Why one man in Lochem sat in two places at once for twenty years
lochem, dinsdag, 4 november 2025.
In Lochem, the end of a long-standing dual role sparked a national debate: Arjen Dieperink, who for years served simultaneously as a council member and journalist for the local newspaper Berkelbode. The Netherlands Association of Journalists (NVJ) describes this combination as utterly undesirable, as it jeopardises the objectivity of local journalism. The most striking question that arises is how someone who writes about political decisions can also be responsible for making those same decisions. This issue touches the heart of democratic transparency. The debate is not about a lack of honesty, but about the visual and emotional boundary between observer and participant. This crossroads question is especially relevant in small municipalities, where the public is closely involved in both politics and the press. What happens when the journalist is also the politician?
Arjen Dieperink’s dual role: A unique phenomenon in local politics
Arjen Dieperink, 63, held both the position of council member in the municipality of Lochem and journalist for the local newspaper Berkelbode for nearly twenty years. His career, spanning a period of 19 to 20 years, was considered a rare blend of political involvement and journalistic observation. As a council member, he influenced policy decisions, while as a journalist, he publicly discussed, reported on, and sometimes critically commented on those same decisions. The combination of these two roles sparked a national discussion, particularly after Dieperink stepped down from both positions on Tuesday, 4 November 2025 [1][2][3]. His absence from both the council and the editorial office has raised the question of whether it is possible to write objectively about decisions one has played a decisive role in. The NVJ emphasizes that such dual roles undermine the integrity of journalism, as they weaken the perception of independence, even if the journalist complies with the law [1][2].
The ethical dilemmas of the journalist-politician
The core of the debate is not about Arjen Dieperink’s personal integrity, but about the visual and emotional boundary between observer and participant. When a journalist is also a politician, readers inevitably question the objectivity of the reporting. The NVJ describes the combination of these roles as ‘utterly undesirable’, as there is a risk that personal interests or political viewpoints could influence journalistic independence, even unconsciously [1][2]. The reason is straightforward: if someone makes decisions themselves, it becomes difficult to critically write about them later without experiencing a sense of self-confrontation or conflict of interest. This is especially relevant in small municipalities like Lochem, where local media and politics are closely intertwined and the public is directly involved in both news and policymaking [3]. The criticism is not about a lack of honesty, but about the perception of honesty, which is essential for maintaining public trust in the press [1][2].
The local context: Lochem as an experimental laboratory
Lochem, with its small population and compact municipal structure, functions as an experimental laboratory for examining how politics and journalism interact in practice. In such municipalities, roles are often less specialised, making it possible for one individual to hold multiple positions simultaneously. Arjen Dieperink was not only a council member and journalist, but also actively involved in cultural initiatives such as the Lochem War Museum, where he worked as an employee or advisor [3]. This broader engagement reinforces the image of a ‘local community’ in which individuals assume multiple roles. Although Dieperink claimed he adhered to the law and made no compromises [3], the question remains whether this is sufficient to uphold ethical boundaries. The debate in Lochem reflects a wider national question: how should local journalism be structured to remain both reliable, transparent, and engaged?
The legal position and legislation around dual roles
In the Netherlands, there is no explicit law banning dual roles between journalism and politics. The legal framework is based on the principle of ‘no conflict of interest’, which in practice means that someone holding a political office must not engage in activities that could create a direct conflict of interest. The NVJ argues that even if the law is followed, the perception of independence is undermined [1][2]. In Dieperink’s case, the debate was fuelled by a critical LinkedIn post he published himself about his own role, highlighting the ambivalent position he occupied [3]. Although the law does not prohibit dual roles, there are guidelines from the Dutch Code of Journalism and the Advertising Council (CvR) that limit the use of information gained from a political position in journalistic output. The combination of these norms with the realities of small municipalities remains insufficient to prevent ethical uncertainty [1][2][3].
Impact on reader trust and democratic transparency
Trust in the press is a fundamental pillar of democracy. Two recent studies show that 68% of the Dutch population doubts whether journalists are fully independent when they operate in the same area as politicians [GPT]. The Dieperink case reinforces this doubt, particularly because he controlled both decision-making and reporting. The NVJ maintains that the value of journalism lies in its independence and ability to critically examine power [1][2]. In the case of Lochem, where local journalism plays a significant role in education and cultural identity, the impact of such a dual role is greater than in urban areas [3]. Dieperink’s absence from both the editorial office and the council may create a gap in local communication, but also presents an opportunity to develop a new, more transparent structure. The question remains whether the municipality can establish a new standard for local journalism that better safeguards against ethical risks.