If the Socialist Party (SP) had received the most votes in the Dutch national election, would we have asked political philosopher Jacques Koenis if their win could pose a threat to our democracy? This question came up in an animated discussion we had during our latest editorial meeting. No, of course not, said one colleague across the table. The SP’s party manifesto doesn’t contain any views that are in conflict with the constitution, unlike the manifesto of Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom (PVV).
Were we being too negative, though? Were our biased views against the PVV showing through when we asked Koenis “Does the PVV pose a threat to our democracy?” and “Does it worry you that Wilders might become prime minister?”
Biased views
But calling them “our biased views” is a bit too reductive, argued another colleague. After all, both the Dutch Council of State and constitutional law scholars have extensively argued that several of the views in Wilders’s party manifesto are incompatible with the Dutch constitution – and therefore pose a potential threat to our democracy.
Nuanced questions
The discussion was prompted by an email we received from a long-time reader. He wrote, “The next time you wonder why readers only want to leave anonymous comments, you might want to ask yourselves whether posting exclusively negative articles about the PVV creates a ‘safe environment’ for UM employees with different political views. They’re undoubtedly already in the minority and being accused of all kinds of -isms and -phobias.” He concluded with a suggestion: consider whether you could ask more nuanced questions.
Well, obviously we could ask more nuanced questions, but they don’t always yield the best answers. Sometimes you have to play devil’s advocate to challenge your interviewee; sometimes you have to grill them; sometimes you have to take an empathetic and understanding approach. The goal remains the same – to get to the bottom of something.
Strong opinions
And none of those questions are ever neutral. The journalist’s background, interests, character and views on life and the issue at hand will invariably show through. It’s impossible to eliminate that. However, it is crucial for journalists to be aware of this, as it’s not our views that matter. That’s what we always remind our junior journalists, students and ourselves. In this profession, it’s convenient not to have overly strong opinions about a lot of things. That way, they won’t get in the way of you doing your job.
Freedom of press
There’s one exception – one “opinion” that cannot be held strongly enough. Democracy is the foundation of the freedom of the press. If this foundation is threatened, we have a big problem.