Every day, the editorial staff at the UK wonders: What are we writing about, why are we writing about it, and how are we writing about it? A weekly look behind the scenes.
Over the past few weeks, we have been reporting at length on the criminal case against former RUG manager Hans G., who is suspected of having committed fraud at the university (for years). We often reported on G.’s alleged ‘accomplice’, a certain Mr. P. at engineering firm Postma.
Several readers at the UK wrote in to say that this made it obvious what Mr. P.’s last name was and that this wasn’t very nice of us. They feel that this strange construct (using the initial P. yet naming the firm Postma) amounted to naming and shaming.
That’s not necessarily true. It is possible that engineering firm Postma at some point had been taken over by Mr. Pietersen or Mr. Petersen.
Guidelines
The whole situation is a little more complicated than it may seem. In the 1950s, Dutch media came up with their own guidelines which said that ‘reputations should not be needlessly harmed’. As part of this guideline, which is still in effect, suspects’ names should not be written in full. Rather, only their last initial should be used.
There are exceptions, of course: it would be ridiculous to write ‘the Dutch Prime Minister Mark R. of The Hague’ (as far as any connection between function and offence, more on that later). And sometimes, the media find other reasons to not adhere to the guidelines (such as in the case of Volkert van der G., the man who murdered Pim Fortuyn).
But in general, journalists respect people’s privacy. Although I would like to add that the Dutch media are an exception to many other (European) countries, which often aren’t as tactful.
Strict
Let’s focus on Mr. P.
Does this constitute ‘needless harm to a reputation’? For people who are strict about the rules it might have been better if we’d simply said ‘a company’. However, there is a clear connection between the activities of the firm and the offence. And that is why the type of firm is relevant (and important).
So we might have just stuck with saying ‘engineering firm’. But then we’d just be generalising engineering firms. Or ‘engineering firm P.’. But how many companies are called engineering firm P. (Pietersen, Petersen, etc.)? That could lead to problems for all those hard-working Pietersens and Petersens, which is a shame.
A dentist named Q.
Here’s an example from when I worked at Het Parool, in Amsterdam. A few years ago, the Healthcare Inspectorate threatened to close a dentist’s office in the capital because of poor hygiene. The dentist in question had a rather unusual last name starting with a Q. We decided to only use his initial.
No one had even realised that there was another dentist in Amsterdam whose last name started with a Q. The other Amsterdam dentist whose last name began with a Q rang us up the same day, practically in a panic. ‘You’re destroying my practice!’ Of course he had nothing to do with that other office; his business was all in order.
We journalists try to be careful and not needlessly harm people (such as the first dentist Q.), but sometimes we end up (unintentionally) harming other innocent people (dentist Q. the second).
To make a long story short: no matter what we do, there’s always someone getting hurt. The thing we need to consider is: how do we do as little damage as possible?
Rob S. from G., editor-in-chief