Cabinet starts procedure to revoke Ongehoord Nederland’s recognition
The broadcaster will remain in the public broadcasting system for now while both sides are heard and any legal remedies remain available.
The Cabinet has begun the procedure to revoke Ongehoord Nederland’s recognition. The move follows criticism from the media regulator and the NPO, but does not yet mean that the broadcaster will immediately leave the public broadcasting system.
Minister Rianne Letschert announced on 8 September that she was starting the revocation procedure. According to the Cabinet, the Commissariaat voor de Media concluded that ON! was structurally failing to comply with laws and regulations, spend public money properly and meet journalistic quality standards.
The minister also cites the lack of cooperation with the NPO as grounds for intervention. The NPO had previously said that, in its view, cooperation with ON! had broken down over content. The regulator also imposed a sanction on the broadcaster twice within one year.
The procedure takes place in stages. ON! will first receive a written proposed decision and the opportunity to respond. The minister will then take a final decision. The broadcaster can object to that decision and subsequently go to court.
ON! says that the Cabinet is thereby excluding part of the Dutch public. The broadcaster presents the issue as a conflict over room for a dissenting voice in public broadcasting. That response does not change the fact that the procedure has not yet been completed.
The case therefore touches on two interests that coexist within the broadcasting system. Public broadcasters are given room for editorial independence and political pluralism, but must also meet statutory requirements for governance, finances, cooperation and journalistic quality. The outcome will determine how much weight those requirements carry for an aspiring broadcaster.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The minister has started a procedure to revoke ON!’s recognition.
- No final decision has yet been taken.
- ON! can pursue legal remedies after a final decision.
Left
Arguments Public money and a public broadcaster require demonstrable journalistic quality and compliance with the Media Act. A broadcaster that is structurally failing should not be able to rely indefinitely on procedural latitude.
Values Reliable information, public responsibility and protection against disinformation.
Consequences Revocation may protect the broadcasting system, but requires transparent criteria so that it does not become a political purge.
Centre
Arguments The content of a broadcaster should not be prescribed by the government. At the same time, an independent regulator must be able to intervene in the event of demonstrable administrative or legal shortcomings.
Values Media freedom, independent scrutiny and due process.
Consequences A procedure involving both sides being heard prevents arbitrariness, but may delay the outcome.
Right
Arguments A public broadcasting system should also provide room for voices that established broadcasters find unwelcome. Revocation may be experienced as the exclusion of voters and viewers with a different worldview.
Values Pluralism, freedom of expression and distrust of government influence over the media.
Consequences Removing ON! may further weaken trust in public media among part of the audience.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The procedure, the institutions mentioned and the next steps are based on official government and NPO information. ON!’s counter-response has been presented as the broadcaster’s own framing.
- confirmed The minister has started a procedure to revoke ON!’s recognition. — Confirmed by the Dutch government. source
- confirmed The Commissariaat voor de Media has criticised compliance with legislation, finances and journalistic quality. — These grounds are mentioned in the Cabinet’s statement. source
- confirmed The NPO said that cooperation with ON! had broken down. — Confirmed in the NPO press release. source
- confirmed ON! can lodge an objection and appeal after a final decision. — The Dutch government’s description of the procedure mentions these legal remedies. source
Editor's note
It is certain that the minister has started a procedure and that no final decision has yet been taken. The criticism from the Cabinet, NPO and regulator has been attributed separately; ON!’s response has been presented as its position.Sources
- Minister van plan erkenning Ongehoord Nederland in te trekken — Rijksoverheid
- NPO verzoekt minister intrekking voorlopige erkenning ON! — NPO
- ON! wordt het bestel uitgewerkt — Ongehoord Nederland
- PRO stelt vragen over Ongehoord Nederland — Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
More on this in Dutch media
- RTL Nieuws — „ongehoord nederland”
- NOS — „ongehoord nederland”
- Het Parool — „ongehoord nederland”