Who can the critical reader or viewer turn to?

There is a lot of bad journalism in the Netherlands, says Edwin Kreulen, ombudsman of Fidelity. “Biased, with unclear sources or political motives.” According to him, quality media also have a credibility problem.

“There is a proliferation in the use of anonymous sources. Most recently in one article about The Telegraph in Villa media – that journalistic trade journal is setting the wrong example.”

As ombudsman, Kreulen can assist his colleagues Fidelity lecture and remind of the journalistic rules – and he does this regularly in his weekly column. Except Fidelity have alone NRC, The Limburger and the public broadcaster (NPO) an ombudsman. The Volkskrant is hesitant to appoint one again after the previous one left in April after a disagreement with the editors-in-chief (see box).

However critical the media may be about others, criticism of their own functioning is complicated. “You soon stand on the toes of colleagues,” says Kreulen. An ombudsman handles questions and complaints from readers (and viewers, listeners and readers of the websites in the case of the broadcaster). If things went wrong, he or she finds out how that could happen. And if necessary, this gadfly of the press also criticizes the journalistic performance of the medium – regardless of what the editor-in-chief or the broadcasting board and the broadcasting management think about it.

At the beginning of the century it seemed that more and more media were appointing an ombudsman with a view to transparency and accountability, but the growth has now stalled or the tide even seems to have turned. In the Netherlands, major newspapers such as AD and The Telegraph no ombudsman. In the United States, where the modern news ombudsman emerged at the end of the last century, many newspapers have fired their ombudsmen in recent years to save money.

Even The Washington Post and The New York Times no longer have an ombudsman. The latter newspaper ceased operations in 2017, partly because readers on social media now “function collectively as a watchdog, more alert and powerful than a single person could ever do”.

Incredibly tough

Jeroen Trommelen, ombudsman until this spring de Volkskrant, calls the appointment of an ombudsman a sign of strength. “Every organization needs correction. Everyone makes mistakes, including the media. I think it’s incredibly cool when a commercial company hires someone who looks independently at readers’ complaints and criticism.”

Margo Smit, ombudsman of the public broadcasters and chair of the international organization of news ombudsmen, has been in the news a lot since last year because of her critical reports about the broadcaster Ongehoord Nederland. In doing so, she has made the news ombudsman phenomenon widely known in the Netherlands.

“It is important for media to have someone independent who can look in and out,” she says. “I see the ombudsman as a bridge between the makers and viewers or readers.

“We do not engage in media criticism. We ask the makers on behalf of the readers: why did you do this? Why did you do it like this? Just explain. You can ignore Twitter if you want, but makers have to answer me. That’s in the bylaws.”

After Smit established at the end of last year that Ongehoord Nederland had violated the journalistic code of the NPO by spreading incorrect information, and not for the first time, the public broadcaster asked State Secretary Uslu (Media, D66) for the provisional recognition of the to withdraw broadcasting (whether Uslu will do so is not yet known). The NPO imposed two fines on the broadcaster based on reports from Smit.

Hide behind the ombuds

Is it good for its independent position that the NPO relies so much on its judgment? In this way she seems to become an instrument of the NPO board: she can take the chestnuts out of the fire. “I have no opinion on that,” replies Smith. “The work of an ombudsman is not intended to impose sanctions. I have been given rules and standards on behalf of the broadcasters, and I have to test the productions against them. What happens to my reports after that is not up to me.”

But Arjen Fortuin, ombudsman of NRC, it is a worrying development. “I have the impression that the leadership of the NPO tends to hide behind the ombudsman.

“The NPO gives the impression that the ombudsman’s opinion is so weighty that it forms the basis of policy. The danger of this is that the ombudsman will come under pressure to arrive at an opinion that you can use in policy terms.

“Compare it with the corona crisis, when politicians said so emphatically that they would follow science, that scientific work was influenced by the question of political feasibility. The raison d’être of an ombudsman is precisely that he or she is disconnected from the decision-making process.”

Bee The Telegraph there is no ombudsman – and no plans to appoint one, says Kamran Ullah who, together with Esther Wemmers, has recently become editor-in-chief of the newspaper. “Because we have just been appointed, we have spoken to a lot of colleagues recently, but the word ‘ombudsman’ has never been used.”

If people have complaints about our journalism, says Ullah, it will be reviewed by the editor-in-chief or the editorial secretary. As editors-in-chief, we explain how things went behind the scenes, how considerations were made, in a column every Saturday. During the week, that spot is filled by colleagues who explain how they work from the perspective of their field. That is our way of being as transparent as possible.”

To court

Ullah sees no problem in the editors-in-chief of The Telegraph assess complaints about journalistic productions that have been created under their own responsibility. “If we receive a complaint, we take it seriously. Also because we know that if the complaint is well-founded, the complainant can go to court.” Ullah also keeps a close eye on the ombudsmen of other newspapers, he says. “On Saturday, the ombudsman hears from the NRC to the first five six pieces I read in that newspaper.”

The Volkskrant, which was the first national newspaper to appoint an ombudsman in 1997, has mixed experiences with it. Two ombudsmen resigned prematurely, one wrote at the end of his term that he had come to the conclusion that the institution of the ombudsman had “been a suitable vehicle for reflection and self-criticism for twenty years”, but has now “had its day”.

Editor-in-chief Pieter Klok acknowledges that his newspaper “owes a lot to its ombudsmen and especially ombudswomen. Over the past ten years, we have made a professionalization move, driven by the ombudsmen and women. We’ve become much harder on ourselves before we publish anything.

“If something has gone very wrong, or if there is a major controversy about a piece, it is nice if an independent person can conduct a fact-finding investigation to determine whether we have complied with the journalistic rules. As editor-in-chief, I can explain our choices, but I cannot judge myself. And I’m also an employer, so I have to protect my people.

“In 2020 we had one piece about the White Helmets in Syria, which led to a lot of controversy – then we lacked an ombudsman. But it is a very difficult position, as we have noticed with three ombudsmen in a row. You have to do a lot at the same time: stand up for the reader, stand up for society by checking whether it is good journalism, you have to stand up for people who appear in articles, and sometimes you also have to stand up for the editors.”

Klok doubts whether he wants to appoint a new ombudsman. He says he will “soon engage in an open discussion with the editors about whether the feature should continue in its current form.” On the argument that an ombudsman is crucial to the credibility of the press, he says: “Anyone who deeply mistrusts the media will not be convinced by an ombudsman who is paid and appointed by the editor-in-chief of de Volkskrant.”