VRT denies “transgressive behavior” and “toxic leadership”, but admits that there are “work points” after an anonymous letter from (former) employees | Domestic

Dear members of the Media Committee,

It takes a lot of courage for us to send you this email. We do this anonymously (for the time being). Because the fear is great.

Us, that is 3 employees who work or have worked for VRT. We hope that you can read this before the media committee. The reason for sending this to you is the statements made by CEO Frederik Delaplace, which made our eyes wide open. In the wake of the decision not to broadcast the documentary The Trial That Nobody Wanted for the time being, the CEO claimed “that VRT always takes the side of the victims”. Our experience shows that this is not true.

We don’t want to talk to the press. We have tried all possible procedures internally at VRT to address a structural problem. Unfortunately, that did not work out.

We are at our wits end and we hope to be able to sound a loud, but discreet and serene alarm bell for you.

Thank you in advance for reading the message below with attention:

We would like to inform you that at VRT NWS, more specifically at the editorial staff JONG, there is toxic leadership, transgressive behavior, favoritism, bullying behavior, fabricated meeting reports in order to make major decisions, manipulation, divide and conquer politics, discrimination… This is a structural problem that has been going on for more than 7 years, even at this very moment, and for which one person is the key figure: the editorial director. Despite the many reports over the years, by many different victims and at all possible internal services (HR, editorial staff, confidential counselors, Welfare Department, trade union, whistleblower procedure, etc.), there is no stop. We have no idea why a toxic leader continues to receive protection.

People are traumatized, some need psychological help, many have left VRT because of the central figure.

The case has been buzzing internally for years. People are somewhat aware or catch rumors here and there. Several journalists from the Editorial Board, including Luc Pauwels, have mapped out the size of the case.

The count now stands at 24 testimonies in the file. We are 3 of those 24 people. This concerns 24 independent files. Victims were unaware of each other’s psychological suffering. Most victims do not know each other, due to the events in recent years. Yet it appears that the victims’ testimonies are virtually a copy-paste.

The testimonies cover the entire time span of 7 years — when the manager started — until now. And also: we know many (former) colleagues who are too anxious to share their story, or who do not have the energy to relive the trauma by telling it again. So add another dark number. It is a pattern that repeats itself over and over again. With this file on inappropriate behavior, all possible procedures have been exhausted internally. A few years ago, the key figure even pressured a confidential counselor in the presence of an editor-in-chief to reveal the identity behind 5 anonymous testimonies. The central figure – fortunately – did not succeed. In the meantime, that confidential counselor has also become a victim. The editor-in-chief recently claimed to know nothing about this file after a confrontation with the Editorial Board. That is a lie. Many people have made reports over the years, but were not heard or not heard enough. The high turnover of workers was also not perceived as a serious signal.

The Welfare Department was also recently called in through the whistleblower procedure, after which the CEO was informed of the report. Welfare started an investigation into the current editorial staff of JONG and entered into discussions with the employees. Many people have not dared to speak freely out of fear. Others are completely “pro” the manager (read: divide and conquer) and testified that there was no problem. Moreover, the Welfare Department has not consulted people from the past or looked at the Editorial Board’s file. An excerpt from the conclusion of the Welfare Department was, and we quote literally: “Unfortunately, we cannot undo what happened in the past, but we can ensure that it does not happen again. The editor-in-chief is taking measures to this end.”

We were shocked by the meager research and the lightness of the conclusion. All the more so because it is recognized that ‘something’ happened in the past. But apparently that’s it.

After the investigation by the Welfare Department, one of the 3 of us received the message from the confidential counselor who also became a victim: “Let it go. We know the person. She is extremely dangerous. You don’t know what she is capable of if you continue with this.”

The fact that a confidential counselor makes such a statement seems to us to be very indicative of the seriousness of the problem, the dysfunctional system that maintains it and the culture of fear in which even confidential counselors live.

The key figure in question has very recently also started actively contacting people to ask whether they have testified. In short: every attempt to address the problem fails or escalates.

With every report, many people plucked up the courage to sound the alarm. They cherished hope with every report and put their jobs at risk. They were punished time and time again.

We have no vengeful motive for this report. Nor are there opportunistic motives or bitter intentions in our writing. We just want to put a stop to a toxic atmosphere. And this in a workplace where young, vulnerable, ambitious people take their first steps in journalism. But it also concerns people who have built up years of experience. The damage done is immense. This has left many with a lasting distrust of managers. A trauma that they carry with them to this day in their current workplace.

We don’t want to play this out in the press. The fact that 24 people (who actually work in the media) have not yet leaked anything to other media hopefully says something about the fear surrounding the case. We also want to safeguard serenity.

For us, VRT has become the House of Mistrust. The debacle with the documentary about Bart De Pauw is in line with our own experience and that is a great shame. There are many of us. We see and hear the public apologies and are disgusted by the hypocrisy.

This letter is an emergency measure, but also a momentum. We hope that you can do something on the committee from your position and with your commitment to us. Because psychological violence has never made anyone better.