One of the most talked about broadcasters in the Netherlands, Ongehoord Nederland (ON!), as the name suggests, present themselves as an alternative broadcaster who represents the voice of the unheard Dutchman. The themes they cover include “climate craziness, mass immigration, and the loss of Dutch traditions” (Ongehoord Nederland, n.d.). Since February 2022, ON! broadcasts their news show on Dutch Public television. Their admission to the Dutch Public Broadcasting Union (NPO) and the shows they broadcasted caused much discussion because other media companies and media experts accused them of spreading disinformation and right-wing propaganda (Schipper, 2022). Last year the media platform Pointer wrote a reconstruction of the disinformation they spread, and how they avoided consequences for it (Vermanen, 2023).

While ON! keeps doing what they always did, many people raise questions about whether or not a broadcaster that spreads disinformation can stay in the NPO (e.g. Schipper, 2023; Hins, 2023). At the end of 2023, the State Secretary for Culture and Media decided that there was too little legal basis to revoke the broadcasting license of ON! (Entertainmentredactie, 2023). The place of ON! in the NPO is very relevant from a legal point of view (e.g. Hins, 2023), but the debate on whether or not there is room for 'alternative facts' in media, is also relevant to look at through a cultural studies lens.

In this essay, I will first look at how ON! deals with facts and the truth, then I will look at the way ON! critiques mainstream media, and after that I will look at objectivity and truth in journalism. Lastly I will look at ON! as a part of the NPO.

Truth in a post-truth era

In the Cambridge Dictionary post-truth is defined as “relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts”. If we compare this definition to ON!’s response to the acquisition of spreading disinformation there is one term that stands out: The objective facts. ON! claims in their response on these acquisitions that one can only speak of truth on 2 occasions: “When talking about math, and when talking about factual observations (e.g. 12 people are standing on this square).” They state that in all other occasions, the facts are always subject to interpretations, and that thus a claim that something is the truth cannot be made (Karskens, 2023, p. 9-11).

This idea that truth is a relative thing and that such a thing as 'the truth' does not exist is something that started with Nietzsche’s ideas on relativism (Zoglauer, 2023, p. 35). This truth relativism goes further than being critical or skeptical of the truth. Truth relativism questions the presence of objective facts, which is a form of post-factualism (Zoglauer, 2023, p. 31). Factualism is the idea that there is a reality with objective facts and that truth consists of these facts. With post-factualism and in a post-truth world, however, the question whether or not something is true does not matter anymore, because we see objective facts as irrelevant (Zoglauer, 2023, p. 27).

This way of looking at objective facts is something we also see in the case of ON! They claim that the things they present as truth are just their interpretation of the truth and that that can differ from other interpretations of the truth, the so-called other side of the news I referred to in the introduction of this essay. This is also reflected in ON!’s defense against accusations made against them. In the multimedia article Pointer made about ON!, Pointer accuses ON! of spreading misinformation and complot theories about mass immigration, the coronavirus and climate change (Vermanen, 2023). Substantiated with scientific facts and their own research, Pointer fact-checks different claims and qualifies them as misinformation. ON! however states that they have built their statements on scientific evidence as well, but that their scientists just represent different opinions, or have a different interpretation of the facts presented (Karskens, 2023, e.g. p. 22-28 & 40-44).

This phenomenon of both sides of the debate referring to science for the truth is something Wijnberg (2019) points out in his article on what science is. He argues that modern science does not claim to be the truth, or just an interpretation of truth, but that modern science is about probability. As he states (Wijnberg, 2019 - my translation):

"When we talk about facts, we are not talking about something absolute or unmediated, but about an accumulation of probability. A scientific theory can be more or less justified; it may have ruled out more or fewer alternative explanations; it may have a larger or smaller margin of error".

So, it is possible that both Pointer and ON! use science to argue that their presentation of the facts is true, but one of them presumably uses a much more probable presentation of the facts. Although ON! uses science to support its news reports, they are not a scientific organization that searches for the most probable scientific theory. ON! is a journalistic organization with a journalistic approach.

How valuable is the alternative story if it is a story based on opinions and interpretations, or questionable facts?

According to Kovach & Rosenstiel (2021, p. 44) “Journalists' first obligation is to the truth”. That is something everyone agrees on, but what that truth is seems unclear to people. Journalists do not try to find an absolute truth, but a 'reliable truth' by which we can make sense of reality every day (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2021). But, as Waisboard (2018) argues, post-truth challenges the idea that journalism is an indispensable part in democracy, built on facts. He states that truth is the outcome of a collective effort of people who try to make sense of reality, and not something that journalists choose. This is something we can see in how ON! portrays other media, which is something I will come back to in a later part of this essay.

But what does that say about the way ON! approaches truthful reporting? When confronted with a critique on their way of finding and presenting the news they changed their news show to a so-called opinion show, in which news can be interpreted, and accompanied by opinions (Villamedia, 2022). So, they seem to take the way of truth as a collective effort. Still, they like to highlight the truthfulness of the news presented in their show, or at least they claim to be producing a truth. This can, for example, be seen in the 67 pages in which they debunk the accusations of spreading disinformation and complot theories (Karskens, 2023),  in the way the presenter highlights that their guests are experts, (Ongehoord Nieuws, 2023, 01:35) and in how the presenter asks guests if their information can be verified (Ongehoord Nieuws, 2024b, 06:25; Ongehoord Nieuws, 2024c, 33:32).

This going back and forth between factual reporting and opinions and interpretation is something that fits into the definition of the post-truth. ON! may be right with the fact that they represent the other side of the story, but how valuable is that other story if it is a story based on opinions and interpretations, or questionable facts? That brings me back to the definition of the post-truth. Because, in a post-truth era, where beliefs and emotions influence the public opinion more than facts, this other side of the story ON! presents may be worth more to people than the common and most fact-based explanation given by mainstream media.

“left-wing propaganda”

This way of looking at the truth goes along with ON! which constantly portrays the main story as a politically motivated one, or as a way to silence politically motivated people. Their narrative is that of a victim of the common opinion. In a recent episode where they talk about the information war, the question “Who determines what you can and cannot see?” (Ongehoord Nieuws, 2024c, 23:56) is raised. They state that this war on disinformation is a war against people who think differently. This is supported by guests in the studio who state that science and journalism cannot be trusted anymore and that 'real objective journalism' does not exist anymore. The example one of the guests gives for this is the investigative journalism organization Bellingcat which, according to him, is a “ministry for propaganda” that presents itself as being objective and in search of the truth (Ongehoord Nieuws, 2024c, 35:00).

This idea of the mainstream media being deceitful or biased is a critique that is used by a lot of right-wing alternative media companies, as shown in a study on Norwegian right-wing alternative media (Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2018). Other common critiques that they found are that certain voices get too much attention and that others are excluded from the media, and that journalists stand too far apart from the people. According to Figenschou & Ihlebæk (2018) there are 3 levels of these critiques, the first being that journalists are not critical enough, the second believing in a left-wing bias or a certain hegemony of leftist ideas, and the third thinking that the mainstream media purposefully wants to deceive us as part of a bigger complot.

Ongehoord Nederland states that this war on disinformation is a war against people who think differently

All of those critiques and levels can be found in the episodes of ON!. For example, in the episode of May 28 (Ongehoord Nieuws, 2024c) just discussed, the critiques pointed at of journalists being not critical enough and the idea that media purposefully deceive us can be seen. The critique that some voices are excluded from the media is seen on their website (Ongehoord Nederland, n.d.) where they ask the reader the question: “Are you also done with always the same opinions in talk shows?”. In the episode of Ongehoord Nieuws of April 9 the idea that media have a leftist agenda (Ongehoord Nieuws, 2024a, 12:12) was discussed. This idea is something that ON! likes to highlight. They even commissioned Maurice de Hond to conduct a study on the attitude of Dutch people towards the NPO. While a press release on the website (Ongehoord Nederland, 2024d) stated that this study showed that most Dutch people think that the NPO was too left-wing oriented, the study itself is not available. This makes it impossible for anybody to see how the study is conducted and thus to see how these results were gathered. However, this does shows one of the ways that ON! tries to validate their power in critiquing mainstream media.

Figenschou and Ihlebæk (2018) identified 5 positions through which this validation of power is done by alternative media. The first, which is illustrated by the example above, being the “citizen position”, which is used to support the claim that journalists are too detached from ordinary people. The other positions are the “insider position”, in which alternative media display their knowledge on the media world;  the “expert position” in which they show detailed knowledge on subjects to proof the bias of mainstream media; the “victim position” which shows individual negative encounters with mainstream media; and lastly the “activist position” which actively tries to highlight “counter-strategies” to mainstream media coverage.

ON! uses some of these positions, such as the “Insider position”, in which they show their knowledge of media codes (Ongehoord Nieuws, 2024a, 14:33), for one overarching argument: the mainstream media are not as objective as they should be. And that leads me to another side of the post-truth in relation to media, the debate on objectivity in journalism.

Objectivity in journalism

The term objectivity is a commonly used term, but also a term that people frequently misunderstand. This misunderstanding stems from the assumption that journalism has the function to mirror reality. In fact, news is made through choices by individual journalists through their own view of reality (Broersma, 2015). According to this scholar, objectivity is a strategy for the citizens, from an autonomous role, to gain authority to monitor those in power and to be able to say things about reality. The way of looking at objectivity as a method is also used by Quinn (2017) who calls objectivity “An approach to justification”. ON! however questions the authority of the mainstream media, accusing them of not being objective because they do not show their alternative side of the story.

It is indeed commonly thought that in a complex story both sides should be equally represented in a journalistic article

In the light of objectivity it is indeed commonly thought that in a complex story both sides should be equally represented in a journalistic article (Zoglauer, 2023). This leads back to the “mirroring of the truth” (Boersma, 2015, p. 163) pointed out earlier. According to Luc Pauwels (Gordts, 2022), this way of approaching journalism seems like a safe way to present topics, but as he states: “If one person says that it is raining and the other denies it, you as a journalist should go outside to see if it is raining”. Through this way of presenting issues you as a journalist are creating a false balance, which can be a gateway to disinformation (Dentith, 2016). As the Leidraad, a Dutch guideline for journalists, states, presenting both sides in a story does not mean a journalist is released from its duty to report as truthfully as possible (Raad voor de Journalistiek, 2024).

A state-funded broadcaster

This leads me back to the beginning of this essay where I pointed out the questions that were raised about the position of ON! as a part of the NPO. While ON! claims that it represents the suppressed voice of the minority who has a different view on facts, experts disagree on whether or not there is place for ON! in the tax funded NPO. Journalist Frenk van der Linden states that ON! has the right to voice their opinions unless they go against the law, and professor Huub Wijfjes thinks it is necessary for opinions to scour once in a while (Schipper, 2023). However, variety in the media scene does not always mean that there is a variety of opinions. Besides, this variety can also lead to the spread of misinformation. At the same time, alternative media can be the ones that hold media companies accountable to their journalistic obligation to control the authorities (Moravčíková, 2020, p. 34-35). Pointing out that the mainstream media are not critical enough on the authorities is something ON! indeed does (e.g. Ongehoord Nieuws, 2024c, 35:00)

But, as I stated earlier, while ON! presents itself as a show with opinions on and interpretations of the news, they also like to prove that there is factual proof for what they say. And that brings me to another part of the debate on the position of ON!: the question of whether we would want a broadcaster who spreads misinformation to be paid by tax money. As I showed earlier in this essay, ON! claims that they do not spread misinformation, but just alternative facts. Experts and factcheckers however agree that some of the news ON! spreads are disinformation (Schipper, 2022; Vermanen, 2023).

While the spread of disinformation is not prohibited, disinformation is harmful for society, as it feeds people false information on which they base their decisions (Taylor & Francis, 2024). But what can we do about it? The prohibition of spreading disinformation can result in a situation in which the public debate is silenced, and besides that the information spread can theoretically still turn out to be (partly) true (Hins, 2023). In addition, if the NPO revoked the license of ON! because of the disinformation they could still continue with their show online. But that may not be a bad idea, because as Wijfjes states (Schippers, 2023), the NPO guarantees quality, and the public should be able to trust that the information spread through the NPO is true and reliable.

Conclusion

ON! is an alternative news medium which presents its reporting as the alternative story to mainstream media in a way that is typical for the post-truth era. When confronted with scientific facts they just present other facts, that according to them tell the other side of the story. When confronted with the fact that their way of producing news is not right, they changed their news show to an opinion show in which they present interpretations of the news. Meanwhile ON! criticizes the mainstream media for being biased, presenting the news through a leftist frame and not being objective. This fits into the frame of other right-wing media that express the same sort of critiques to gain authority. Thus, the way ON! presents itself is not unique, but it may even be typical for an alternative media company.

While the way they present themselves is not unique, their position in the NPO is heavily debated. Their alternative voice may lead to more variety on the public broadcaster, but as pointed out by fact checkers and news experts it also leads to the spread of disinformation. While disinformation should not be prohibited it is questionable that it is spread on a public broadcaster which should be reliable for the public.

References

Broersma, M. (2015). Objectiviteit als professionele strategie: Nut en functie van een omstreden begrip. In J. Bardoel & H. Wijfjes, Journalistieke cultuur in Nederland (revised 2th edition, pp. 163–181). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789089645586

Dentith, M. R. X. (2016). The Problem of Fake News. Public Reason, 8(1–2), pp. 65–79.

Entertainmentredactie (2023, December 19). Ongehoord Nederland mag definitief blijven uitzenden. Nu.nl.

Figenschou, T. U., & Ihlebæk, K. A. (2018). Challenging journalistic authority. Journalism Studies, 20(9), pp. 1221–1237. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2018.1500868

Gordts, P. (2022, April 2). VRT-journalist Luc Pauwels over fake news: ‘We laten ons als journalisten te veel wijsmaken’. DeMorgen.

Hins, A. W. (2023). Ongehoord Nederland! Underdog en waakhond. Ars Aequi, Jaargang 72, AA20230114, pp. 114-117.

Karskens, A. (2023, August 13). Reactie van omroep Ongehoord Nederland op de onjuiste verwijten van KRO-NCRV programma Pointer [Press release]. Ongehoord Nederland.

Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2021). The Elements of Journalism (Revised and updated 4th Edition). Crown.

Moravčíková, E. (2020). Media manipulation and propaganda in the Post-Truth era. Media Literacy and Academic Research, 3(2), pp. 23–37.

Ongehoord Nederland (n.d.). Ben je ongehoord? Ongehoord Nederland.

Ongehoord Nieuws (2023, December 5). Ongehoord Nieuws #138: Corona, vaccinatieschade, oversterfte & nieuwe boostercampagne (episode 138). Ongehoord Nieuws

Ongehoord Nieuws (2024a, April 9). Ongehoord Nieuws #164: Puinhopen NPO, militant Links en goud & Bitcoin (episode 164). Ongehoord Nieuws

Ongehoord Nieuws (2024b, May 2). Ongehoord Nieuws #171: CO2 probleem, geo-engineering en straling (episode 171). Ongehoord Nieuws

Ongehoord Nieuws (2024c, May 28). Ongehoord Nieuws #177: Nieuwe premier, vervolging rechtse denkers en dakloos in NL (episode 177). Ongehoord Nieuws

Ongehoord Nederland. (2024d, May 30). Onderzoek bewijst: alleen links tevreden met de NPO. [Press release] Ongehoord Nederland.

Quinn, A. (2017). Fake news, false beliefs, and the need for truth in journalism. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31(1), pp. 21–29. https://doi.org/10.5840/ijap201771884

Raad voor de Journalistiek. (2024). Leidraad. In Raad Voor De Journalistiek.

Schipper, N. (2022, March 16). Experts: Omroep ON verspreidt schadelijk nepnieuws. Trouw.

Schipper, N. (2023, December 13). Tijd om ongehoord Nederland uit het bestel te zetten? ‘Ze hebben het zelf in de hand.’ Trouw.

Taylor & Francis. (2024, April 23). Combatting disinformation, misinformation, and fake news.

Vermanen, J. (2023, April 24). Ongehoord Nieuws: vooringenomen, onjuist en doorspekt met complottheorieën. KRO-NCRV.

Villamedia. (2022, August 17). ON! doopt Ongehoord Nieuws om tot “opinie- en duidingsprogramma.” Villamedia.

Waisbord, S. (2018). Truth is What Happens to News. Journalism Studies, 19(13), pp. 1866–1878. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2018.1492881

Wijnberg, R. (2019, August 9). De wetenschap is geen mening en geen absolute waarheid. Maar wat is het dan wel? De Correspondent.

Zoglauer, T. (2023). Constructed Truths. Truth and Knowledge in a Post-truth World [E-book]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39942-9