Rarely has a journalistic revelation caused as much controversy in the Netherlands as that of Hugo Logtenberg NRC about a statement by informant Hans Wijers. It led to two exciting pages of readers’ letters NRC and strong reactions from columnists in other newspapers.
The negative reactions – rejection of the revelation – clearly prevail. Of the eleven letters printed, only three were in favor. Of the columnists in other newspapers, I would like to mention two colleagues that I enjoy reading: Sander Schimmelpenninck (de Volkskrant) and Jamal Ouariachi (Fidelity). Schimmelpenninck thought it was “sad that NRC de Wijers fuss under the guise of investigative journalism.” Ouariachi judged sternly: “Serious journalists should not allow themselves to be abused by entrepreneurs who want to play an undemocratic shadow cabinet.” He was referring to entrepreneur Willem Sijthoff and his “lobby club” Vote for Stability.
Time to show your colors now. Don’t be alarmed: I support Logtenberg, whom I as a reader have come to know as a serious, thorough investigative journalist – the toughest branch of journalism. He recently wrote an impressive reconstruction with Bas Haan about the scandal surrounding Groningen mayor Schuiling.
George Freeman, top lawyer for many years The New York Times, once mentioned three criteria for publishing confidential news: truthful, newsworthy and not obtained illegally.
Logtenberg seems to meet these three criteria with his revelation. Truthful? Yes, because Wijers himself has confirmed that he sent an app with the insulting term “feeks” for Dilan Yesilgöz. (However, there could be some more clarity about what exactly Wijers said at a meeting.) Newsworthy? Yes, because look at all the news media in the Netherlands, too de Volkskrant and Fidelityhave taken over this news. Not obtained illegally? Of course.
Logtenberg is often accused of allowing his source(s) to abuse him. It is an irrelevant accusation. If the investigative journalist is only allowed to rely on bona fide sources, he will quickly be deregistered. Sources can turn to publicity for all kinds of reasons. The main thing is whether the facts they provide are correct – that is, whether they are truthful. It could well be that Logtenberg’s source wanted to eliminate D66 member Wijers for right-wing political reasons. So be it.
„NRC has effectively thrown sand into the democratic machine,” accuses a reader. A classic accusation – the messenger becomes the perpetrator. Not NRC is the perpetrator here, but a former politician with the wrong friends who make his confidences public.
Had NRC should keep the matter quiet? I’m looking for a hypothetical example in current events. Suppose a photo or video is found showing President Trump raping a woman. The material was in the hands of a shady political opponent who wants to take revenge on Trump in this way. Would The New York Times publishing it? Naturally. And not just that newspaper, but all newspapers around the world, too de Volkskrant and Fidelity – and of course NRC.
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 items give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.