I contacted a number of Dutch members of De Correspondent to learn more about why they share their knowledge with the writers, why they became members in the first place and what they think makes DC different. Here is what they told me.
Jay Rosen
Project Director,
Associate Professor of Journalism
at New York University
@jayrosen_nyu
“Many journalists seem to miss the larger picture...”
Marlies van Eck works for the Dutch government and is doing doctoral research at the University of Tilburg on legal protections for citizens when government decisions are automated. In a previous job, she drafted rulings for the District Court in the Dutch province of Gelderland.
1. Why do you support De Correspondent? Why are you a member?
I am a proud member of De Correspondent because it makes sense to me to be part of a group of people that fund independent journalism. Even if there was no fake news, there are still advertisers and companies that determine what is newsworthy. That makes it difficult to know how independent the journalists are. Many journalists seem to miss the larger picture. Being a civil servant myself, I experienced how the journalistic reality can be totally different from the reality as I saw it. It has as well to do with the brainless news consuming habits I wanted to break with. I have changed my routine. I read De Correspondent pieces every day and scan some news sites and follow journalists I trust on Twitter. No newspapers and no daily news shows for me.
2. When you share knowledge or help the writers, what sort of assistance do you normally provide?
I try to add some knowledge on pieces I happen to know things about, or recall things from the past or something. I Google first to find links that are a good source and then I add it. Being a civil servant I have to be aware, I can't make harsh comments about the government and can only add things that are public knowledge. This openness makes it easy to show my employer I am being transparent and acting within boundaries, though I know many colleagues think I am breaking the rules. My second 'job' comes in handy: as an external PhD student, I have more freedom to participate in the debate. I even wrote two pieces for De Correspondent, prompted by a discussion I had with journalists. I thought the comment space wasn't large enough to explain things, so I offered to write an article and they welcomed the idea. That was great.
3. Why do you contribute your knowledge? What motivates you to share what you know?
I try to only add something that seems to be unknown. I am motivated to keep doing so basically because of the response I receive from the correspondents themselves. If there is no reaction at all, I kind of lose motivation for the next time. Yes, it is a little childish, but if it feels like throwing things in a deep hole, the fun or the feeling of participation is gone. The idea of participating and being heard in doing so, is what makes it worthwhile. It's also that idea that De Correspondent embraces: No one knows everything, we need each other. That makes it very easy to respond. They never act like they know it all, like some journalists do.
4. Why do you trust De Correspondent? Why do you trust DC more than the rest of the Dutch media, if you do?
It's very hard to trust journalists in general I suppose, but at the same time my feeling is that society now, maybe more then ever, needs independent investigative journalists.
Also because that's how things change in the Netherlands: not scientists and their papers, not lawyers, not parliament, but journalists and their stories make the difference. I study automated decision making by the government. Can you as a citizen really object to these decisions? Or is it just a ritual, while the computer rules?
The only people that made the government change things in this area were journalists. They publish stories, in the news and in documentaries, and then you can start counting: 10, 9, 8 .... till a member of parliament asks questions and the minister says he will do some research, etc. I admire that a lot, making complex and difficult things feel urgent and unfair. To not only write about it, but to make people feel it.
So yes, I do trust some journalists but mainly if I can see for myself that they know what they’re talking about. That's an important quality of the journalists at De Correspondent as well but not exclusively.
If the journalist's sole aim is for a member of parliament to start asking formal questions, and then tweets like this is really something successful, I lose my respect for them. That can't be the goal! It's the government's response after the questions that should matter for journalists, and there are few who have a long-term interest in the topic they report on.
“I know that This knowledge is scarce, and that it makes a big difference...”
Hans van Dam (he asked us not to use his real name) is a civil servant with knowledge of internet security.
1. Why do you support De Correspondent? Why are you a member?
For a number of reasons:
First, De Correspondent is the only mainstream media organization in the Netherlands that gives significant attention, focus, and depth to technology-related topics. Most other outlets focus on new stuff ("Check out the new iPhone!" or "This app is great!"), with some attention to incidents but no broader context. Many technological developments need this broader context to be understood properly. For example, if you treat each Snowden revelation as a separate news item, the broader context of the Patriot Act, impact on the Dutch legislative agenda, and discussions on the privacy impact of new technologies is lost. Technology-related subjects are something I find very important. I don't need De Correspondent for reading up on these subjects myself (I have more specialized media for that), but I find it especially important that a broader audience can become well-informed on these subjects.
Second, I do not believe that something like fully objective journalism exists. This doesn't diminish the value of journalism in my opinion, but it does necessitate explicitly stating what your affiliations, interests, and opinions are. De Correspondent has always been very vocal about this, and I believe that DC and I share this value.
2. When you share knowledge or help the writers, what sort of assistance do you normally provide?
I provide correspondents with factual insights that are public, but not very well known. I have specific knowledge and experience because of my professional background. They are journalists, and need not have such a deep understanding. However, to set priorities in their reporting, correspondents need background knowledge on these matters. For example, I once sent Maurits Martijn an introduction on quantum computers and their impact on information security. I thought he needed this knowledge, because a) it is important to give this subject sufficient coverage in the future, and b) the parties with significant commercial interests in this field (e.g. developers of Quantum Key Distribution systems) are by no means telling the whole story in their press releases and whitepapers.
When I contribute on the website for all to see, I refrain from giving too much of my own opinion, because De Correspondent requires I provide my real name. My employer (a Dutch government body) does not want me to be too opinionated publicly on matters that touch upon my work expertise. I resolve this by merely stating facts and letting the facts speak for themselves. I do not participate in discussions with other members for exactly the same reason. I have little to gain by entering into discussions, and a lot to lose.
When I communicate with Maurits or another journalist from De Correspondent, I'm more open about my own opinions. We have an understanding that I can only give them my opinion on the condition that they do not publish it under my name.
I never provide confidential or non-public information to which I may have access through my job. They don't ever press this point, and if I explicitly state I don't wish to discuss something because of that, the correspondents respect that.
3. Why do you contribute your knowledge? What motivates you to share what you know with Maurits Martijn?
I want Maurits to write accurately and deeply on technology-related subjects.
I know that this knowledge is scarce, and that it can make a big difference if Maurits has access to it through me.
I trust Maurits to respect the boundaries I set in our communication, by not publishing my name, for instance, as someone who informs him on the subjects about which he writes.
4. Why do you trust De Correspondent? Why do you trust DC more than the rest of the Dutch media, if you do?
They acknowledge that there is no such thing as fully objective journalism, a value which I share.
They show that they understand the role technology plays in our society and politics, and that they are willing to give it the proper amount of attention in publications.
They are not focused on easy scoops, but on providing deeper understanding to their readers.
They take the risks their sources take seriously, by providing instructions on how to reach them securely, for example. Few other media outlets do this.
“I hate it when my subject, chemistry, is misunderstood by journalists…”
Ingrid van der Wiel is a chemist who has assisted De Correspondent in its research on batteries.
1. Why do you support De Correspondent? Why are you a member?
I am a member because of the quality of the articles. They are different from the usual newspapers. More background, more long-term, important problems, less issues of the day. I don't really feel I support them, I feel more like a customer.
2. When you share knowledge or help the writers, what sort of assistance do you normally provide?
I share my knowledge of chemistry and education. I helped Thalia Verkade by reading an article of hers about batteries (an explainer) to make sure the chemistry content was correct.
3. Why do you contribute your knowledge? What motivates you to share what you know with Thalia Verkade?
I hate it when my subject, chemistry, is misunderstood by journalists and things are incorrectly explained in a newspaper article. That makes people continue to think chemistry is hard, difficult. And people without much knowledge of chemistry keep believing in some misconceptions about chemistry-related issues like energy, batteries, climate change, food, toxicology, medicine, etc. Spread the knowledge!
4. Why do you trust De Correspondent? Why do you trust DC more than the rest of the Dutch media, if you do?
The correspondents show their sources, which I like. You can comment and there are good discussions on the website about the articles. The journalists themselves join those discussions – I really appreciate that. You can share your knowledge and they really listen to it.
But I also trust most other Dutch media too. I believe journalists try to tell the true and complete story as much as possible. To get a complete view of a subject, it is good to read articles from various sources.
“De Correspondent provides a platform On which long-term and strategic questions are being raised...”
Gert van Santen is a retired World Bank employee who once lived in Washington. He’s a fan of De Correspondent.
1. Why do you support De Correspondent? Why are you a member?
I am one of the first supporters of De Correspondent. I was very unhappy with the quality of most Dutch newspapers, notably the lack of in-depth and long-term analyses that I regularly enjoyed in The Washington Post and The New York Times. (I worked for 35 years in Washington, DC.) I also don't like the overwhelming influence of commercial considerations in most journalism, and I was worried the cost of print journalism would eventually further reduce its quality. My decision to support De Correspondent and the Guardian is ultimately based on my belief that without a vibrant news system, democracy cannot function properly and may degenerate into some populist or even fascist form of governance.
2. When you share knowledge or help the writers, what sort of assistance do you normally provide?
I used to be a fisheries specialist for the World Bank and worked in 40+ countries. That experience is quite rare. De Correspondent published a few articles about fisheries by Correspondent Tamar Stelling, and I made some comments. Tamar liked and highlighted my comments, and – one of the nice things about De Correspondent – actively requested my input for new articles. I then met Tamar at a conference, which allowed me to get to know her a bit better.
3. Why do you contribute your knowledge? What motivates you to share what you know with Tamar Stelling?
My experience can be particularly useful for people who are actively involved in fisheries development and management or who write about it. More generally, I support people who question the prevailing economic theories that are usually applied in the sector around the world. De Correspondent provides a platform on which long-term and strategic questions are being raised, and Tamar does that very well.
4. Why do you trust De Correspondent? Why do you trust DC more than the rest of the Dutch media, if you do?
My trust is based on early involvement and a few personal connections. I have briefed correspondents about the workings of the World Bank and visited their offices. My generally less positive judgement of the quality of other media is mostly based on a comparison with The Washington Post, public TV and radio in Washington, and on what Dutch outlets publish about the fishing sector. Too many fisheries-related articles here are either overly simplistic, incomplete, or contain conclusions and facts that are plainly wrong. I then assume that the rest of the content may be subject to a similar modest level of editorial scrutiny.
“The writers are very approachable. They often enter discussions with readers about alternative points OF VIEW…”
Ayla Kangur is a data scientist who has helped out the writers at De Correspondent.
1. Why do you support De Correspondent? Why are you a member?
I initially became a member for two reasons. One, I was very much interested in an independent news platform that was free of advertisements, but still adhered to proper journalism standards (fact checking, retracting false claims, finding multiple sources, etc). I'd rather pay for proper journalism myself, than let companies buy ads through which they may indirectly influence a newspaper's content. And two, I heard Rob Wijnberg speak at a university event and was taken by the eloquent way in which he defended idealism in an age where pessimism is presented as realism. Because of the positive impression he left on me, I felt confident enough to support his initial idea to found De Correspondent.
2. When you share knowledge or help the writers, what sort of assistance do you normally provide?
All kinds of things: sources; personal anecdotes; answers to reader questions to clarify topics that were not explained or not explained well; more in-depth information or an insight that may be of interest to the writer in a follow-up text; an opinion or alternative view on the subject matter or the writer's opinion. I comment on a wide variety of topics, but only when I feel confident enough about the topic at hand.
3. Why do you contribute your knowledge? What motivates you to share what you know with the journalists at De Correspondent?
More than other news platforms, I feel that De Correspondent's main purpose is the pursuit of some unattainable, messy, overly nuanced but still much desired notion of the truth. When I feel that something is missing, I can't help but want to contribute. It's like participating in science and the unexplainable drive to discover some absolute truth about our universe. I don't hold such high standards for other news platforms or social media, which is why I don't ever comment on those.
4. Why do you trust De Correspondent? Why do you trust DC more than the rest of the Dutch media, if you do?
I have more faith in De Correspondent over other news media because the writers are very approachable. They often enter discussions with readers about alternative points of view. Because of that, I feel more confident that the information I'm getting is not too biased. When a writer draws an illogical conclusion, but does not respond to critical feedback of readers, I feel offended that his/her piece stays online on De Correspondent.
I do not necessarily distrust other Dutch media outlets, but I often find them less competent. I frequently feel that established national media are not aware of their own biases or their focus on trivial flings over long-term, structural changes. Of course this is not always the case and even when it is, it isn't necessarily a problem. I still read traditional news media daily. They provide the 'weather forecast' and the occasional trend, while De Correspondent helps to provide an overarching picture and raise new questions.