King’s commissioner stepped down after allegations of misconduct

Did we treat John Berends correctly?

John Berends lost his job as King’s Commissioner after anonymous sources contacted De Gelderlander. How does a medium deal with this?

John Berends (right) with reporter Gep Leeflang (left)

e felt that he had been “been hung out to dry upside down”, in which case “something will always fall out of the pocket”. This is what John Berends, the King’s Commissioner, mentioned in a major interview with De Gelderlander earlier this year.

In 2023, the paper published two stories about transgressive behaviour. One was about John Berends, the King’s Commissioner, and the other was about Rector Magnificus Han van Krieken of Radboud University (see the text box). Both articles caused a stir and both Berends and Van Krieken resigned.

Berends resigned after officials had contacted the newspaper to complain about transgressive behaviour. Although an investigative committee concluded months later that there was no evidence for transgressive behaviour, just for inappropriate behaviour, Berends had to step down.

An executive confronting a public employee with their poor performance? Is this no longer allowed?

The executive considers this, to this day, to be unjust. The investigative committee found no evidence for the strongest accusations and what exactly is inappropriate behaviour? An executive confronting a public employee with their poor performance? Is this no longer allowed?

What also really bothers Berends is that the officials reported their story anonymously in the media. In his eyes, this makes executives sitting targets. Of course we also discussed internally whether we did the right thing in this case. Was it fair to write an article based on anonymous sources? Was this the right way to do it?

Anonymous sources

We will start with the question: why do we use anonymous sources? We obviously prefer to speak to people on the record. It is important for the public to know the sources of information. But in this case, people talking to the media are also at risk. The executive they are talking about is, after all, their boss.

These people’s careers often depend on that same person. In addition, people don’t want to be known as being a snitch. As a whistleblower. As a news outlet, it is therefore unavoidable for us to work with anonymous sources in some cases. But this means that we have to work very meticulously. We also wanted to be really sure of our facts in this case. Because we had many sources with the same story, we feel that our reporting was accurate.

Because we had many sources with the same story, we feel that our reporting was accurate

A second point is whether we provided enough opportunity for the right to reply. You have to be generous in providing this in such cases. There again, we feel that we provided enough opportunity and time, although we were also pleased and grateful that Berends eventually agreed to an interview to give his side of the story.

There are also factors that we should possibly have looked at more closely beforehand. For example, why was it relevant for the people to report their story? What was their motivation to come forward at this particular point in time? We did not look into this question in great depth. It is possible that an answer to this question may have resulted in an even more balanced picture.

All things considered, we still stand by the 2023 publication. However, we do feel that we can learn from how we dealt with this matter. We are currently working on an internal protocol on how to deal with these kinds of stories. It is crucial that we take a very critical look with one another at the entire process before publication.

Joris Gerritsen

Editor-in-chief of De Gelderlander

Decision of the Netherlands Press Council on report on Hans van Krieken

In December, the Netherlands Press Council ruled on two reports by De Gelderlander on Hans van Krieken. In September 2023, the newspaper revealed that Van Krieken’s knuckles had been rapped internally five years earlier. At the time, he had made two remarks to a university employee that she felt were sexually transgressive. She subsequently filed a complaint with the university. An independent committee concluded that the remarks could have been perceived as potentially transgressive and therefore ruled in favour of the woman. Van Krieken apologised and received a non-public warning.

In the months following the first publication in De Gelderlander, this case reappeared several times in the newspaper’s coverage. Van Krieken filed a complaint this year on two articles written in the first months of 2024. He felt that the references in the two publications were incorrect and therefore biased.

The Netherlands Press Council agreed with Van Krieken and concluded that the way in which the newspaper reported on the matter in both publications, which led to Van Krieken’s resignation, gave such a distorted picture that incorrect and biased reporting was evident.

The Netherlands Press Council’s ruling led to dissatisfaction and incomprehension among some members of the editorial team. Van Krieken’s complaint concerned two follow-up articles, but the ruling also seems to provide scope to criticise the original article. The editorial team feels that it was unable to defend itself in this and that the article could still withstand the test of criticism. On the other hand, they are also aware of the scope of follow-up articles, in which all nuances cannot always be reported again in full, as is the case in a supporting, original article. The same applies to the sensitivity that this and other topics pose.

Listen to the podcast

The 6 of
De Gelderlander

Journalism is changing rapidly. News stories used to revolve around the five Ws (who, what, where, when, why) and the h (how), but we now offer a diverse range of narrative forms. New stories constantly appear on our website and app, but readers have indicated that they would like to get a review summarising the stories.

This is why we introduced ‘The 6 of De Gelderlander’: the sixth article on our website provides a summary of the main regional, national and international news in six subject matters. Prefer to listen? There is also a podcast version.

proud

The war in my head

“Thank you! I just read my father’s story. I’m very happy that his story has been immortalised in this way.” This is what Bianca Beckers emailed to the editorial team of De Gelderlander this autumn. Her father, the 89-year-old Harrie Beckers, was on the cover of a special supplement: ‘The war in my head’. Eighty years after Operation Market Garden, De Gelderlander interviewed eighty people about the role that World War II still plays in their lives.

Well-known Gelderlanders such as Jan Terlouw, Maarten van Rossum and Hans Dorrestein were among these eighty people. However, it was the powerful, personal stories of ordinary people that were highlighted.

This resulted in wonderful stories that, together with compelling portrait photos by photographer Raphale Drent, helped create an impressive supplement. And not only that, the editorial team also compiled the stories in a marvellous book. A project to be proud of.