nos.nl
De Gelderlander Reprimanded for Inaccurate Reporting on Han van Krieken
The Raad voor de Journalistiek reprimanded De Gelderlander for inaccurate and biased reporting on former rector Han van Krieken, who resigned a month before retirement after the newspaper reported on alleged sexual misconduct. The council found the reporting lacked context and disproportionately damaged Van Krieken's reputation, recommending a publication of their conclusion.
- What specific inaccuracies and biases did the Raad voor de Journalistiek identify in De Gelderlander's reporting on Han van Krieken?
- The Raad voor de Journalistiek criticized De Gelderlander for inaccurate and biased reporting on former rector Han van Krieken. The articles, published following Van Krieken's resignation a month before his retirement, contained factual errors and presented his actions as more serious than they were. The council recommended De Gelderlander publish a correction.
- How did De Gelderlander's reporting impact Han van Krieken's reputation, and what role did the omission of context play in this impact?
- De Gelderlander's reporting on Van Krieken's resignation stemmed from allegations of sexually transgressive behavior. However, the articles lacked crucial context and nuance. Van Krieken's comments, although potentially misinterpreted, did not constitute the serious accusations implied by the newspaper. The Raad found the reporting disproportionately damaged Van Krieken's reputation.
- What measures should news organizations take to ensure accuracy and avoid disproportionately damaging individuals' reputations when reporting on sensitive allegations?
- This case highlights the dangers of potentially harmful reporting without sufficient context or fact-checking. De Gelderlander's failure to accurately portray the situation led to reputational damage and a formal rebuke. This incident underscores the need for greater journalistic accuracy and responsibility when reporting on sensitive issues, particularly those involving allegations of misconduct.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction emphasize the accusations against Van Krieken, potentially shaping reader perception before presenting a balanced account. The focus on the accusations rather than the subsequent investigation and the university's light sanction creates a framing bias.
Language Bias
The use of terms like "sexually transgressive behavior" without sufficient context could be considered loaded language. The article also uses the phrase "Hetze" which is a strong word that implies a concerted campaign against Van Krieken.
Bias by Omission
The article omits the specific details of Van Krieken's comments, the context of the winter market encounter, and the university's non-public warning. These omissions hinder a complete understanding of the situation and could mislead readers into believing the accusations were more severe than they were. The lack of detail regarding the nature of the comments and the minimal university sanction suggests a potential bias by omission.
False Dichotomy
The narrative presents a false dichotomy between "sexually transgressive behavior" and Van Krieken's explanation. It fails to acknowledge the nuanced difference between inappropriate comments and severe misconduct. This oversimplification could influence readers to interpret Van Krieken's actions more harshly than warranted.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses allegations of sexual misconduct against a university rector. The reporting by De Gelderlander was deemed "tendentious and untruthful" by the Journalism Council, impacting negatively on efforts to promote gender equality and prevent sexual harassment. The incident highlights the importance of responsible journalism in protecting individuals and fostering safe environments free from sexual harassment. The lack of nuance and potentially inaccurate reporting could discourage victims from coming forward and reporting similar incidents.