Yes, something was wrong with it The world goes on ( DWDD ) Janke Dekkerknew. But that so many employees of the popular talk show had to deal withtransgressive behavior was a shock, says the chairman of Mores.online, thereporting center for undesirable behavior in the creative sector.
The hotline was set up in 2018 after a number of scandals were exposed in themedia at theater companies, actor training courses and a casting agency. Sincethen, theater makers, filmmakers and employees of television programs havebeen able to report abuses there.
In the first year and a half, 42 reports were received, says Dekker, who worksas a theater producer in addition to her board position at the reportingcenter. This year, the counter was already at 190 in June, partly due to therevelations about sexual misconduct The Voice of Holland. There are now 240.’There is a shift going on in what we find acceptable,’ she says. ‘As aresult, more people are willing to make a report.’
Mores.online also received reports about Matthijs van Nieuwkerk and DWDD?
‘We do not make any announcements about the reports that we receive. Becausewe guarantee our reporters absolute confidentiality. And no, I can’t saywhether it’s the same with other programs.’
What do you offer the people who report to you?
‘Our confidential advisers listen carefully to the stories of the reporters.They do so in an empathetic way. We don’t do truth-finding either. Then peoplefeel attacked or not heard. Many of them have already received annoyingquestions. Aren’t you hypersensitive? Couldn’t you have done this or thatbetter? That’s victim blaming. While you have to take reporters seriously.They already have to cross a threshold before they even make a report.
And what happens afterwards?
‘Once the emotion has subsided, we look at what follow-up steps are possible:a conversation with the perpetrator, for example, a process of mediation orcriminal proceedings.’
What struck you when you read the story about the program’s toxic workenvironment?
‘BNNVara’s response to the signals that something was wrong. The reporterswere structurally ignored by the management of broadcasting. And not at thehealth and safety service either. He offered people a coaching program. As ifthat makes the workplace safer! No one seemed to pay attention to what causedthe insecurity. That’s shocking. Gross negligence on the part of theemployer.’
How do you explain that?
‘The broadcaster allowed the success of the program to prevail over the well-being of the people, while both can coexist. They could have solved a lot bytalking or doing mediation. People work under high pressure in television.Sometimes tempers run high. But if it’s that structural, then there’s more toit. Then action must be taken. But that didn’t happen, despite people soundingthe alarm.’
Is that exceptional?
We see it in other organizations as well. They have the protocols and hotlinesin order, but never thought about the consequences if something really bighappens. How much is it worth to an organization to create a safe workplace?And in the worst case, could that mean saying goodbye to a star presenter?’
Van Nieuwkerk writes in a response that he is very sorry. He calls the articlea mirror that hangs in his room.
‘That doesn’t help the reporters very much. I also think it is not appropriatethat in his response he draws attention to the success of the program. Youapologize or you don’t. You may be able to name the success again later, ifyou go deeper into the events. But not at the moment. The timing is wrong. Atthe same time, I think that Van Nieuwkerk is also the victim of poormanagement. He should have been held accountable for his behavior by theemployer. If that had happened earlier and more often, it might not haveescalated so much.’
Earlier this year, reports of sexually transgressive behavior came to the fore_The Voice of Holland_ now about unsafe working atmosphere at DWDD. Is thelatter less bad?
You should never compare suffering with suffering. But if you are verballyabused in your face en plein public, then this is verbal abuse. You can damagepeople to the bone with that. If it is structural, a culture of fear iscreated in which you have to be on your guard all the time. That causesincredible stress.’
To what extent do the short-term contracts of editors contribute to theemergence of such a culture of fear?
‘The entire cultural sector runs on freelancers and people with freelancecontracts. As a result, job insecurity is very high, resulting in excessessuch as in DWDD can continue to exist. If you have a short-term contract,you will not cause a problem three months before it expires. Before you knowit you will get the stamp that you are difficult. And that’s going to getaround because it’s a small sector. There is a chance that you will no longerbe able to work. So something has to change in the system. That is the onlyway to create safety.’
There will be a covenant from NPO, Talpa and RTL, among others, containingguidelines on desirable behavior and a safe working environment. Do you havehigh expectations for that?
‘It is a unique collaboration, because these parties have never sat down atthe same table before. We also talk. That covenant, which is almost finished,will be the first step towards improvement. We lay down guidelines on whicheveryone can hold each other accountable. I think it’s a positivedevelopment.’
This isn’t going to be a paper tiger?
‘It has to start with a paper tiger. Because if we don’t record anything,arbitrariness arises. Then people are sent away after one complaint andwithout giving a reason. We don’t want that either.’