VRT Refutes Philosopher’s Claims of Hidden Origin Data in Survey
Flemish public broadcaster VRT has forcefully rejected accusations by philosopher Maarten Boudry that it deliberately concealed data about persons of foreign origin from its annual “Foto van Vlaanderen” survey. The controversy erupted on May 19 during the VRT Canvas talk show “De Afspraak,” when Boudry produced what he claimed was an internal document instructing journalists not to report on ethnicity-related findings.
The Accusation
During a live debate on the talk show, Boudry — a well-known Flemish skeptic and former Ghent University researcher — pulled out a PowerPoint slide from his pocket that he said had been leaked to him. The slide showed a category labeled “PBH” (Persons of Foreign Origin) that had not appeared in VRT’s published articles about the survey. According to VRT NWS, Boudry claimed the broadcaster was “hiding” conclusions about origin and ethnicity from the public.
“If I read: ‘We did investigate it, but we’re not going to talk about it,’ then I find that painful for VRT,” Boudry said during the broadcast. “That the research department gives instructions to journalists not to report on it, I don’t find that serious.”
VRT’s Response
VRT spokesperson Yasmine Van der Borght immediately refuted the allegations. “The claim of Maarten Boudry in De Afspraak that VRT would hide conclusions about persons of foreign origin from ‘De Foto van Vlaanderen’ is incorrect,” she stated.
The broadcaster explained that the split between Flemish people with or without foreign origin “could not be made statistically reliable” in the survey, which sampled 2,261 respondents. As HLN reported, VRT emphasized that the internal note was a standard methodological instruction, not a censorship directive.
VRT also noted that the question of whether conservative views are linked to origin had been covered in its reporting since the morning of May 19, including in an article featuring sociologist Cecil Meeusen of KU Leuven.
The “Foto van Vlaanderen” Survey
The survey at the center of the dispute is an annual VRT-commissioned study conducted since 2009 by independent research firm Profacts. The 2026 edition focused on gender roles, LGBTQIA+ acceptance, and happiness among Flemish residents aged 12 and older, with a margin of error of 2.06%. Key findings included that 17% of 12-17 year olds believe men may hit women, and one in three young people aged 18-24 would not want a trans person as a friend.
Sociologist Cecil Meeusen, who contributed to the coverage, cautioned against reducing the findings to origin or religion. “When we take into account socioeconomic status, parental education level, etc., those differences flatten out,” she said. “It is certainly not the case that the group of young, conservative men consists mainly of boys of non-Belgian origin.”
Political Fallout
The controversy quickly escalated into a political crisis for the public broadcaster. Flemish Minister of Media Cieltje Van Achter (N-VA) demanded that VRT release the full study publicly, citing the management agreement’s transparency requirements. “With a study that provokes such a strong societal debate, maximum transparency is indicated,” she said.
Opposition parties seized on the issue. Vlaams Belang faction leader Chris Janssens called for an extraordinary Board of Directors meeting, alleging that VRT “deliberately withholds results that don’t fit their agenda.” Gwendolyn Rutten of the liberal Anders party also called for all underlying data to be made public so external experts could judge the representativeness of the origin breakdown.
VRT’s Decision
Facing mounting political pressure from across the spectrum, VRT announced it would make the full study public. The decision came as the broadcaster sought to restore trust amid accusations that it had created a vacuum by not publishing the origin data — a move the company maintains was a legitimate methodological choice, not an act of censorship.
Broader Implications
The incident has reignited debate about VRT’s editorial independence and its relationship with the Flemish government, which funds the broadcaster. Critics from both the left and right have periodically accused VRT of bias, and this controversy has given fresh ammunition to parties questioning the broadcaster’s objectivity on immigration and multiculturalism issues.
As the full study data is released, the central question remains: was VRT’s decision not to publish the origin breakdown a sound methodological practice, or did it undermine the transparency expected of a public service broadcaster? The answer may shape public trust in VRT for years to come.