November 22, 2022

The canard of

The Betrayal of Anne Frank (8)

Press Council: NRC careless

regarding coverage book

Daily newspaper NRC acted carelessly in its initial coverage of the book The Betrayal of Anne Frank. That is the conclusion of the Press Council, following a complaint by two relatives of notary Arnold van den Bergh, who is accused in that book of betraying the people in hiding in the Secret Annex.

Meanwhile, the Amsterdam municipality's investigation into the possibility of recovering the 100,000 euro of subsidy for the "cold case Anne Frank" project is still ongoing.

By Bart FM Droog

[this page is part of the Betrayal of Anne Frank. A 21^st Century Canard files]

---

The Press Council:

"In the article of 17 January 2022, NRC adopted several terms from the book, such as 'international cold case team', 'modern techniques' and 'special agent of the FBI', which already give the impression of an exceptional investigation. NRC did not stop there; the editors themselves gave the investigation even more weight by mentioning that "never before has such a thorough investigation been conducted" and using terms such as "contemporary police investigation" to which the special agent was "roped in", "advanced software" and "a team of some thirty investigators, mainly historians and criminologists" [in the list at the back of the book, ten of the thirty members of the cold case team are indicated as historians and/or criminologists, RvdJ].

In addition, the coverage contains several photographs, including one showing the investigators' examination room. In the paper edition, moreover, the article is widely announced on the front page.

This presentation of the news, combined with the weight NRC has given to the investigation, leaves the reader little room for a conclusion other than that Arnold van den Bergh was indeed the (most) likely betrayer of the hiders in the Secret Annex. The fact that NRC left certain qualifications for the account of the researchers by means of inverted commas is insufficient in the light of the above. NRC thus failed to maintain sufficient distance from the conclusion of the book.

Given the undeniably high sensitivity of the issue, NRC should have reported on it with more restraint, for instance by taking a more critical approach to the investigation - with more distance to the conclusion from the book. The embargo agreed upon with the publisher should not have prevented NRC from consulting available literature on the subject, which in parts reveals a different picture from the one presented by the researchers. Sufficient time was available for that. A more sober presentation of the research could also have contributed to the distance to be observed. By failing to do so and reporting on the case as was done, NRC acted negligently in journalistic terms. The fact that follow-up publications critically reflected on their own presentation of the news and reported on the issue in a more nuanced way does not alter this.

In the editorial commentary of 19 January 2022, NRC did adequately distance itself from the conclusion of the book. In that article, NRC reflected extensively on its own actions and reached out sufficiently. It is going too far to accuse NRC that the form and content of the publications contributed to the confirmation of an anti-Semitic prejudice.

NRC has otherwise responded seriously to the complaints about both publications and has also entered into dialogue with the complainants. The fact that complainants do not agree with NRC's response is insufficient for the conclusion that the complaint handling was negligent.

On these points, NRC acted carefully.

The foregoing leads to the conclusion that NRC acted partly carelessly." (…)

The Council advises NRC to publish the conclusion in full or in summary form.

The entire conclusion can be found at: www.rvdj.nl/2022/33

NRC reaction

"Both online under the challenged article and in the paper of Wednesday [23 November], NRC will summarise the verdict.

The two descendants of Van den Bergh explained why they did not challenge similar publications in Het Parool and de Volkskrant. They are subscribers to NRC and conducting three proceedings was unfeasible. They stated that they assumed that these media will take notice of this judgment and respond appropriately."

Amsterdam municipality's investigation

Meanwhile, the City of Amsterdam is still investigating the possibility of recovering the €100,000 grant awarded to the 'Anne Frank cold case team'. That investigation would have been completed in October, but due to technical problems it has been delayed, a spokesperson for the municipality reports.

To top of page.

This article is  a translation of 'Raad voor Journalistiek: NRC onzorgvuldig inzake berichtgeving Het Verraad van Anne Frank. De canard (VIII).' Reporters Online, Haarlem, 22-11-2022.
Translation: Droog Magazine.

To top of page.

---