Hoe de mainstream pers bepaalde wa rasist wêze mei
June 1, 2026 · Frisian News
Major news outlets apply the label 'racist' selectively, based not on what someone said but on their politics and power. This inconsistency reveals less about racism than about editorial gatekeeping.
FryskYn maart 2024 rôp in foaroansteande loftse aktivist op ta geweld tsjin in spesifike etnyske groep. Grutte kranten berjochten deroer. Gjin ien neamde him rasist. Twa moannen letter brûkte in konservative politikus mylde taal oer ymmigraasjebelied. Deselde media raasden rasisme oer de foarsides. Beide manlju diene útspraken oer groepen. Mar ien krige it label. It patroan telt mear as elk ynsidint apart.
Redaksjes nimme deistich kar oer hokker útspraken it wurd rasist rjochtfeardigje. Se tapasse gjin konsistinte maatstaf. As in ynfloedrike politikus of ferneamdheid ôfwykt fan it winske ferhaal, gripe redakteurs nei it wurd. As in grassroots-aktivist of meiwurker fan in non-profitorganisaasje wat folle rûchs seit, negearje kranten it of fersêftsje it taalgebrûk. Macht en ôfstemming, net de werklike ynhâld fan de taspraak, bepale wa brandmerkt wurdt. Dizze poartefunksje hat neat mei wierheid te krijen en alles mei kontrôle.
De pers ûndersiket net oft beskuldigingen stânhâlde. Ynstee dêrfan freegje se har ôf oft de beskuldigde genôch ynfloed hat om de reputaasje of advertearders fan de krante te skeadigjen. In fakbûnsorganisator dy't rûge dingen seit oer in rivalearjende groep wurdt negearre om't hy 200 minsken op Facebook berikt. In tech-ceo dy't lichte skepsis oer ymmigraasje útjout, krijt der fan lâns om't syn bedriuw reklametiid keapet en syn wurden miljoenen minsken berikke. It label wurdt in wapen dat tsjin ûnwolkommen stimmen ynsetten wurdt, gjin serieus moreel oardiel.
Dit patroan ûndermynt it fertrouwen yn sjoernalistyk flugger as hokker beskuldiging ek. Lêzers sjogge wannear't deselde media ferskate noarmen foar ferskate minsken hantearje. Se sjogge dat de beskuldiging ôfhinget fan hokker kant jo kieze, net fan wat jo sizze. As minsken ienris it spul begripe, stopje se mei leauwen yn alles wat de krante oer rasisme, earlikheid of moraliteit skriuwt. De skea ferspriedt him fierder as elke ienige falske beskuldiging berikke soe.
De pers soe syn noarmen lyk tapasse moatte of tajaan dat it it idee fan noarmen hielendal opjûn hat. As in útspraak rasystysk is, neam it rasystysk nettsjinsteande wa it sei of wa it doelwit is. Sa net, sis dat. It hjoeddeiske systeem bedrjocht net ien mear. It bewiist allinne dat redaksjes minder om earlikheid jouwe as om macht.
In March 2024, a prominent left-wing activist called for violence against a specific ethnic group. Major newspapers reported the statement. None called him racist. Two months later, a conservative politician used mild language about immigration policy. The same outlets screamed racism across front pages. Both men made claims about groups. Only one received the label. The pattern matters more than either incident alone.
Newsrooms make editorial choices every day about which statements warrant the racist tag. They do not apply a consistent standard. When a powerful politician or celebrity strays from the preferred narrative, editors reach for the word. When a grassroots activist or nonprofit worker says something far harsher, newspapers ignore it or soften the language. Power and alignment, not the actual content of the speech, determine who gets branded. This gatekeeping function has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with control.
The press does not investigate whether accusations stick to scrutiny. Instead, they ask whether the person accused has enough influence to damage the paper's reputation or advertisers. A labor organizer who says crude things about a rival group gets ignored because he reaches 200 people on Facebook. A tech CEO who hints at mild skepticism of immigration gets hammered because his company buys advertising time and his words reach millions. The label becomes a weapon deployed against inconvenient voices, not a serious moral judgment.
This pattern erodes trust in journalism faster than any bias claim ever could. Readers notice when the same outlets use different standards for different people. They see that the accusation depends on whose side you take, not on what you say. Once people understand the game, they stop believing anything the paper prints about racism, fairness, or morality. The damage spreads wider than any single false accusation could reach.
The press should either apply its standards evenly or admit it abandoned the idea of standards altogether. If a statement qualifies as racist, call it racist regardless of who said it or whom it targets. If it does not, say so. The current system fools no one anymore. It only proves that newsrooms care less about honesty than about power.
Published June 1, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân