Bart Eeckhout is chief commentator at The morning. He explains why many media have reported on the complaints against Vooruit chairman Conner Rousseau.
With due speed, the public prosecutor in East Flanders has completed the investigation into possible transgressive behavior on the part of Vooruit chairman Conner Rousseau. After two earlier reports were filed without follow-up, a formal complaint about a third case has now also been dropped. There are no criminal offenses.
The speed with which the court has worked in this case is a good thing. In the first instance, of course, for Rousseau and others involved, but also for the political world as a whole. The campaign year can now, until further notice, start on an equal footing for everyone, with no shadow of legal uncertainty hanging over their heads.
Many critical eyes are now turning to the media. Should editors have reported so early and so extensively about an investigation that seems to have come to nothing? Although that criticism is understandable, the trial-by-media reproach, whereby the media already take over the role of the judge, does not apply in this case.
The reason for the reporting was not that there were reports or an investigation was ongoing, but a somewhat half-hearted coming-out by Conner Rousseau himself. In addition, the Vooruit chairman did not mention the stories about possible inappropriate behavior and the investigation into this, although they did form the motive to make a public statement at that time.
Members of Rousseau’s party soon called it a ‘witch hunt’. Editors were almost forced to give the broader, fuller context and to clarify, truthfully, what was going on. If they did not, they would have slavishly followed the communication strategy of one politician or party. That only would expose the media to strong deontological criticism. That criticism would be justified.
Moreover, traditional news media have long since lost their monopoly on news distribution. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case, that evolution has led conspirators to spread highly questionable and speculative gossip via blogs, podcasts, or social media.
In that context, silence on the part of traditional media would leave all the space for that disinformation. Then it is more preferable to try to list the verifiable facts. That does not prevent the persistence of conspiracy fabrications, but it gives them their proper weight.
A parallel is sometimes drawn between this case and the Trugsnach affair, in which a dreamer accused, among others, then PS Deputy Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo of pedophilia. That comparison does not hold. Some media then reacted much faster and much harder, while the accusations were completely fantasized. You could say that editors have learned from that extremely painful affair to be more careful with such ‘stories’ about politicians. As, in my opinion, has usually happened in this case.
No one is obliged to follow that reasoning. Media criticism can actually be beneficial. If only because it inspires editors to also explain internal considerations and choices externally.
