Freedom of expression and media freedom

Despite the country’s solid foundations in terms of freedom of expression and media freedom, participants called for vigilance in the face of trends that might at some point severely affect those freedoms. With its tradition for tolerance, the Netherlands was maybe not properly equipped to face new challenges such as misinformation and disinformation, or the spread of hate speech. One possible new trend referred to was that the authorities might be increasingly prepared to pay fines rather than grant access to information for some types of documents. While acknowledging the scale of disinformation and hate speech issues, the Dutch authorities pointed to the fact that they had been proactive in setting up a number of programmes tailored to civil servants, politicians and the general public, as well as crossministerial coordination and cooperation with local authorities and civil society on these questions. One participant explained how media pluralism had been upset by digital changes and related funding difficulties. Online platforms had disrupted the traditional market for news by re-using news produced by the traditional media without fair remuneration, without employing journalists, and without having to respect the ethical guidelines that journalists had to follow. Such a trend would be further amplified by the mass rollout of generative artificial intelligence. Several participants referred to EU tools in this area, with high hopes that they might have a positive impact on media freedom at national level, notably the European Media Freedom Act and the Digital Services Act. Concentration of media ownership was raised by several participants, notably with reference to the proposed takeover of the main Dutch broadcaster, RTL Nederland, by a Belgian media group. One participant remarked that market concentration was sometimes the only way to save some media outlets that were in difficulty (for example while undergoing the digital transition) and therefore did not always mean a reduction in pluralism. As far as a media regulation was concerned, another participant pointed out that the Netherlands was a rare case in Europe where the government could suspend a decision made by the independent media authority – a situation which undermined its autonomy of action. The Dutch authorities indicated that they considered the creation of a framework to better measure media concentration to be part of their steps to implement the European Media Freedom Act. One of the participants felt that the question as to how to generate revenue models to fund independent journalism in the digital age was a central issue. They called for greater consistency and a holistic approach here, given that the relationship between media and readership increasingly went through online platforms. Targeted online advertising was also considered to be a key issue, illustrated by the massive use thereof in the recent general election. Despite the ban imposed by the Digital Services Act on using sensitive data for such targeted ads, some political parties had managed to circumvent the ban by exploiting the supposed preferences of certain groups. The impact of online platforms on public debate was underlined, in particular the danger inherent in their unilateral capacity to amplify or tone down specific views.

Given some radical statements directed against the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) by the leader of the party that had gained the most seats in the 2023 general election, several participants underlined the need to protect the PBS from hostile decisions that could be made by means of a simple majority in Parliament. Inter alia, they called on the EU to step up its actions in this domain to promote a European model for stable public funding for public broadcasting services. One participant, however, observed that a balance was needed to cater for the interests of private media, which were not always able to compete with subsidised public broadcasting services. The difficult labour situation of journalists was deemed to be another consequence of the shrinking amount of money being made available for the production of news. Participants agreed that the increasingly precarious nature of this type of work constituted a threat to media freedom and that safe, stable contracts were one of the most solid types of investment that could be made in quality journalism. Some participants feared that the political landscape that had emerged from the 2023 general election could lead to the “normalisation” of hostile attitudes towards journalists – given the insults made by the leader of the party which had gained the most seats. Others believed that such stigmatisation endangered journalists, who were facing increasing verbal and physical threats, forcing some of them to take action such as removing the logo of their media outlet from their vans in order to avoid being targeted. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) were not considered to be a widespread phenomenon in the Netherlands, but more data needed to be collected, inter alia to identify a potential impact on CSOs. According to participants, there were other forms of legal intimidation of journalists which had also had a chilling effect on their work. There was regret expressed at the fact that slander and defamation were offences under criminal law. One participant referred to transnational repression carried out by foreign states seeking to intimidate Dutch and other journalists covering topics in their spheres of interest from the Netherlands. They also mentioned the scandal provoked by the Public Prosecution Service's wiretapping of a newspaper investigating the face-mask crisis during the COVID pandemic. On a more positive note, the PersVeilig Platform that addressed threats against journalists was welcomed.