Should the newspaper apologize for the Anne Frank publication?

When publisher Ambo Anthos made an apology this week in connection with the publication of the book Anne Frank’s Betrayal, the reaction was predictable. If even the publisher apologizes for that book now, de Volkskrant shouldn’t you have to do the same for the exuberant pre-publication on Monday 17 January? In the meantime it has turned out that this book is historical rubbish, and that the media that unpacked it have allowed themselves to be abused for a publicity offensive by the publisher?

‘Now publisher Ambo Anthos has apologized for the book because of the much commotion it rightly caused. When a new ombudsman was appointed, the editor-in-chief announced that in the future the newspaper would also openly admit mistakes made by itself,” said one reader.

I received two similar requests for clarification and the letter editor also received responses, some of which were posted. What shocks readers the most is the assumption that the newspaper has let itself be taken for a ride for commercial reasons, leading to the ‘non-disclosure agreement’ that the editor involved had to sign before she could see the proof. The chief of the book editing department of also thought so de Volkskrant, who couldn’t appreciate the article about the ‘FBI moped mustache’. ‘Who is going to make money from the betrayal of Anne Frank?’, she wondered in her column. newspaper Fidelity added the charge that the research team had misused scientists’ names to apply for funding for the project, which the team vehemently denied.

With all that criticism it is not a popular opinion, but after an internal reconstruction I conclude that the editors can be blamed for something, but not much. And that in any case the two editors involved have done their work to the best of their ability. That is separate from the debate about the content of the book, from which the newspaper can indeed draw lessons, which will be discussed later. But first the misunderstandings.

For example, the publisher has not made an excuse for the book, as some readers believed, but for ‘anyone who feels offended by the book’. A kind of ‘ascuus’ actually, as columnist Paulien Cornelisse recently used the English term ifpology translated. And it wasn’t the publisher who went to de Volkskrant stepped, but vice versa. The editor concerned saw the announced publication in the publisher’s folder and became intrigued.

She asked if she could see the proofs and discussed it with the book editors and the editor-in-chief. The publisher’s condition was that the American TV program 60 Minutes should be the first to publish. After that, everyone was free to do what they wanted. Ambo Anthos announced that the pre-publication in the Netherlands had been awarded to the NOS and de Volkskrant. A day before publication, however, they came back to this with the announcement that NRC and The Parool were informed.

De Volkskrant kept to the agreement, so the publisher did not. The conditions laid down were not special, however. Scientific journals also often release articles under embargo that are not yet allowed to be shared with the outside world. The same was true for the Budget Memorandum for a long time. The editor spoke at length with the lead investigator, initiator and retired FBI agent of the “forensics” team. It was no frills work, was the conclusion, but a serious and interesting hypothesis from an entirely different discipline than historical research.

The editorial rule applies that sensational scientific news must always be presented to at least one independent expert. It was found in Emile Schrijver, general director of the Jewish Cultural Quarter in Amsterdam, who had temporarily sat on the research team’s advisory board and had read the proofs. His response was recorded with the key point: ‘You could say that this theory is the most probable of all theories, but the last word has not yet been said on this.’

On the day of publication, the editors gathered more comments that emphasized that no definitive proof has been provided about the traitor to the whereabouts of the Frank family and other people in hiding – which the investigators had not claimed either. Among them David Barnouw, co-author of the scientific Niod edition of The Diaries of Anne Frank: ‘The researchers rightly subject their findings to all kinds of caveats. However, they are very firm in their conviction of that poor notary. While I wonder whether he had access to a list of Jewish hiding places. The Jewish Council was far too law-abiding to make such a list, I think.’

In the meantime, a story was prepared by an editor who was asked to join the project because, as a historian, he had read and commented on previous publications about (possible traitors of) Anne Frank. That piece was scheduled for Wednesday and was slightly adjusted after the first reactions, so that it could be in the newspaper from Friday. In it, the cold case research is placed in the historical context of previous traitor theories and the increasingly personal responses to them. The perfect story next to the news, I think, but now that I’m writing this column more than a week later, it still hasn’t made it to the newspaper. Because of the dynamics of the news, the deputy editor explains. At first there is no room for it and then ‘the ideal moment’ seems to have passed. After which it ends up on the list for the book section, later. That explanation does not convince me.

On the contrary: it seems to me a missed opportunity and, above all, an underestimation of the reader who does want to read an explanation about why the cold case research arouses so much resistance. Also a few days later. In my opinion, the editor-in-chief should have explained to the reader that the newspaper still stands behind its publication. In retrospect, he thinks that placing it on the front page gave too much of the impression that the newspaper had adopted the research conclusions. Above all, I saw an urge to be the first to bring ‘the latest news’. As it turns out, this involved more explanation than the newspaper is used to.