Journalists report no signs of a lack of formal democracy in newsrooms. Editors(-in-chief) tend to be readily available to discuss and (re)negotiate the portrayal and framing of (political) issues in news articles. In most cases, the interviewed journalists indicated that they know both their brand and their editors well enough to gauge what the right and wrong ways are to go forward, and which ideas or steps may lead to discussions.
Most newsrooms interviewed reported having formal councils which get together semi-regularly to discuss matters. They tend to serve as an officious trade union, acting occasionally as spokesperson for and between the editors and the regular staff. The foundations and stipulations of these councils, as well as their legitimacy and official status, greatly differ per newsroom.
Journalists report having only a limited or no say at all in the election of new editors-in-chief, as this decision is usually made by the media company’s management. A panel of journalists is requested to provide inputs, but whether that is taken into account in the decision-making process often remains opaque.
There is a severe lack of legislation and guidelines to support and promote the advancement of female journalists or those from different ethnic backgrounds (for more details, see Indicator F8 – Rules and practices on internal gender equality).
Furthermore, Flemish public broadcaster VRT and quality newspaper De Standaard are the only two news outlets to officially have a designated ombudsperson. They both regularly write their own editorials which are published in print, online, or both, and, to some extent, critically reflect on the reporting of journalists of their own brands. Other media organisations either do not have similar functions, or do not let them communicate openly in their own media.
