Dutch journalism in the (dis)information society How journalists in the Netherlands perceive their profession in times of uncertainty and doubt

The (dis)information society proves to be a challenging time for professional journalism. Information, misinformation, and disinformation are being spread rapidly in society, leaving many audiences to wonder if the information they consume is reliable. Meanwhile, journalists face increased scepticism from a polarised public debate in which their legitimacy is being tested. As society is faced with uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic This research aimed to answer the question: How do journalists in the Netherlands perceive the effects of the (dis)information society? A total of eleven interviews were conducted with journalists active or recently active within Dutch journalism. Following the grounded theory approach for the analysis of these interviews, a total of four overarching themes have been found. First, journalists emphasize their responsibility to society as a strategy to prove their legitimacy and relevance. The traditional role of journalism as a watchdog in society also remains the dominant perception across journalists in the Netherlands. However, journalists also express concerns over disinformation within society as it seems to utilize societal issues to remain relevant. Efforts by journalists to tackle disinformation are not able to reach people who are especially susceptible to disinformation. Second, journalists perceive the democratisation and politicisation of the news as the primary disruptions in society that affect how they operate. The distinction between professional journalism and citizen journalism has been ambiguous, which is perceived as a threat to the credibility of professional journalism. Furthermore, as politicians become news producers, it has been increasingly challenging to factcheck without journalists being publicly harassed for being politically motivated. Third, journalists increasingly communicate transparency through disclosure of their methodology and editorial considerations. They integrate this transparency within regular reporting or create a new dedicated content category. And last, journalists navigate a dilemma endemic to audience interaction. They feel vulnerable to harassment through online interaction, but also experience the positive opportunities that thoughtful audience interaction offers in terms of increased transparency and constructive dialogue. This research shares many insights with research conducted in other countries. Furthermore, the findings of this research present various implications for existing theory on the (dis)information society and implications for other journalists, institutions, businesses, politicians, and governments. Based on the findings of this research, several recommendations are given to encourage future research.