On the day last month the book Bpost hold up appeared, the share price of the Belgian postal company Bpost fell by 4.5 percent. That is having an impact, as a journalist. Although that fall in price was probably not the goal of authors Wouter Verschelden and Emmanuel Vanbrussel, financial editors at the Flemish online medium Business AM. They mainly wanted to tell the exciting story about, as the subheading reads, “how Bpost looted 4 BILLION euros of taxpayers’ money”.
Stone of offense is a controversial contract for the delivery of newspapers and magazines. For this, Bpost receives about 175 million euros annually from the Belgian state – and until recently one and a half times as much – on a turnover of 4.3 billion. Great for Bpost and publishers, who are therefore cheap at Bpost.
But in 2013, the European Commission warned that the fact that this construction was invariably awarded to Bpost (51 percent owned by the state) was contrary to the free market principle. The Commission forced a public tender, allowing competing postal operators to compete. However, the Belgian government aligned the requirements in the tender with Bpost. In the years that followed, politicians, Bpost and other stakeholders continued to coordinate matters in order to maintain the status quo, describe Verschelden and Vanbrussel.
They also include DPG Media and Mediahuis among those stakeholders, the two groups that together own most of the major Flemish and now also Dutch newspapers (including NRC) as well as a variety of TV and radio stations. Those groups are now making good profits, but around 2013 things were not going well for the news media and the groups chose to flee to the front with takeovers, especially in the Netherlands. By the end of the favorable triangular deal with Bpost and the state, they would therefore “fight like devils in a holy water vat”, the authors write.
Political-economic thriller
Happens together with some other Belgian online media Business AM Bpost and the publishers have been at the ankles for years, with critical publications about the newspaper contract and the growing market power of the large groups. According to Verschelden and Vanbrussel, this criticism has little resonance with the journalists who work there, and that stings them.
Maybe that’s why they do Bpost hold up going extra hard. The back cover promises the reader a “frenzied story”, a “political-economic thriller” about “looting” and “deception”. At the same time, the authors issue a reading warning in their foreword. Because the testimonies of those involved partly contradict each other, the authors have made choices in their version of the truth “in good conscience”.
That’s fair, but it does make you read carefully: which passages are the exact result of those choices? It is also striking that the authors quote from conversations and encounters in which they themselves were not present, including the moment when someone ‘looks skittish’, ‘scratches their hair’ or someone’s ‘Antwerp accent suddenly sounds a bit sharper’. Often so detailed that it cannot be based on the recollections of sources with whom the authors had background conversations. The fact that they even ‘quote’ the inner thoughts of the protagonists underlines that this is a narrative intervention that helps to turn the story into a ‘thriller’.
This also includes the kind of language that you would rather expect in a paperback from the bin of exciting fiction. “Shadows are cast” and “ghost games” are played, and there is talk of omertas, revenge and hostage-taking. Smooth, although that effect is partly canceled out by the less exciting side paths that are sometimes taken. The typos are also a pity.
Cartel formation
The most important news facts are now floating to the surface. For example, Bpost received sensitive information that a competitor was going to withdraw from the first round of tenders on the payroll at Bpost, and the company seems to have bought off a competitor in a later tender. Much was already known – and has had consequences: the boss of Bpost left, the Belgian cartel watchdog is investigating, a parliamentary inquiry has been requested.
The point the authors make about how supporters of the subsidies always portray that contribution as support for journalism also makes a lasting impression. Because why does it have to be sent by post, and is there no subsidy for digital media or kiosks that sell single copies? Because of interests, they answer themselves. From Bpost, from the publishers, from the trade unions. There is no question of individual self-enrichment, but of shifting moral boundaries, just to guard the status quo.
The question remains, which is also alive in the Dutch media world: did the Belgian state millions provide lubricating oil for the expansion of DPG and Mediahuis in the Netherlands? According to the authors, yes. The groups deny that the subsidies made such a difference on their balance sheets. Nevertheless, as an internal audit of Bpost also states, they were involved in coordinating work on the newspaper contract, possibly to the point of being illegal. That is why DPG even raided the Belgian competition watchdog in November. You’d rather not read that about companies that watch over so many independent news media.
So rise Bpost hold up relevant insights, especially towards the end. On the way there, the reader has to follow a winding path in which the boundary between facts and interpretation is not always clear. And you have to trust the authors that they have not taken too many liberties. It’s the other side of the way they bring a seemingly boring subject to life.
A version of this article also appeared in the September 4, 2023 issue.