In the Netherlands we have had the so-called “initials rule” since 1953. This rule was drawn up by the Dutch editors-in-chief as a form of self-regulation after pressure from politicians under the guise “ The media must report, not judge ”. In practice, this rule means that suspects and convicts are referred to by their first name and the first letter of their surname.

The initials rule is not absolute. For example, according to the Guidelines of the Press Council, an exception is made if:

the name is an essential component of the reporting;
not mentioning the name serves no purpose due to the general reputation of the person concerned;
failure to mention the name may cause confusion with others who could be foreseeably harmed as a result;
mentioning the name is done in the context of investigation reporting;
the person concerned seeks public access.
The exceptions leave room for broad interpretation.
For example, it is said that Volkert van der Graaf sought publicity through his act and in the current digital age, where one is often only a few mouse clicks away from the identity of a suspect or convicted person, it can quickly be stated that the requirement has been met. second requirement. In recent years, there has been increasing discussion about the application of the initials rule. The initials rule would have a criminalizing effect (it is for this reason that the Telegraaf continues to say Volkert van der G. stiffly), restrict the provision of information, and do not fit in with the custom of foreign media nor with the call from society for a tougher policy against crime. The initials rule is increasingly being ignored by the media and seems to have lost its practical significance. One can therefore rightly wonder whether the initials rule is still relevant today.