|
Update January 16, 16.17: Why is it that people who have reasonable points to make are afraid of seeing those points published on this website? I received an email of someone who I won't name stating that Jan Tromp is not anti-American. I can't look inside Mr. Tromp's head, but since I know and respect the person who emailed me about it, I'll have to take his word for it. No insult was intended, and I apologize if it was interpreted as such. Nevertheless, I stand by my assessment that most of Mr. Tromp's articles seem - well - very America-sceptical to me (and that's an understatement), up to the point that they reminded me of the old (and not entirely true anymore) joke about de Volkskrant, his newspaper: wrap a cucumber in it and you'll end up with a gherkin.
Then again, that's why I asked the question in the first place. Journalists are people too. If the things they've written in the past make readers (in this case: me) suspicious of their motives now, then open source journalism would be a valuable tool to help validate their articles, both for their own sakes and for the sake of the appreciation of journalism as a profession. Mind you, our credibility rating is plummeting faster than that of lawyers. Journalists can either blame the customer, or become more open to scrutiny themselves.
Update Sunday, January 15, 18.36: I've since received an email alerting me to the fact that Tromp was probably right with his interview, meaning I should retract this post. Since this article asks a question, and does not come to any conclusions but considers the possibility of stupidity on the part of Bremer as well (which turns out to have been the case), I find that hard to do so other than in the way I already did in the comments. Journalists question the motives of politicians every day, and rightly so. The motives of journalists should be subjected to at least as much scrutiny (yes, mine included). Also, I am not sure why I should retract my comments with regard to Tromp - although I admit I could have done offered some case history to better illustrate my claim that he's less than neutral when it comes to reporting about the USA.
The article was intended to be a claim for more openness. Knowing journalism from the inside I am aware that we are, in fact, capable of producing sloppy and/or biased work. Suspicions about those biases often remain just that: they're hard, if not impossible, to prove without a long investigation which in effect will be useless since any results, if they surface at all, won't be forthcoming until long after the issue the article dealt with has ceased to be of importance.
I have long been bothered by the fact that especially in Dutch journalism, where no fact checkers are employed, publishing your notes or even releasing a tape of the interview often only takes place after a huge public uproar. In the system of checks and balances we're unbalanced and definitely not checked. There's open source software; there's open source science. Perhaps it's time for open source journalism as well.
Original article
Jan Tromp is a vitriolic anti-American reporter, stationed in the USA by de Volkskrant, a left-wing newspaper. So it was with considerable amazement when today's edition of de Volkskrant featured an interview by Tromp with Paul Bremer, former governor of Iraq. In it, Bremer supposedly threatens the Netherlands with sanctions if the Dutch don't send more troops to Afghanistan. (An abridged English version can be found here.)
If this is true, it's an incredibly stupid move. It would be undiplomatic, if not ungrateful, to try to force the Dutch parliament into anything. Mind you, the Dutch already have SpecOps in combat roles in Afghanistan. We also had troops in Iraq, who stayed on longer than the official commitment. If Bremer is really trying to blackmail the Dutch into anything, the effect will be exactly the opposite. (If any Americans out there fail to understand this, try imagining the French trying to coerce *you* into something - your heels will be in the sand before you can say 'croque monsieur' or 'freedom fries'. No country worth its salt likes to be told what to do.)
Then again, this is de Volkskrant. If red printing ink were cheaper, they'd use it (and if it were only slightly more expensive, probably too). Coming from Jan Tromp, I smell a setup. Paraphrasing quotes is quite common in the Netherlands. Subsequently, so is the practice of interviewees demanding to read the article before it is published. In America and the UK, vetting articles is often anathema. Therefore, I think it's unlikely Bremer took a look at the article before it was published.
De Volkskrant and Tromp will have known in advance that this article would only serve to further strengthen the case of those who are against the new deployment. And although politicians in The Hague might consider the source of this article, it still gives them an excuse to say 'no' when the issue comes to a vote, somewhere in February.
The solution to this predicament is clear. If there's a tape of the interview, de Volkskrant should publish it. If not, Bremer should make an unequivocal statement. If he said this, he should apologize. If he didn't, Jan Tromp should. The issue of sending Dutch soldiers into a combat zone is too important to be resolved through propaganda.
|
