The ombudsman of the public broadcaster, Margo Smit, has received a recordnumber of almost seventeen hundred complaints about an item in three days.Unheard of News from Thursday. The offending item would be racist.
The number of complaints is more than double the total complaints harvest ofan average year. Smit will forward the complaints to the responsiblebroadcaster Ongehoord Nederland (ON).
The rain of complaints, added to the condemnation of the broadcast by thecentral management of the public broadcaster (NPO), raises the question ofwhat the consequences will be for ON. What can the NPO leadership do againstthe radical right broadcaster – and four more questions.
1 What exactly has ‘Unheard News’ done?
The opinion program on Thursday included an item about alleged “racist”aggression by black people against white people. The program showed a collageof social media videos in which a black man repeatedly assaulted a white man.According to pointer -journalist Marieke Kuypers, who examined theimagestheviolence shown was not actually racially motivated.
In the item, presenter Raisa Blommestijn repeatedly used the n-word. She said,among other things: “You see whites being beaten up by n*gers – we see on alarge scale, by the way.”
Frederieke Leeflang, chairman of the central board of the public broadcaster(NPO) condemned the item on Friday. According to her, the limit of editorialfreedom had been reached “with regard to racist or discriminatory statements”.The joint broadcasters (minus ON and NOS) also came with a conviction. Theycalled the item “a false, racist message” which they collectively qualified as”unjournalistic, unethical and contrary to the core values of the NPO”.Rabin Baldewsingh, National Coordinator Against Racism and Discrimination,said: “It was openly racist on national television.”
2 What does the NPO want to do about it?
NPO board chairman Leeflang does not officially deal with the content ofprograms, but she calls on two involved bodies to investigate the matter. TheMedia Authority (CvdM) can check whether ON violated the Media Act. It statesthat a public broadcaster must “prevent the offer of its media services frominciting violence or hatred against a group”.
Leeflang also called on the NPO ombudsman Margo Smit to check the item againstthe Journalistic Code of the public broadcaster. Smit can check whether ON hascontributed to ‘dissemination of demonstrably incorrect information’. ON bossArnold Karskens recently renamed his program originally intended to bejournalistic to an ‘opinion program’. However, they must also adhere to theCode, said Leeflang.
3 What happens after a possible negative judgement?
If the ombudsman or the CvdM were to rule that ON has violated the Media Actor the Code, Leeflang can fine the broadcaster a maximum of 540,000 euros (15percent of the annual budget of 3.6 million). What can be aggravating is thatthe broadcaster was also fined in June, of 93,000 euros, for violation of theCode. According to the ombudsman interviewed Unheard of News the guests toouncritical, causing the program to disseminate incorrect information withoutcontradiction.
After a second fine, Leeflang then reports to the government. After this,State Secretary Gunay Uslu (Media, D66) can decide to prematurely withdraw thefive-year temporary employment permit.
4 Can Ongehoord also be prosecuted?
Group insults and hate speech (public incitement to hatred and discriminationagainst a group because of race, religion, etc.) is punishable by law. If thisis done in a group and professionally, it acts as an aggravating circumstance.The n-word, as Blommestijn used it repeatedly, has been regarded as an insultby the judge in previous cases. In addition, Blommestijn used the word todistinguish a population group by skin color, and then to accuse it of massiveand aggravated assault. A judge can see this as unnecessarily offensive and asa group insult. Partly because the item had no further clear reason and seemedpurely intended to create a mood against black people, the judge could alsosee it as incitement to hatred.
5 Doesn’t this fall under free speech?
The relevant Articles 137C and 137D of the Criminal Code constitute a legallimitation of a fundamental right, freedom of expression. Not beingdiscriminated against is also a fundamental right. The judge must weigh thesetwo equal fundamental rights against each other.
You can argue that the offending item is allowed as part of the free socialdebate. Blommestijn acted as a presenter and could be regarded as a journalistor opinion maker. Like politicians, they have greater freedom to participatein the debate. But an opinion maker also has a greater responsibility: whatshe says carries more weight than what an ordinary citizen says. A publicfunction can therefore also be regarded as aggravating, as was apparent, forexample, in the conviction for group insult of Member of Parliament Wilders(PVV) in 2016.
First, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) still has to decide whether itwants to prosecute the people of ON at all. In the case of group insults andhate speech, the Public Prosecution Service is usually very reluctant to doso.
With the collaboration of Gilad Perez