The Green Amsterdammer According to the Council, he acted carelessly in journalism by clearly disclosing the alleged anonymous source, who was described in the weekly as ‘unreliable’, by name as the ‘source’. That disclosure, of which it is not clear why the journalism was relevant, can only be understood as a disqualification of the use of that source and therefore of the work of de Volkskrant‘, concludes the Council.
De Volkskrant filed a complaint with the Council last year after the green an article accused the newspaper of contributing to ‘a fraud frame’ and ‘disinformation’ surrounding the Mayday aid organization, which supports the White Helmets’ rescue workers in Syria. According to the editor-in-chief of , the weekly had de Volkskrant have to reconsider because they are serious allegations against a journalistic medium. In the article in question revealed de Volkskrant financial problems at Mayday.
The Council gives de Volkskrant partially right. The green was allowed, according to the Council, to write without interrogation that de Volkskrant contributed to ‘a fraud frame’. The council does not see this allegation as an accusation against the newspaper and therefore it was not necessary to request a response.
‘Use of the term is based on de Volkskrant-report in which the possible fraud of donor funds by Mayday is the main topic.’ According to the Council, the word ‘fraud frame’ has ‘no (pronounced) negative connotation’. The green did not accuse the newspaper of ‘actively cooperating in a disinformation campaign’ – on that point, the Council did not think that a rebuttal was necessary either.