The world goes on has always been an inexhaustible gold mine for broadcaster BNNVara. The most successful program of recent decades generated millions of euros in advertising revenue and gave the broadcaster power in Hilversum. TV directors regularly visited the studio in Amsterdam to celebrate the program.
The opposite is true for Suzanne Kunzeler. Since she became the broadcaster’s director of content in April this year, she mainly hears about the dark side of DWDD, which had its last broadcast in March 2020. Through the reconstruction de Volkskrant of the transgressive behavior ‘confirms’ the image she had. ‘I’m very shocked by this, and it touches me very much.’
The Volkskrant spoke to more than 70 former employees DWDD, more than 50 of them talk about transgressive behavior in the workplace. It often involved extreme outbursts of anger and humiliation by presenter Matthijs van Nieuwkerk. It led to dozens of people getting burnouts or otherwise becoming ill. How do you view it?
“Of course we knew that the pressure was on DWDD was high, and that the culture was mainly focused on the end result: the broadcast. The process was not looked at and there was too little attention for people. This kind of behavior is simply not acceptable in any relationship. You don’t accept that at home or at work. I disapprove of that now. And I had also disapproved of that at the time.’
You say that you recognize the conclusions about transgressive behaviour, how did you arrive at that image yourself?
‘We have recently had confidential discussions with a number of employees. Some have reported themselves, others we have invited and heard. As a result, my image has become more colored. We see in a number of people that it affects them very much. And that the conversations can take a load off their shoulders.’
One of the people you spoke to is Mirjam de Klerk, BNNVara’s personnel advisor who was associated with DWDD. She tells us that more people died than any other program. And that she often ‘drove to the newsroom with the first aid kit to patch people up’, but couldn’t deal with the real problems.
‘Yes, of course that is really undesirable. Look, as an employer you ensure that people are taken care of if they are not feeling well, that is important. And I see that that care task has been taken up by her. But of course it makes it complicated that it involved so many people. If it were going on right now, we as management would definitely have looked: what is the basis for this? But that was not picked up at the time.’
There have been many distress signals over the years. Editor-in-chief Dieuwke Wynia says that then media director Frans Klein asked for help in vain. There were painful publications in the media. And its own human resources department warned. Can you explain why fundamental action has not been taken?
‘The signals that were there at the time – the flow through and drop-out due to illness – were assessed by the managements at the time as the result of the pressure that comes with making a daily program that sets the bar high. The solutions that were offered at the time mainly consisted of adding extra people to the team. In hindsight, these solutions were not sufficient and appropriate for safety on the work floor. The signals should have been a reason to start a conversation with employees. The final editors and presenters should have been called to account for their behavior and the culture in the editorial office. The fact that this did not happen at the time is painful for the (former) colleagues who are affected by this.’
Employees of DWDD often had short contracts. Their position was uncertain and they therefore did not feel strong enough to speak out about transgressive behaviour.
“This has also emerged from our own internal investigations. It is annoying for people affected by this and undesirable for us as an organization. At the same time, it is a problem that is difficult for us as a broadcaster to solve on our own: we depend on the subscription of our programs (the airtime allocated to the broadcaster, ed.). With a talk show, for example, we often only receive a broadcast guarantee of five months. That uncertainty cannot be reconciled with a large proportion of permanent contracts in an editorial office.’
Do you think that employees should be able to talk about this situation in the media?
‘Yes absolutely. We have never hindered anyone from speaking to you or others about this. I think it’s important to say that we think that’s good.’
You have had conversations with Van Nieuwkerk. How did they go?
“These were very intense conversations. We have said: we do not want this behaviour. We want there to be a safe atmosphere for our people. He has turned to himself. It is now very important for us that the atmosphere is different in the current productions that we make with Matthijs.’
Nevertheless, last summer there was a lot going on with the recordings of Chansons Another incident occurred in Paris in which an employee felt that he had been treated in a cross-border manner after an outburst of anger from him. Are you aware of this?
‘We are aware of one incident that has taken place and have received confirmation from the producer (Medialane, ed.) that this has been dealt with and that discussions have been held with those involved.’
How important is it for BNNVara that Van Nieuwkerk recognizes that he has crossed borders?
“That is essential for us. And he did that in the conversations we had with him.’
In his first statement about this, on Friday afternoon to the Volkskrant, he does not. In his second statement, which he sent after pressure from you, he shows more regret. What does that mean for you?
‘The reaction that Matthijs first gave us is disappointing and forces us to consider. Based on the conversations we had with each other, we expected a different statement. And we also let Matthijs know that. We will include the new statement in the conversations we have with him.’
Are you confident enough that the transgressive behavior has now stopped?
‘What matters to us is that there should be no culture in which this kind of behavior is accepted. Through conversations with Matthijs, the makers and the producer, we are confident that a different culture prevails in the programs that are currently being made. But the first reaction that Matthijs to de Volkskrant has given, forces us to consider.’
What can you do for former employees who have been part of this culture and are or have been affected by it?
‘We think it is important to acknowledge to them that the organization should have handled this better at the time. A listening ear should have been offered to address the presenter and the final editors about the culture. We regret that this did not happen. We are shocked by some of the stories we have heard from colleagues we have heard afterwards and we also offer people we have not yet spoken to the opportunity to contact us. We understand that it can be too high a barrier to do this directly at BNNVara, which is why we also hire an external party for this.’
Why would people still report now? What’s in it for them?
“That will be different for everyone. We noticed in the conversations we had that it was good for a number of people to hear from us that what they went through should not have happened. That recognition might help people. Sharing the stories certainly provides us with lessons for the future, people focus us on doing things like this better in the future.’
How are you going to achieve that?
‘We have confidential advisers and we have joined Mores (reporting center for undesirable behavior in the television sector, ed.). Every colleague must feel safe, be able to be themselves and be able to give and receive feedback with respect. We are aware that it is hard work to realize that safe working environment for everyone. To ensure that this is done carefully, we are guided by an expert in social safety. We believe this culture should never happen again. With ‘never’ in capitals.’