Journalistic freedom and a pluralistic news offering are essential to democracy. In the Netherlands, the number of publishers of media brands has been declining for decades, and media concentration has increased accordingly. Concerns about this even prompted a motion in the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) requesting that ‘ways to better protect the pluralism of the media offering be mapped out’.

This study by UvA researchers Mark Boukes and Youri Coudron contributes to that debate and, for the first time, reveals how Dutch journalists themselves experience their professional autonomy. Can they freely choose topics? How often do they practise self-censorship? How do they assess the influence of their outlet’s owner? And how are these experiences related to personal characteristics, the organisation they work for and societal conditions?

Ample scope to make their own choices

About 80% of the journalists surveyed say they have a lot or a great deal of freedom in choosing topics and angles. And roughly 75% indicate that they do not regularly practise self-censorship.

Coudron: ‘This confirms the picture that Dutch journalism enjoys relatively high levels of freedom compared with other countries, as was recently underscored by the international press freedom index, where the Netherlands ranks second.’

That 25% may at times practise self-censorship is, according to Boukes, related to the work environment. ‘Journalists say their choices of topics and angles have to fit a medium’s profile. For outlets with a religious profile, for example, reporting on abortion is more likely to adopt an angle that aligns with that medium’s ideological principles.’ According to Boukes, this is consistent with the idea of media pluralism: not everyone writes the same way, and this enriches the diversity of the media offering.

Large publishers are not outliers

The researchers distinguish four types of media organisation: the large publishers DPG Media and Mediahuis; other commercial media; public media; and non-profit organisations outside the public broadcasting system. Journalists at the large publishers experience roughly as much freedom and self-censorship as journalists at other commercial news media. Journalists at non-profits report more freedom, while those at public media report slightly less.

More critical of the owner

However, journalists working at the large publishers are more critical of the owner’s influence within their organisation and slightly less satisfied with their autonomy. This influence does not limit the freedom journalists experience, but it is related to how satisfied they are with the relationship between the editorial team and the owner.

Taken together, the findings temper concerns about media concentration, but do not dispel them entirely. ‘We examined the freedom that journalists themselves experience, not all the possible consequences of concentrated ownership for the news offering,’ Boukes notes.

Societal pressure and threats

Owner influence appears to be very limited, but the same is less true for the societal pressure and (online) threats journalists face. This pressure can lead them to avoid certain topics or angles, which comes at the expense of pluralism. Many journalists say they feel the impact.

Nor does every journalist experience the same level of freedom. Freelancers and journalists from lower socioeconomic backgrounds report less journalistic freedom. In addition, freelancers and female journalists report self-censorship more often. ‘A pluralistic media landscape therefore also requires conditions that allow different groups of journalists to contribute their perspectives,’ Boukes says.

The editorial statute as a safeguard

Finally, the study looked at the editorial statute: arrangements within a media organisation that are intended to protect editorial independence. Are journalists familiar with it, and do they believe it provides sufficient protection?

About 60% are positive about the operation and effectiveness of the editorial statute. ‘For many journalists it is, above all, a safeguard. It sets a standard for independence, without their having to invoke it constantly in their day-to-day work,’ Coudron explains.

That said, a substantial number of journalists say that statutes are outdated, insufficiently known in the newsroom, or offer little protection in practice when commercial and organisational interests clash with journalistic interests.

To track how perceived journalistic freedom in the Netherlands develops over time, the researchers say it is essential to repeat this study on a regular basis.