‘Nothing seen, nothing heard, nothing done.’ The findings in the Van Rijn Committee’s report on the situation at the NPO were harsh. But what now? Last Tuesday, the NVJ took up the challenge and organized a conversation in the NPO building in Hilversum between makers of the NPO and Frederieke Leeflang (chairman of NPO), Peter Kuiper (director KRO-NCRV) and Gert-Jaap Hoekman (editor-in-chief NOS Sport). . ‘Shit man, what haven’t we seen?’
After the publication of the report in question, numerous meetings, gatherings, listening sessions and working groups were organized within the NPO and the other audiovisual sector. They often revolved around the question: does this also happen to us? The public meeting organized by the NVJ fits into the above list.
On this Tuesday, the main thing is to listen. This time by Leeflang, Kuiper and Hoekman. But the stories that deserve to be heard are somewhat delayed.
Initially, it mainly concerns ‘improvement efforts’ that have already been initiated by the various broadcasters and editors, the so-called cultural plans. NOS is even considering a culture code, NOS journalist and works council chairman Henrik-Willem Hofs said from the audience. But, Hofs rightly warns, we must guard against a ‘tsunami of cultural plans’.
Also the eLearning which was offered to all employees within the audiovisual sector under the Media Pact, is discussed in detail. ‘We don’t have time for that at all. Assembly is waiting,” said one attendee.
Hoekman recognizes the problem, but emphasizes that time must be made for such e-learning. And that call comes up more often during this listening session: create space so that employees continue to discuss definition and creating a safe working atmosphere. This is also argued by Roos Moggré, one of the presenters who was featured in the AD article about WNL editor-in-chief Bert Huisjes. Nikki Herr, Eva Jinek, Leonie ter Braak and Merel Westrik spoke about a ‘culture of fear’ and a disrupted working atmosphere at the broadcaster.
©Dingena Mol
Throwing staplers
Leeflang asks those present whether there is actually enough discussion about other forms of interaction. “I hear different sounds,” she notes.
The answer from the audience does not sound like a surprise; Anyone who does not have a permanent contract will think twice before raising a problem. ‘The name of the problem is often seen as the cause of it. I work in five different editorial offices, but no one there feels like a perpetrator, only a victim. Even the DJ who throws staplers,” explains a freelance media worker present.
Someone else cynically adds to the freelancer: ‘Since I stopped raising problems, my career has been going well.’
Kuipers responds decisively and in a loud voice, which he will repeat a few times during the session. ‘Shit man, what did we do wrong or didn’t see correctly? After six months I have the same questions. We are talking about a culture in an organization in which we do not understand what statements mean to others. You have to respect each other.’
He also states that he is in favor of more permanent contracts, but that he believes broadcasters are also dependent on the NPO system. ‘Sometimes you only hear six months in advance what needs to be made. That is no longer possible.’
Yes, that NPO and that system. According to many attendees, the NPO leadership simply does not understand what happens to an editorial team when a program is postponed or even canceled. Kuiper confirms this: ‘That awareness must be greater. “Just do it three months later!” Do you know what that means in the workplace?’
Leeflang disagrees. ‘That awareness is really present in this house. And we act on that. If the schedule changes, we really try to have the conversation about that. But sometimes you also have to be able to change a program after 20 years.’
‘Drivers are too far away’
For most attendees, makers feel a great distance from the top of public broadcasting. Leeflang endorses that feeling: ‘I think that all directors are too far away from the makers. That must be broken. I agree with you. We must facilitate good conversation. Enabling employees to say what they expect from management and administrators. That’s what we have to focus on.’
Hoekman is not sure whether that is the solution. ‘The editors must above all come together and learn from each other. How do we want to treat each other? You actually have to ask each other that every year, like a kind of MOT.’
At the moment when the audience and the three managers are cautiously moving towards some kind of consensus, a powerful and personal outpouring from a freelance employee shows that good intentions are not enough at the moment.
The employee indicates that for the past seven years, she has received a contract every twelve months from the broadcaster she works for. It states, among other things, that she ‘works occasionally’. That is not true. She is what we call a ‘permanent freelancer’.
The contract also states that she must bear the risks of any sanction from the tax authorities herself. She signed the contract every year, but the last time she refused. “That’s just policy,” she was told. And this took place after the publication of the report ‘Nothing seen, nothing heard, nothing done.’
“I’m glad you said this,” Leeflang responds, affected. Kuiper says he was shocked by this: ‘It cannot be the case that an employer forces you to sign something that does not match reality.’
“But it happens!”, it sounds from the audience. And this makes one of the biggest underlying problems clear: the discrepancy between all intended improvements and implemented processes and the perception of the actual situation. How will the NPO internally enforce that everyone behaves?
‘In the field of social safety, the intention is to commit to each other,’ says Leeflang in response to that question.
‘It is a joint responsibility. There can be no difference between the broadcasters. The fact that we hear this from you means that I will call soon. And that Peter is going to call.’
‘Who keeps me on my toes?’
According to Hoekman, this commitment should also be reflected in the checking of editors-in-chief. ‘If I don’t bring a problem to a meeting without the editors, then it doesn’t exist, so to speak. Who controls me and how do we ensure that the agenda is not set solely by me? Who will keep me on my toes?’
Finally, Mariëtte Hamer, government commissioner for sexual misconduct and sexual violence, is quoted by a speaker: an entire generation may have to make way to bring about the necessary cultural changes within the NPO. In addition, someone else indicates that the NPO feels like a closed stronghold. ‘It is difficult for people from outside to get inside, let alone move up.’
All true, Leeflang concludes. That is why there is also a need for advancement within the NPO. According to her, this is lacking – especially because not all directors currently have a term of office. Leeflang himself has this. Hoekman too, he agrees.
General secretary of the NVJ Thomas Bruning closed the meeting: ‘We have already collected many abuses, but please continue to report them to us. And create space for these types of conversations. Then you hear important things that are not discussed during busy production periods.’
