russian leader Putin and asked for understanding of the Russian encirclement syndrome. She was contradicted by arguments, expertise and style.
Whoever you think is right here proved that a letter column can be more than a tub of subjective opinions and burps, and an example of how readers united in delivering commentary that rivals the best editorial analysis and commentary.
Um no, not always of course. Sometimes the comment that doesn’t make it to the paper is on the blunt side – which shouldn’t surprise anyone who occasionally emerges scorched from the outer ring of hell called social media. “This whole piece makes no sense”, started and concluded a reader after my column about an interview with Sylvana Simons. Salutation, so that I immediately knew that he had to have me: “You woke loser!”.
I had to let that last one sink in for a while. Not so long ago, an actual woke reader, after studying my work and portrait, rather saw “the result of five hundred years of colonialism and deep-seated superiority.” Well, that was after a skeptical column about an offensive conversation about racism and whether black journalists are by definition better suited than white ones to interview black people.
On the other hand, that rich review was refreshing. So you are an ancient colonial in hibernation, so you are a woke sucker. Mindful of the other time-tested adage that the reader is “always right,” I humbly submit to this functional split; Nor does the Inquisition always have to be consistent in its subpoenas.
Fortunately, usually the ball remains more important than the man. Readers bombard the newspaper with comments, analyses, additions and corrections that show one thing. They live with the newspaper, just like De Werker did. Sometimes with reluctance or even resentment – yes, there are fitties – but usually with sensible criticism.
A small overview? High on the list, with the irritating untouchability of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ or ‘Hotel California’: language issues. “I notice that ‘unexpected’ is used more and more,” said one reader, “while to the best of my knowledge it must be ‘unexpected’” (the reverse message also reached me). In more dangerous territory: should it be ‘beheading’ or ‘slitting its throat’? I’ll leave it with you, reader.
Sign of the times: these language issues have now been heavily politicized. It is no longer mainly about ‘their’ or ‘them’, but about ‘he, she or them’. And should there be a space between trans and male or female? Is it slave or enslaved? In the backseat, the white and white duo squabble happily. Linguistic ‘correctness’ is not the arbiter here, these are political and sometimes ideological choices. Until now, the newspaper’s line in this regard has been: not to issue language cues, but to follow the developing language use in society. Sounds sensible, but has a limit. Sometimes ‘society’ doesn’t know either.
After the language issues come the factual corrections that readers submit. Too many to mention, often of a historical or geographical nature. No, Minister Jan Pronk did not leave his home in Capelle in Vincent Mentzel’s photo, but the one in Krimpen aan den IJssel (excuse me, now I’m wrong again: the minister only had one, in Krimpen). Indispensable, because verified claims – also known as ‘facts’ – are the foundation of the profession.
In between those acts, readers send a rich variety of heartfelt cries (“Can you do something about the excessive exaggerations your scribes commit?”), painful cries for help about delivery complaints (increased sharply in recent months towards that California hotel), emotional criticism of cartoons, opinion pieces and columns, exhortations, exhortations and calls for general vigilance, including about the newspaper itself (“the value of NRC Handelsblad is precisely that this newspaper makes no concessions to populism and superficiality”). Also mini-essays by readers about their dealings with a long-time family friend who comes with interesting news, but sometimes also comes in a bit loudly and occasionally completely drunk. An older subscriber, in two sentences: “NRC I have been reading for over 50 years. My family has been voting liberal since universal suffrage.” The link between newspapers and democracy is not coincidental.
A lot has changed about that critical reader’s post, I think, without proper quantitative let alone qualitative computer-driven and student-supported data research. One: life with the newspaper has also become highly politicized. Issues of all kinds, from climate to racism and vaccination, have reached the polarized status once reserved for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gaza is everywhere.
Previously, readers often complained about photos that were too large or sensational headlines – in short, about proportionality – now they are hoping, especially online, against the fact that someone is allowed to speak at all. Criticism of framing, no platforming and demands for a position and moral clarity are now part of the garden tools of every contemporary media weeder.
That is a challenge for an investigative, liberal newspaper that wants to stand up for plural democracy, but which (therefore) does not assume a binary world of purely heroes and scoundrels, perpetrators and victims, exploiters and oppressed, revealers and liars.
Two: in that moral universe, NRC seen as one, indivisible entity: after all, everything is ‘information’ (advertising likes to dress up as journalism – unfortunately it also happens the other way around). The distinction between editing and publishing – or journalism and commerce – is considered hypocritical in this regard. Advocate for a sustainable economy? No more advertisements from Shell! That is also a challenge for a liberal newspaper that does not want to force all the facts into line.
My first critic, AL the Worker, agreed. A Protestant and a member of the war generation, he knew we live in a broken world. Hopefully with some luxury and as much as possible libertas.
Reactions: [email protected] nrc.nl/spraakuurombudsman
A version of this article also appeared in NRC Handelsblad of 24 December 2021
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of December 24, 2021
#Eleven #years #reader #post #morality #supplanted #sensational #concerns #big #photos