The wonderful, but true story of MO*

Table of Contents

1. The Big Day

2. The Door That Closed, and Then Opened Again

3. Green Light

4. Through Hell (But to Heaven)

5. A Higher Gear

6. Launch

7. Seven-League Boots

‘Alternative media should not allow themselves to be locked up in the corners of doom that the industry reserves for them’, said Noam Chomsky in one of my first interviews via email. It was 1998. Fifteen years later, Rob Wijnberg, by then world-famous as editor-in-chief of De Correspondent, was hitting the same nail in De Nieuwsfabriek. ‘Ideas, arguments and perspectives that are not yet common, that refute existing prejudices and challenge long-held views, require much more explanation and lead-up – and therefore more time and space – in order to be conveyed credibly.’

In between the two statements, an “alternative medium” emerged in Flanders that ‘refutes existing prejudices and offers perspectives that are not yet common’: MO*. It is well known in Flanders that we are writing a unique and successful media story with MO*. But the story behind the creation of MO* has never been told in full. Jago Kosolosky, editor-in-chief since 2020, once asked me to delve into my archives and old notes. This resulted in the wonderful, but true story below.

1. The big day

February 27, 2003 was the big day. In the afternoon we invited our media colleagues to a press conference, in the evening there was a party with a few speeches and some drinks in the Brussels Hallepoort. The State Secretary for Development Cooperation was there, the captains of the Flemish NGO industry, a number of professors of international politics and journalists, friends, girlfriends, strangers and curious people.

The magazine we were launching finally got its real name – we had been working with the Orwellian abbreviation MOMAG for months, now the child could finally just be called MO*. ‘MO* is aimed at the thinking part of the population. Readers who can make the difference between instinct and interest, between being caught and being seized’, I wrote in the very first foreword, I stated firmly at the press conference and I recited it again in the Hallepoort.

‘MO* does not view the world as a pretext for telling all sorts of juicy and unsavory stories, but as the place where more than six billion people try to build humane lives. If we want to take the dreams and stories, the struggles and the concerns of all those fellow citizens of the world seriously, then respect is more important than scoring easy points. Then correct information is a necessity.’

‘MO* punctures the illusion that everything of importance takes place in air-conditioned meeting rooms where white men decide among themselves what is important and who is not.’

Now that I am quoting, a few more lines from that same preface, because now that I reread it, it appears that the direction of the editorial manifesto has changed very little in almost two decades:

‘MO* believes that there is a need for different information, with an emphasis on both different and information. Reporting about the world is currently suffering from the pensée unique of neoliberal globalization. There is no room for the unmanageable noise of groups, movements, peoples and individuals who do not share the ecstasy about the New World – also known as the free market.’

‘People are tired of always being served the same food, even if the packaging is regularly adjusted after market research. They want different food, new stories, surprising perspectives. And they want that in the form of reliable information. Not another bucket of lightness in the sea of ​​faits divers and freak shows. Not another number where all news must first go into the bath of entertainment.’

‘The group of people who want to throw away the bath and its contents is growing. And that is a bad thing. For all those people – for you, that is – MO* brings news that is not available elsewhere, in a way that is gradually becoming rare: accessible, respectful, to the point, and above all global…’

‘At the same time, MO* punctures the illusion that everything of importance takes place in air-conditioned conference rooms where white men decide among themselves what is important and who is not. Really different information about the world contains a large dose of news from the margins. That means: a great deal of attention for what the excluded themselves do, think and want.’

The launch of MO* was ambitious and immediately put the project on the right track, with the compass pointed at the right destination, both in terms of content and in terms of reach and priorities.

A few minor points that day did not change that. There was little interest from the written press for the new MO*. A large mirror fell to pieces in the Hallepoort. The specially made T-shirts went to the bottom of the cupboard for all employees because they were too big, too grey, and had too long sleeves. And a visiting editor from the Netherlands had to call for towing services because her car's tires were punctured. Welcome to the city where global news is just an everyday reality.

2. The door that closed, and then opened again

That we could present the first issue of a new global magazine on 27 February 2003 was anything but obvious. Every starting date is an arbitrary choice, of course. But to keep it clear, you can say that the first impetus for the new magazine was given on the fifth floor of the 11.11.11 building in the Vlasfabriekstraat, on 26 April 2001.

The editors of De Wereld Morgen – not the opinion site that was launched in 2011 as a successor to Indymedia, but the monthly magazine that had been published by the NCOS since the 1970s, as 11.11.11 was then called – and Wereldwijd magazine had called a meeting with the largest NGOs to discuss their mutual or joint future.

The context was clear: both magazines were struggling with declining subscription numbers, which was certainly life-threatening for Wereldwijd. Was there still demand for such media? Was there still a need for two magazines, one of which had once emerged from the Catholic and missionary movement, the other from the fledgling Third World movement?

If the North-South movement wanted to be relevant in this turbulent new century, it now had to renew and change its skin, return to a militant movement and use the momentum.

In 1999, the world had undergone a major restructuring, with a number of redundancies, the sale of the impressive building in the Arthur Goemaerelei in Antwerp and a move to the International House in the Hoogstraat in Brussels. The Third World magazine had been converted into a bimonthly magazine with a global focus. But nothing could change the income graph.

De Wereld Morgen was in the middle of a content reorientation, in which “the movement” had decided that the magazine had to follow the agenda of the NGOs much more. However, there were serious doubts within the editorial staff as to whether this would lead to more readers and more impact, let alone better journalism.

Both Stef Boogaerts, who was then editor-in-chief of De Wereld Morgen, and I had been doing rounds at the major NGOs in the preceding months to look for more support for the innovative projects we had in mind. When we established that about each other, we decided to join forces, bring those NGOs around the table, and together search for truly viable future prospects.

But it came to nothing, that chilly spring day. From Wereldwijd we had perhaps underestimated how great the distrust of a Catholic organization was. From De Wereld Morgen they had not sufficiently taken into account the fact that the board of directors of NCOS had only recently made decisions, and that there was therefore little appetite for completely new adventures. Back to square one.

After consulting with several NGOs (Broederlijk Delen, Vredeseilanden, Welzijnszorg and Wereldsolidariteit), the board of directors of Wereldwijd Mediahuis decided to submit a formal request to the board of 11.11.11, to consider a serious discussion about merging the two magazines. This request was answered positively on 12 September 2001 and the date for the consultation was set for 25 September.

In the meantime, the North-South movement was busy completing its own renewal process. Stimulated by the anti-globalisation protests in Seattle, Turin and its own country, the North-South movement wanted to reinvent itself and ensure relevance and impact. It was a long-term process that was not simply aimed at a new story for existing ways of working, but at fundamental reflection and structural change of its own operations.

This was necessary, because the power of attraction and mobilisation of the traditional NGOs was wearing thin, while in Porto Alegre in January 2001 the first meeting took place of what promised to become a truly new movement for international solidarity: the World Social Forum.

From 21 to 23 September 2001, a few hundred employees and volunteers from the Flemish North-South movements gathered for a weekend of renewal by the sea. The importance of radically rethinking world citizenship and international solidarity was given an extra injection of urgency fourteen days before the Big Tent meeting by the attacks on New York and Washington. World trade was already under attack, financial capitalism had proven in Southeast Asia in 1998 that it behaved like a predator, and now all eyes were on international terrorism and the subsequent ‘war on terror’.

If the North-South movement wanted to be relevant in this turbulent new century, it had to renew and shed its skin now, return to a militant movement and make use of the momentum. The weekend yielded a lot of money and great enthusiasm, but all in all few concrete proposals. Between dream and reality often stand institutional interests and budgetary limitations.

Yet it was there that the door was opened for what would later become MO*.

© MO*

3. Green light

On Tuesday morning, October 29, the view over the Scheldt and the old harbor was impressive from the office of the CEO of SD Worx, Jan Van den Nieuwenhuizen. Jan was a member of the board of directors of Wereldwijd Mediahuis at the time, and together with Jan Aertsen (Vredeseilanden and Daily Board 11.11.11) and the editors-in-chief of De Wereld Morgen and Wereldwijd magazine, had been asked to prepare a memorandum on the new, joint information initiative.

That was the positive result of the consultation of September 25, which was still bathed in the full euphoria of the weekend. My notes from that morning read: ‘Coffee, sandwiches and consensus.’

‘One informative magazine from the Third World movement was a clear request during the renewal weekend at the end of September 2001’, the working group of four wrote in a note for the new consultation between 11.11.11 and Wereldwijd Mediahuis, which was on the agenda for 13 November 2001. ‘Responding to this is therefore a clear signal from all the organisations involved to the broad support base that they are serious about this renewal and about the promised and expected forms of creative cooperation.’

The note immediately indicated the direction of travel: ‘This informative project is not the (also suggested) communication channel of the movement, and it is not intended to be a joint movement magazine. The informative task is a joint assignment, which is best worked on together with a number of actors. It is perhaps better not to see this as an umbrella task, because this could lead to an unfruitful weighing of interests and power relations, which would be an improper weighing for editorial work.’

The six-page memorandum already went into detail about both structural, business and editorial questions. In short: it is not just about two magazines, but about two “publishers” that have to merge; ‘the merger of the two publishers must lead to a reduction in costs: either the same circulation and the same quality are achieved with lower costs, or a higher circulation with a higher quality at the same costs’; in order to guarantee editorial independence and credibility, this is best designed from an autonomous organization instead of as a department of the umbrella organization; and in an initial editorial plan it is stated that the new magazine must bring ‘less current news facts and more background information on current affairs’. ‘This is done in a clear, smooth, accessible and journalistically correct and high-quality manner. The magazine's perspective is worldwide (excusez le mot)'.

The memorandum explicitly asks for the green light for a further process and, if that agreement is reached, provides a good year to realize the entire transition: 'The intention is in any case to come out with the new project in January 2003.'

The green light was given, and the deadline was only slightly exceeded: at the end of February we came out with the new project. Although that summary sounds much simpler than the path that was taken between November 2001 and February 2003.

May 20, 2006, Ghent. Editorial think-day in the garden of John Vandaele. From left to right: John Vandaele, Jan Lamers, Isabelle Rossaert (final editor), Gie Goris, Els De Mol, Kristof Clerix, Alma De Walsche, Sara Frederix, Jan Buelinckx and Tine Danckaers | © Gie Goris

4. Through hell (but to heaven)

To put it in cycling terms: the ride to the launch of MO* was more like Paris-Roubaix than a boring Tour stage from Châtelaillon-Plage to Poitiers. We had to deal with a lot of cobblestones, flat tires, echelons and freezing rain. But a true Flandrien is not deterred by that.

One of the steep climbs that had to be taken was the tricky question of autonomy: should the new initiative become its own non-profit organization, or would it be better to be an initiative of the umbrella organization of the Flemish North-South movements (11.11.11)?

The day after the unanimity at Van den Nieuwenhuizen's Antwerp office, after the Conference on Globalization organized by Guy Verhofstadt at Ghent University, I had a long chat in a café with Jozef De Witte, director of 11.11.11. In my notes I read: ‘More coffee, biscuits and a little less consensus.’

Not that the fundamental choice – moving forward together, on the way to a contemporary global information initiative – was still up for discussion. Jozef stated clearly that evening: ‘This must not fail. Very high expectations have grown during the renewal weekend and many people are looking forward to this project to see whether the ambitions of that weekend will also be realised.’

But we still disagreed, in the best of understanding, about the independence of that initiative. It would often be discussed. For example, I found a report of a meeting between Jozef and Jan on 4 December. The different positions are clarified, but you feel that they essentially want to realise the same thing: a profitable publishing house, with transparent accounts and a clear, autonomous mission.

The question of how we were going to reconcile the pronounced pluralistic position of De Wereld Morgen with the Christian, and originally clearly Catholic-missionary background of Wereldwijd magazine was also good for a strong gust of wind. Within 11.11.11 there was clear scepticism, perhaps even distrust among some against bringing in that missionary past. At Wereldwijd magazine there was the predictable fear of the loss of identity and spirituality.

We had firmly stated at the start that ‘the ideological differences between De Wereld Morgen and Wereldwijd magazine (particularly confessionalism / pluralism) were hardly noticeable in practice’, but this hurdle had to be taken with caution.

In a special note on this subject I referred to the mission statement that the general meeting of Wereldwijd magazine approved in 2000: ‘The environment in which Wereldwijd Mediahuis operates in 2000 is a radically secularised Flanders in which a strongly renewed religious interest lives. This ties in with Wereldwijd magazine’s choice to provide information about the inspiration and the systems of meaning that determine the way in which people think about happiness and the way in which they understand their lives or want to work on them. The current need for spirituality is great, but the frame of reference of younger generations no longer assumes knowledge of Christian religious content or practices. The approach of Wereldwijd Mediahuis must necessarily take this into account.’

I concluded with some nautical imagery (in line with the images used by Walter Aelvoet in 1969 at the launch of Wereldwijd, and Mark Fillet in 1979, at the tenth anniversary): ‘In 2001, the choice for a joint project based on a pluralistic approach may not even be a stormy choice. The weather maps have been read well, the compass is set to a clear destination and if the helmsmen do not stay on shore, a jointly chosen course can be sailed.’

Around the turn of the year, the project starts to lose some steam. The management of Wereldwijd magazine gets far too little insight into the real cost structure of De Wereld Morgen and its expenditure policy, there is the occasional communication blunder, doubts about the assignment grow: should the new organization have a documentation center (as developed and maintained by Wereldwijd magazine and also by 11.11.11)? Should it publish novels and books? Isn't it biting off too much with perhaps too few resources to make it all happen?

And fundamental doubts also arise again: is it the right choice to invest in an own medium, while the NGOs could already receive a lot of editorial attention within the mainstream media with those bundled resources?

The two editorial teams involved also struggle with the plan. ‘What we have increasingly begun to realise’, writes De Wereld Morgen editor-in-chief Stef Bogaerts after a meeting in April 2002, ‘… is the lack of ambition regarding the quality of the magazine.’ In a note for Wereldwijd magazine I add: ‘The same reflection was also there in the Hoogstraat: we do have a lot we agree on – and that is incredibly positive – but we still have no idea what we really want to do with the magazine, why people will read it, buy it, distribute it…’

In the spring of 2002, a lot of external parties were therefore approached to provide feedback. We involved people from advertising agencies, valued journalists, publishers of all kinds, involved NGO people … And in the meantime, the consultation between the two editorial teams became more intense and ambitious.

A business director was appointed by the summer of 2002 to give the faltering project a new boost. Peter Landsheere – who ultimately only stayed for six months – had to first provide a business plan and find out whether cooperation with a commercial publisher was possible. This had to address the concern about the long-term costs of the new initiative, but also the anxiety about the reach that would be achieved.

The initiators from the broad North-South movement had little appetite for preaching to the converted. Been there, done that. A breakthrough had to be achieved towards the man/woman in the street.

This does not mean that they bowed to the dictates of the market or the average reader. A declaration of principles of 11 June concluded with this telling quote from Subcomandante Marcos of the Mexican Zapatistas: ‘People should not only know what is happening all over the world at any given moment, they should above all be enabled to understand it and learn from it. The independent media are not accountable to the media conglomerates and therefore have a life task, a political project: to bring the truth to light. This is becoming increasingly important in the globalisation process. The truth becomes a resistance network against lies.’

Based on a project that was largely constructed around an independent magazine, we had discussions with Altiora and the then VUM during the summer, we were turned down by Van Thillo, we knocked on Roularta’s door and we were warmly welcomed by Patio (the ‘magazine arm’ of the Regionale Uitgeversgroep, formerly Concentra).

The Roularta proposal was irresistible because of the enormous circulation and therefore also the certainty that the magazine would end up in the letterboxes of reading Flanders.

In the end, Landsheere was able to present two attractive proposals to the steering group: Patio wanted to market the future magazine as an independent and critical magazine and launch it with guerrilla marketing, as they had previously positioned MaoMagazine and Deng: mass distribution via well-chosen public places and converting it into paying subscriptions after a year. Roularta proposed adding an independently produced monthly magazine to the Knack subscription. The costs for the (autonomous) editorial staff, layout and printing were for the yet to be established non-profit organisation, but the circulation would immediately exceed 100,000. And the advertising revenue, which was estimated to be substantial, would be shared.

To be honest, no one had expected that the round of publishers would yield anything. But with two formal proposals, no one could now go back. The Patio proposal was attractive because it was daring, striking and independent. But there were major questions about feasibility (didn't Mao and Deng also perish ingloriously, despite their combination of blunt satire, investigative journalism and sharp writing?) and about reach. The Roularta proposal was irresistible because of the enormous circulation and therefore also the certainty that the magazine would end up in the letterboxes of reading Flanders. The question was: will we succeed in being read by those hundreds of thousands of people reached?

At the beginning of September, the decision was made at a meeting where uncharacteristically harsh words were spoken. It became Roularta. An interesting detail: the proposal that Roularta CEO Rik De Nolf – better known as ‘Mr Rik’ – put on paper was 1 A4 page long. Twenty years later, it still holds up. In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister.

With that choice, a plan was also immediately chosen that would be realised in the form of a monthly magazine. During the summer, the idea of ​​creating a thin monthly magazine for a large audience, linked to a series of in-depth dossiers for a more limited audience, had been toyed with earlier. In addition, we continued to hope for the publication of novels and notebooks, in addition to developing a website and e-zines.

However, the opportunity offered by Roularta would require the entire budget provided. And so the dossier idea was scrapped. The novels were abandoned. The development of a website had to wait.

April 2010. Kirsten Behets (intern), Jan Buelinckx, Stefaan Anrys, Gie Goris, Tine Danckaers, John Vandaele. | © Brecht Goris

5. Moving up a gear

In mid-2002, the timing for the new magazine was suddenly postponed from the beginning to the end of 2003. That was annoying for the employees of both Wereldwijd magazine and De Wereld Morgen, because they had to continue working with very uncertain prospects since September 2001: who would be able to stay, who would have to go, what would be the job description, what budgets are there …?

It was therefore good news for everyone when the steering group decided to move up a gear again after the Roularta breakthrough. The objective became: the first copy of the new magazine must be available in March 2003. So the remaining decisions also had to be made more quickly: the name, the assignment, the editorial team, the organization …

The first step towards a new future was the choice of an editor-in-chief. The steering group decided not to open that vacancy, but to invite both the editor-in-chief of De Wereld Morgen (Stef Boogaerts) and of Wereldwijd magazine (Gie Goris). By mid-September, this rock had been overcome and I could now act as the new editor-in-chief. Too bad for Stef Boogaerts: we had worked well together on this new project over the past year.

From my application letter, perhaps only this quote: ‘I think I am capable of embodying the new informative project, on condition that this project is given the clear assignment to establish a dissident informative voice on globalization in Flanders. If, on the other hand, the intention were to mainstream information about the struggles and dreams, the expectations and the uncertainties of people all over the world (to make it more reassuring), then I cannot embody that intention and therefore cannot lead and motivate it.’

In the weekend of 5 and 6 October, the vacancy for editors for the new magazine appeared in the newspaper. That meant that all journalists and employees of the existing magazines had to join in the bath with everyone in the outside world. The steering group calculated that there was a budget for 3 full-time journalists. In total, no fewer than 430 people applied. Of these, 18 were invited for a written test and on 14 November, 8 eventually came for an interview.

Piet Piryns (Knack), Veerle Vivijs (Erasmus Hogeschool journalism course) and Jan Wyckaert (Vredeseilanden) experienced a breathtaking afternoon and evening together with the brand new editor-in-chief (with thanks also to Jim Baeten for catering and porter services), which they were able to round off with an incredible first editorial team: John Vandaele, Alma De Walsche, Kristof Clerix, Sara Frederix and Tine Danckaers. Thanks to the request of each selected journalist to be able to work part-time, 5 journalists (6, if we include the editor-in-chief) were able to get started. The steering group confirmed this choice and those involved received the good news on 17 November. This team was later expanded with an administrative employee (Stijn Vandenbosch) and a communications officer (Sam Janssen).

In the meantime, on Saturday 19 October, a group of 13 people with very diverse expertise had met for a day in the Community Centre of Watermael-Boitsfort. Assignment: formulate a mission for the new magazine (taking into account the clients from the North-South movement, the context of the alter-globalisation movement and the readers of Knack). It was on that day that it was finally established that the magazine would not be judged on (I quote a literally used example) an increasing number of fair trade consumers, but on its own reach and the appreciation for the reliability, accessibility and relevance of the information provided.

In other words: the new magazine – that day still MoMag – did not have to achieve what the North-South movement was striving for, but had to achieve its own journalistic objectives.

These were the key sentences of the document that the editors then had to work with: ‘Momag is the Dutch-language reference magazine for anyone in Flanders who wants reliable information about the globalising world, and about the people who are resisting the negative consequences of globalisation. Momag offers the information needed to understand global current affairs (and therefore also to act in an informed manner) in various ways. Momag is a magazine that offers an alternative to the commercial media (‘‘the media face of the other world movement’’). Momag wants to be seen, read and appreciated.’

The search for a name had been going on for months. A mailing group of creative minds had explored all the walls of the room and by November 2002 had come up with a few final ideas, which were sent around with some design (home industry, admittedly): Mondiaal Magazine (with the double M as logo), de WERELD (with a meridian through “world”, finished with the ° sign with which we also designed Wereldwijd at the time), MOMAG and mundo (global magazine). It was in response to that mail that the idea of ​​MO* (*global magazine) came about. Everyone was immediately enthusiastic, including the brand new editorial team and the Roularta people we involved in the discussion.

In accordance with the turn the entire project had taken, institutional autonomy also had to be ensured. Committed communication expert Jan van den Bergh became chairman (first of the steering group, then of the non-profit organization) and Chris Aertsen replaced Peter Landsheere as part-time managing director. On 19 December, the non-profit organisation Wereldmediahuis was formally launched, so that the journalists – who had joined 11.11.11 for a short period of time – could be transferred to their actual employer from January 2003.

The only downside to the speed that was achieved in the meantime was that the newly established non-profit organisation only had members from the North-South movement. However, it was explicitly intended to also include trade unions, environmental organisations, women's movements and anti-racism or diversity organisations. After all, MO* was not to become a new North-South magazine, but a global magazine that focused on today's developments and tomorrow's challenges. The involvement of everyone with a global perspective or practice was desired. But the NGOs knew how slowly the mill sometimes turns: it had taken them almost a year and a half before they were ready to commit themselves. There was not that much time left now, but we believed that the expansion would go quickly after that.

On 25 November, a week after the good news letter, the editorial team met for the first time. Assignment: to structure 64 empty pages into an exciting monthly magazine with which we would make a difference in the Flemish media market. The fact that with a circulation of more than 100,000 copies we would reach readers of all persuasions and convictions was an extra incentive for the brand-new editorial team to come up with a magazine that would convince through its originality and reliability. A unique voice and face did not have to stand in the way of journalistic rigour; a large reach would not prevent us from swimming against the tide.

In the meantime, discussions had also been started between the new non-profit organisation Wereldmediahuis and the Flemish office of the global press agency IPS. Within the assignment that the steering group drew up for the editorial team, there was actually only room for the new magazine. However, as media makers we already knew that there was no future for a paper medium without a lively website and digital distribution.

Wereld had already had a weekly online publication since 1999 (Wereldwijd mail, with 2500 subscribers) and IPS Flanders had an e-zine that was initially intended to keep Flemish civil servants up-to-date on broad development themes. We decided to merge these two into a new e-zine offering for a wider audience, in which IPS news items were central and the link with the MO* magazine offering was added. That was the start of a collaboration that would last for years and would lead to shared offices and joint work on websites for a while.

The MO* crew in 2017: (from l to r) Bernard Sintobin, Arne Gillis, Kilian de Jager, Tine Danckaers, Stefaan Anrys, Tine Hens, John Vandaele, Samira Bendadi, Floris Van Cauwelaert, Pieter Stockmans, Jan Buelinckx | © Brecht Goris

6. Launch!

The hectic work on concept, design, content, presentation and distribution was completed within the tight timeframe and on 27 February 2002 the new magazine could be formally launched.

This is what we sent out into the world ourselves: ‘Launching a new news magazine on the Flemish market is no easy task. Ambitious in terms of reach: reaching 400,000 readers with information that is presented elsewhere as ‘far from my bed’ is not self-evident. The world is the central subject in this magazine, which thus goes against the trend to do less foreign reporting (and to work less ‘‘globally’’ and more and more European within foreign reporting).’

‘Furthermore, the magazine wants to provide insight into underlying trends and long-term movements rather than surfing on the waves of violence, disasters or scandals. The position is: looking at the world from the perspective and with the questions of the people and groups that are marginalized (by current globalization, or by the consequences of age-old power structures). Breaking through the pensée unique (the commercial logic) of the mainstream media. This dissident position makes the magazine part of the broad alter-globalization movement.’

A comprehensive article appeared in De Journalist before the actual launch. Veerle Hillaert wrote in it: ‘When looking at a number of proposals for covers, I am struck by the beauty of the images. They are striking. I would therefore be very surprised if this magazine were to end up unnoticed in the waste paper.’ That was of course the hope and the ambition, but it was not a certainty.

That is why we immediately carried out a ‘vu-lu’ survey on the second issue, among both Knack subscribers and our own MO* subscribers. We were warned that such a study only became instructive when it was repeated regularly and that the figures would prove nothing, but might signal a few things. What did we learn: that MO* succeeded from the start in convincing a large part of the Knack readers to read the magazine; that the covers deserved more attention; that the form and packaging had to be strengthened in a number of areas; that the whole was remarkably well appreciated.

MO* had started well, and that was half the battle.

7. Seven-league boots

The success of MO* among readers, politicians and opinion makers, North-South organisations and media ensured that the original agreement with Roularta (signed for two years) was immediately put up for renewal in 2004. Everyone seemed satisfied at first glance, but advertising revenues were much lower than expected: MO* barely made up a quarter of the budgeted amount. Moreover, distribution to Knack subscribers cannibalised its own subscriptions faster than expected, which took another bite out of the annual budget.

Poster of ten years of MO* | © MO*

Chris Aertsen made a simple proposal during the discussion we had with Dirk Vandekerckhove as magazine publisher: if Roularta were to pay 1 euro per reader and delivered year (for 600 pages of high-quality journalism) to vzw Wereldmediahuis, that budget gap would be closed immediately. The beauty of a clear proposal did not come across, however, and in Roeselare it turned out that they spoke at least one word of Russian. Despite that strict njet, we were still able to conclude a new multi-year agreement, and have done so time and again since then.

Jozef De Witte also left 11.11.11 in 2004, and it took a whole year before a new director was appointed. By the time Bogdan Van den Berghe moved into the fourth floor of the Vlasfabriekstraat, the umbrella organization was no longer represented by its director on the board of directors of Wereldmediahuis. But Van den Berghe did want to influence policy, not in terms of journalism, but in terms of expenditure and personnel.

That led to a real conflict between the director of the largest “shareholder” or financier of MO* and the managing director, Chris Aertsen, towards the end of 2005 and certainly in early 2006. This happened just at the time that we also had to find a new chairman (Jan Van den Bergh moved to China to try out his communication skills on the exploding market). The result was the departure of Chris Aertsen and the arrival of Bogdan Van den Berghe on the board of directors.

In 2007, Frank Beke became the new chairman, after he had retired from active politics. The new managing director was Jan Lamers, previously commercial director of the (Financieel-Economische) Tijd.

‘With various journalistic resources, MO* makes the changing world understandable, tangible and manageable.’

In 2008, Wereldmediahuis and IPS-Vlaanderen submitted an initial multi-year plan to the Flemish Minister for Development Cooperation. This allowed both the magazine work and the press agency to be structurally better financed, and also marked the start of a real digital strategy for MO*. Because it was clear from day one that the mission as formulated by Jozef De Witte at the press conference in 2003 – the magazine, the magazine and the magazine – was not sustainable.

Incidentally, that other mission – publishing in-depth background booklets on North-South relations – was given a new and digital form in 2006. Instead of four booklets per year, we switched to eight monographs (MO*papers) that were published online as PDFs.

At the end of 2012, we organised a particularly successful celebration of our tenth anniversary, announced as the Festival of Hope. A full Kaaitheater listened to our special guests (Izzeldine Abuelaish, Chido Govera and P. V. Rajagopal). It was a boost for the entire organization to be able to experience such a beautiful moment, with so much energy.

It would take until 2014 before we would make fundamentally new choices. And we took a long run-up to that, because we started with a two-day reflection in the summer of 2011, during which the editorial team made its own SWOT analysis. The intention was to do the same exercise with the NGOs that were members of the vzw, but by the end of 2011 that had not yet been achieved. The editorial team did continue its reflection in 2012, supported by Content Republic (the same Dirk Vandekerckhove we knew from Roularta) and a number of experts who volunteered to think along.

Early 2012, 11.11.11 also requested a reconsideration of the role that MO* played in the field of global debate in Flanders (with four major MO* lectures and more than 50 debates all over the country that were branded as MO* debates, that role had become considerable). However, the North-South Movements Association wanted to play a leading role in that debate landscape itself and therefore insisted on a renewed focus on the journalistic work of MO*. In the meantime, managing director Jan Lamers also presented his financial multi-year projections to the board, and they did not look so good.

All of this resulted in a detailed 29-page note that I completed during the Christmas holidays of 2012, and which was presented to the board at the beginning of 2013. Bottom line of the proposal: we had to do more online with the editorial team, and investigate whether we should not switch to a quarterly magazine instead of a monthly magazine in the medium term. This meant that we needed more resources rather than saving them, and so new members had to join – because in that respect the success in the past ten years had been very moderate, despite the enthusiastic announcements in 2003.

The discussion about the future, which continued throughout 2013, focused on the business model of MO* (income from subsidies, subscriptions and membership fees, expenses mainly for permanent journalists), on the online-print ratio (should there still be a paper magazine of our own, was suddenly the question) and on the added value of an independent magazine for the investing organisations. The board asked us to investigate whether it was possible to set up the distribution model for paper (large reach thanks to collaboration with Knack) for online as well.

After the summer of 2013 we reached clear conclusions: the MO* editorial team will retain its autonomy and will from now on first and foremost create a relevant website (again with an emphasis on background and interpretation of global trends) and immediately switch from monthly to quarterly. The urgent need for more and more diverse income becomes a priority for business policy, and the board asks for numerical (reach) ambitions that can be followed up quickly. The Online First strategy was born and the reach and appreciation figures of the following years confirmed the value and wisdom of that choice – the quarterly magazine turned out to reach even more people than the monthly magazine before it.

The new and the old editor-in-chief: Jago Kosolosky and Gie Goris | © MO*

The assignment to convince more organizations to become members, and thus to contribute structurally to MO*, did not really get off the ground – although there were a few successes. It was only when the subsidy income was really cut in 2017, simultaneously by Flanders and the federal government, that we managed to achieve a real turnaround. Bernard Sintobin, business manager since 2016, convinced the board of a calm and considered approach to the financial problems and would successfully develop a double track: more member organisations and collecting individual contributions on a structural basis (the now famous and valued proMO*s).

What would we know about Goma, Kandahar or San Cristobal de las Casas if there was no one reporting locally?

We started the summer of 2018 with a fundamental reflection. During one of our biannual ‘thinking days’, I put one question at the top of the agenda: what story do we tell with MO*? After all, the conclusion was that the global context had changed fundamentally 15 years after the start of MO*, and that our mission therefore also needed to be reviewed. Lily Deforce, who had become chair of the non-profit organisation in the meantime, immediately picked up on this question and turned it into a process for the board and the now expanded group of member organisations.

The result, which was sharpened and ratified during the general meetings of 2019, was given the title Quality First, a clear reference to the 2013 vision document, and a confirmation of the unique position and added value of MO* in the media landscape.

Two key paragraphs from that document: ‘MO* is a journalistic media project about global trends and local realities all over the world, aimed at a broad and interested audience. With various journalistic resources, MO* makes the changing world understandable, tangible and manageable’ and ‘With its journalistic work, the editorial team wants to contribute to a world in which human dignity and justice for everyone, solidarity with the vulnerable and oppressed, and a sustainable approach to the planet are achieved.’

It was not only the confirmation and updating of the plan we started almost twenty years ago that was heart-warming. The unanimity and conviction with which the 21 member organisations now approved this new vision, mission and approach was also wonderful.

With this Quality First strategy, Wereldmediahuis vzw was also able to attract top people to replace the editor-in-chief and the business manager, who both retired in mid-2020. The rest of the story will be told to you by Jago Kosolosky and Frank Van Damme, by Lily Deforce and by the editorial team of course. Because what I said in 2012 at the end of my speech at the Kaaitheater, on the occasion of our tenth anniversary, still applies. Even now that we are celebrating our twentieth anniversary:

Poster twenty years MO*. | © MO*

‘Wannes Van de Velde, lucid as ever, stated that ‘a singer is a group’. ‘Without the voice of millions of musicians, all those beautiful songs would have been over long ago’, he sang. The same applies to a journalist. Without the work of countless predecessors and colleagues, who often work in much more difficult circumstances, the profession might no longer exist. What would we know about Goma, Kandahar or San Cristobal de las Casas if no one were reporting locally?

Today, the journalist as a group primarily refers to the editorial staff, which must help each individual journalist to set their ambitions high enough and at the same time strictly monitor the deontology, which allows everyone to specialise and at the same time to walk around sufficiently in the streets and on squares, in the corridors and on internet forums.

But time can only be shared among colleagues if it is created by others. Someone has to pay the wages and invoices, someone has to ensure that readers, viewers, listeners or users find their way to the information produced. As much as I advocate for media that put journalism and more specifically journalists at the centre, we cannot make it without the supporting services, investors and partners of all kinds.

‘You never sing a song alone. Without all the others it simply would not work.’ We can only add to that: ‘et pour les journalistes: la même chose.’