LOOK. Coucke about meeting with Fanboard: “Vandenhaute remains a breaking point for a particle of fans”
About two weeks ago Wouter Vandenhaute was razed to the ground in a damning article in ‘Humo’. The journalist in question, Jan Hauspie, collected a number of anonymous testimonies about the situation at Anderlecht within the club. “One long-drawn-out charge,” that’s how it was described.
Anderlecht was quick to distance itself from the image sketched in the article and reacted indignantly. On Wednesday evening, the club then announced that it will take legal action against Hauspie.
“The articles paint a negative, one-sided and erroneous picture of the club management and the daily operational functioning of RSC Anderlecht on the basis of anonymous testimonies”, the Purple & White said. “The club believes that the journalist violated the legal standard of care and made mistakes in writing the articles. It is also not the first time that the journalist in question reports about the club in this way.”
Royal Sporting Club Anderlecht would like to emphasize that it attaches great importance to freedom of the press, as long as the legislation and the rights of the club are respected.
Anderlecht believes that the publication of such articles harms the club. After all, painting an incorrect picture of the day-to-day operation within the club creates unrest among supporters, customers, partners, employees, (potential) players and the general public.
“Royal Sporting Club Anderlecht wants to emphasize that it attaches great importance to freedom of the press, as long as the legislation and the rights of the club are respected.”
Flemish Association of Journalists: “RSCA’s steps against Humo are deeply regrettable”
The legal steps that RSC Anderlecht is taking are “greatly regrettable”, says Pol Deltour, national secretary of the Flemish Association of Journalists (VVJ). Deltour also has questions about the football club’s argument that the Humo articles have caused damage to the club. “With the harm-doing reasoning, one can start attacking a lot of reporting,” says Deltour. “It is now waiting for the summons, but judging by the press release, the club still seems to have a lot of work to do to prove its point in court.”
In the short press release, Anderlecht states that the Humo journalist has violated the legal standard of due care and has made mistakes. “But what are those mistakes? They say nothing about that,” says the VVJ secretary. “To say that the journalist has not done his job is far too vague.”
In general, these legal steps fit into a further hardening of the attitude towards journalists from football clubs, especially some clubs, such as Anderlecht, according to Deltour. “There are already cases of journalists who are no longer allowed access to the club after articles or reports that Anderlecht did not like,” says Deltour. He therefore thinks it is time for consultation between the football world and journalism, to smooth out the folds. Finally, Deltour also regrets that RSCA did not approach the Journalism Council, the independent body for self-regulation of journalism.
LOOK. This is what it said in the article of ‘Humo’:
What can Anderlecht do against Humo?
Lawyer Leo Neels, former CEO of VTM, chairman of the board of directors of Belga and professor at the University of Antwerp, explains what RSC Anderlecht can legally do against Humo. “Apart from a criminal complaint, which has to come before assizes and I do not expect this one because this leads to nothing in the Belgian legal system, two claims are essentially possible. The first is the compulsory placement of a right of reply, under the 1961 law. Not only the club as a legal entity, but also all persons named or implicitly referred to in the relevant articles, has a right of reply. That may be double the number of punctuation marks of the article that justifies an answer. The media outlet is obliged to publish the right of reply in the same place and in the same font as the original article.”
“Secondly, Humo can be held civilly liable in a summons if certain documents in the article are incorrect. If it can be shown that the honor and good name have been damaged, that damage must be compensated. This usually translates into immaterial damage, with an amount that is supposed to compensate for that damage. This often also leads to forced publication of the judgment in the magazine that published the article. If the court rules that the article has also resonated in other newspapers or magazines, the person may also be forced to publish the judgment there. Then the convicted person has to buy advertising space in all those newspapers and magazines, and that can be a substantial form of compensation.”
Neels also points out that the assessment of liability does not only depend on factual correctness, but that opinions must also have a sufficient factual basis. “In addition, the quality of the journalistic process of news gathering, control and deontological treatment is also examined: have you consulted a second independent source, have you offered a rebuttal in the event of serious accusations? That can all contribute to a possible conviction.”
Hauspie: “Witnesses still stand behind their words”
Hauspie already responded to the fuss his article has caused in Humo last week. “I didn’t expect the story to be picked up so widely. I think it mainly indicates that many did not know how bad the situation is at Anderlecht. Or knew, but didn’t dare to write or speak about it. In that respect, don’t underestimate Vandenhaute’s grip on the media.”
According to Hauspie, the anonymous witnesses still stand behind their words. “’The article has been therapeutic for many,’ someone even told me. Vandenhaute has now tasked a close friend with an investigation into my sources. That friend apparently still has time for that.”
Neither Jan Hauspie nor Humo could be reached for comment last night.
Read the relevant article on Humo.be HERE.
Free unlimited access to Showbytes? Which can!
Log in or create an account and don’t miss a thing of the stars.
