Investigative journalist Ton van der Ham (Zembla, BNNVARA) has personally experienced how distrust between journalists and information officers can go off the rails. Four years ago he came into conflict with a press officer. It ran high. He was arrested on suspicion of trespassing and spent six hours in jail.
He was ultimately not prosecuted, but did have a criminal record. Earlier this month, the National Ombudsman stated that the Public Prosecution Service didn’t pay enough attention for the position of the journalist and calls for Van der Ham’s criminal record to be reconsidered.
“The whole issue really affected me, because my integrity was affected,” says Van der Ham. He has also learned lessons from the affair. For themselves, but also for other journalists and for ‘the other side’, the information officers and spokespersons. “The distrust that prevails between the press and information officers leads to suboptimal journalism. We all benefit from a better understanding. There is a world to win.”
In April 2018, the reporter suddenly became part of the news himself when he wanted to interview a woman who had given a lecture at the University Medical Center in Utrecht. The woman was a victim of serious medical malpractice at the hospital. The hospital had first kept this from the Health Care Inspectorate, but eventually acknowledged it. Zembla had shown that the hospital had concealed even more errors.
And now, in 2018, the woman came to the hospital to talk about her experience in a public lecture. The press was invited, but Van der Ham, who had repeatedly reported on abuses in the hospital, was not allowed to film during the speech. This led to a fierce discussion with the information officer, which was filmed by the Zembla cameraman:
– “Each time, even now, the hassle is with you.”
– “There is no hassle with me, there is a hassle in the hospital and I put my finger on it.”
– „No Ton, I will not let you. Because I don’t trust you.”
After the lecture, the journalist would be allowed to speak to the woman in front of the camera. This had been agreed with her and also with the information officer of the hospital. But when a security guard (wrongly) believed that Van der Ham had already been filming earlier, contrary to the agreements, he summoned the journalist to leave. He refused. Van der Ham was then taken away by a security guard and handed over to the police.
Partly in response to this issue, Van der Ham, who as an investigative journalist often clashes with information officers, has conducted research at the Reuters Institute in Oxford into “the problematic relationship between press and PR”, as he calls it in an essay that he recently published. “I thought: I’m going to talk to the other side.” He held long interviews with, among others, political spokespersons in The Hague, a director of communication consultancy Hill+Knowlton, and the director of communication at Rabobank.
What did you learn from that?
“I learned how we come across: not genuinely interested, biased, out for the riot, for the conflict. However unjustified that image may be, I barely realize what happens when I fire off my sharp questions.
“As an investigative journalist you can say: We are not there to bake sweet rolls. We want to find out something that the other person doesn’t want to tell. Our decor is one of gunpowder fumes, with our questions as direct hits. That’s the classic image: you can’t be a cuddly watchdog.
“But I don’t want to immediately approach my prey like a kind of growling pit bull. That causes a lot of irritation. And I want to do my job uninhibitedly. As a journalist you have to be aware of your power and the vulnerability of the person on the other side of the table, who has to hope that you do his story justice.
“We don’t realize enough what happens when we call. That there will then be a big fat panic, because the journalist has an information advantage. They think: what does that guy have? What does he know that I don’t already know? We hardly realize that they often have to sort out an incredible amount. A spokesperson who says ‘I need more time’ is not necessarily wasting time.
“There is a lot of cramping among information officers, fear of letting go too much. An incredible amount revolves around image monitoring. They are afraid that journalists will come up with a preconceived idea, and only have to hear back for the sake of form. And they think we hold our cards to our chest too much. My advice is: play your cards open as much as possible. But it has to come from both sides.”
So you’ve become more understanding of spokespersons?
“Yes, but I am also cynical and concerned. Because there is so much mistrust. Behind your back enemy images are whispered around. Spokesmen who do not want to comment on the content of our questions, but instead make the messenger suspicious. An information officer who says: I have had bad experiences with you. While he never had anything to do with me! Turns out that bad experience is about someone who works for a completely different broadcaster.
I’ve learned how we journalists come across: not genuinely interested, biased, out for the riot, for the conflict
“As journalists, we have to remain an opposing force. I take that role very seriously. I don’t suddenly become everyone’s friend. We shouldn’t let ourselves be lulled to sleep like wimps because we want a good relationship.
“Spokesmen usually do not want to agree to long interviews, but I want to get to the heart of the matter and then you need some time. They are afraid that you are looking for a slip of the tongue or a moment of relaxation and that you will then run away with your loot and then dish it up as something ludicrous.”
But they don’t just have that fear.
“But I don’t want to work like that. I also sometimes think when I’m editing: this quote would do nicely, but am I not really looking for the fuss? I once made a broadcast called Minister Tobacco, about the then Minister of Health Edith Schippers and the tobacco lobby. She was very angry about that title. All facts in that broadcast were correct. But by choosing such a title I reduced it to one aspect. That didn’t do her justice. But it is how you sell a story.”
Do you think Minister of Tobacco is a good title in retrospect?
“I maintained for a long time that I thought it was a good title. But this research project made me look at it differently. Now I wouldn’t have done it anymore. Even if it was a nice title.
“Journalists don’t think enough about the fact that reality is sometimes complex and layered. For example, that a hospital may be busy improving patient safety and still not want to speak to me. It is important that as a journalist you do not start thinking that we must be some kind of inquisitors. Every description of reality is also a mutilation of reality. If only because you always have to leave things out, to summarize. But I would like to say to the information officers: guys, don’t be so afraid.
“Of course we have to keep our guard up, on both sides. Because the interest of the journalist is often not the interest of the information officer. But the key word is trust, mutual trust. That is necessary, especially at a time when there is already so much distrust.”