Op1 Agents Don't Hear Themselves Talking

The Op1 talking heads still don't seem to realize why the viewing figures of the NPO have dropped so much. Presumably, they also have no idea that they are seen by part of the population as collaborators: propagandists of politicians who squander our sovereignty in exchange for international positions. I know people who respond with "Well, that's just the way it goes, hahaha."

Journalists disappoint

Thomas Bruning, spokesman for the Dutch Association of Journalists, is also worried: "more people seem to be actively avoiding the news," he writes on X. In doing so, he makes the consumption of his media a benchmark for interest in news, while journalism is no longer capable of delivering news. News should be objective or at least so pluralistic that the media consumer can form an opinion on the basis of qualitative interpretations that highlight different angles. The corona period has exposed that this is not the case. The greatest strength of today's media is policy-supporting reporting. Journalists, we don't know which ones, act as "agents" of the government and an "agent" is not an informant who watches and reports. An 'agent' goes further: that is a colporteur, a representative. 'Agent' comes from 'acting': doing something, actually acting on behalf of a client.

That looks great on them.

Of course, the quality of today's journalists is not up to par either. For example, the Villamedia article quoted by Thomas Bruning states the following:

"What is also striking is that the concerns about misinformation and disinformation are greater in the group that does not trust the majority of the news. An increase in concerns about mis- and disinformation therefore seems to partly explain the increased distrust of news in general."

Apart from the grammatical fumbling ("An increase seems to explain it"), this is not exactly a spectacular interpretation. Rather, it's saying the same thing with slightly different words. What you also see is that those who constantly say that correlation is not causation, think differently when it suits them. More of something? That must be the cause.

If this is the level of reasoning of a contemplative journalist, retweeted by the general secretary of the NVJ and director of Villamedia Publishing, it is not so surprising that people turn to other sources when they want to find out something.

By the way, Thomas Bruning was recently as a guest at Blckbx. He also insists on the diversity of editorial boards and the pluralism of the Dutch media landscape.

'Unverifiable falsehoods' that are just right!

There is no question of critical self-reflection in the world of journalism. The final broadcast of Op1, a while ago, underlined this. Four minutes are enough to make the point. I describe them, then you can watch the clip to see for yourself what happens.

A number of Op1 leaders sat at the table, including Jort Kelder, Welmoed Sijtsma, Tijs van den Brink, Sven Kockelmann, Charles Groenhuijsen, Fidan Ekiz and Carrie ten Napel and a few other people. The term Fact Free Politics is mentioned a number of times. Apparently, they have agreed on that theme.

Fact-free politics? You might think of unsubstantiated government policy, interesting! Could it really?

Just check with ChatGPT, what they think of it. ChatGPT stops at the first description on the word "leug...".

A second attempt does give a complete answer.

Both descriptions indeed translate Politics into politics. After some further questioning, other contexts are also mentioned: Media and Journalism, Marketing and Advertising, Business and Social Media.

But politicians don't get their turn in this Op1. Media and Journalism, the group where, as the corona period revealed, most misinformation is spread, was also not filleted. Marketing and Advertising was not even mentioned, while at Op1 the pharma propaganda was sloshing over the plinths during the corona period. But then what? Social Media as a separate category cannot be taken seriously because personal expressions of opinion cannot be called 'politics'. What real politics is done on X is dominated by government, media and business.

But who is being put on the chopping block? It turns out it's all about the guests! Especially the guests who make statements that the hosts have no answer to. So if the hosts don't get the facts straight, they'll accuse the guests of fact-free "strategies" – let's put it that way.

Fortunately, Jort, the only one of the bunch who sometimes gives a provocative push (and then keeps his mouth shut) has prepared something to illustrate Fact Free Politics: examples by Willem Engel and Thierry Baudet, guests at Op1.

In passing, he frames Willem as a 'famous anitivaxxer etcétéra' and not as a biopharmaceutically trained, which is certainly so relevant in this context.
Jort says he finds it self-evident that, after Baudet had sat at the table with him, he was slaughtered in all the newspapers.

Of course, these journalists speak with one voice. Which makes sense, because that's how it works in a pluralistic media landscape.

Example 1 of "how those conversations go" is a 6-second(!) fragment in which Willem Engel says that the coronavirus comes from a lab and is therefore not a zoonosis. That message comes across; The entire table understands that this was a conspiracy theory. They are simply not aware of the state of affairs. Whatever you think about it, calling it "conspiracy theory" doesn't do justice to the scientific controversy. See the U.S. hearings. (This morning on Radio 1 a presenter almost fell off her chair when she heard that this was going on and that it was blowing over from America to Marion Koopmans, whom she had on the phone.)

Then follows another short excerpt: Thierry Baudet, who talks about an underground center of the NSA, where internet communication is monitored. Of course, the journalistic leaders immediately recognize this as a conspiracy theory. They have an antenna for that and are too lazy, too prejudiced and too complacent to take a look at it, for example Wikipedia to watch. A ridiculous theory: "a hole under the ground..." (says Kelder). No one raises their finger. Fact-free judgment. Who's doing Fact Free Politics here?

Then again Engel who calls the corona injections a gene therapy and not vaccinations. Another controversial topic, also in the scientific world: "The mechanism of action of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines should classify them as gene therapy products (GTPs), but they have been ruled out by regulatory agencies."Debatable at least and certainly not a conspiracy theory.

Unverifiable untruths, that's how they think about it at Op1. Not only do they not know the facts, they don't even go looking for them. Of course, it wasn't in the script they had in mind.

There is also a short fit between Tijs and Willem about how full the ICUs really were during the first wave. Tijs immediately contradicts Willem, he doesn't ask for any further explanation. Imagine that Willem has a good story... Tijs only knows what he has seen at Frontmilitairen.

The dilemmas of the uninformed

Jort outlines the dilemma: a conspiracy theory is thrown on the table live. No one protests. Tijs agrees: "yes, a lot of things are said that make you think 'what is he saying again', but you still have to do something." That means: not knowing the facts yourself, not asking for an explanation or playing devil's advocate, no: you want to intervene because it is not the story you want to tell, but you don't know how. It escapes the entire company that it means that you are not well prepared and are simply insufficiently familiar with the subject matter.

This way, they are comfortably seated in the same fact-free tunnel.

Jort says five times that he finds something "complicated". But Charles Groenhuijsen knows what to do. He knows in advance that 'they' (those conspiracy theorists) do not want to cooperate in the interview in any way and still want to tell their own story. That has to be prevented, they have to tell a different story that is steered with carefully thought out questions. 'From the voters' I think I understand, so this sun king still thinks he represents the population as well.

People sound of approval. Someone who's going to tell his own story in the few minutes he gets in front of the camera!? Impossible.

Tijs: "If the chance of untruths is as great as with Engel and Baudet, then you shouldn't take the risk of inviting someone like that." So: while they know nothing about the matter, they want to set themselves up as guardians of the fact-free truth.
"At one point I thought 'there's so much uncontrollable stuff coming out' that I can't take care of that." The agenda also makes that clear: they want to convey a message that is to their credit, not the message of the guest they are interviewing.

Unity is the recognition of the problem, yes, it is difficult.

Jort confirms that they hardly invited 'the opponent'. By 'opponent' he means the opposition with the opposing voice. How does the word 'opponent' reconcile with objective information?
Jort states that due to propagandistic policies, 20% of the viewers drop out. Tijs then counters that he did indeed have Maurice de Hond at the table once(!) This gave him a similar experience as Jord: "I believe that all newspapers had a review in one day that absolutely should not have been allowed".

All of them, all media, none excepted. Unanimous. One review in each newspaper. And it still doesn't ring a bell. Well, no: it only confirms the right, not the suppression.

It's logical, of course, that the entire pluralistic media landscape falls over you in unison. After all, they all think exactly the same about it. The fact that Maurice was 100% right about aerogenic contamination in 2020 is described by Tijs as: "It was not total nonsense what he said at that time". At that moment, that is. Other than that, he wants to get rid of it.

Everyone else present can agree with that. Of course, and if not, just add some water to the wine. With some adjustment, we all stay nice and close to each other. Close together, actually.

How those people must be in a warm bath. Wonderful, that collegiality! True colleagues in solidarity: that you all know what you stand for. That you contribute something to society and offer people the right information.

That you are doing good for the country and therefore for the citizen. Someone like Maarten Keulemans must have that feeling too.

The whole broadcast is quite mind-boggling. You can use it watch on NPO Start. Some more highlights:

• 10:17 p.m.: Maarten van Rossum is allowed to talk nonsense from the company. A few hours before the invasion of Ukraine, he argued why that invasion would never take place. How is that assessed? Well: "You can make a mistake and to start kicking him here, someone is allowed to make a mistake"...
• From 27:30 there will be chatter about the corona pandemic, kicked off with fear-mongering fragments, face masks, Sywert, Koopmans. Anti-vaxxers are discussed, bad people of course. Except for that gentleman from the SGP, because he did it in a disarming way (Tijs says of course – that is lovingly tolerated. Other anti-vaxxers you have to decapate.)
• 33:30: Charles Groenhuijsen is in complete denial about the polarizing role of the media. Charles thinks the whole clash is because of the virus 'that we didn't know about'. The whole company likes to hide behind that, of course. But it is precisely because of their lack of criticism, not listening to those who did know something, because of their censorship of open discussion and not denouncing mismanagement, that the controversy surrounding the measures and vaccinations has arisen, that does not occur to them. No, it was because of the virus!
• 36:12 The mistake lockdown. "The curfew wasn't necessary, was it, in hindsight." – "No, it was the mildest variant."
  That's how far they are now in Hilversum. The fact that this was not only known afterwards but already at the time, they undoubtedly consider that a conspiracy theory because they did not know it at the time. It went against the excitement of these TV personalities at the time, who couldn't keep up with what 'critics' (who were often just scientists) had already uncovered. After all, it was not in line with the OMT. Easy 'journalism': playing communications agency for government agencies.

There was not one investigative, let alone a critical question about the role of the media.

There is something to be said about each fragment. I will conclude with Tijs van den Brink who, like Jort Kelder, had also suffered from the unanimity and repression of the national media. 37:37:

"It's because of social media that people are in their own bubble and don't want to get out, sometimes."
Response:
"Yes, that's when a talk show table is very important!"

All those present were in complete agreement on this as well. Not one exception, not one factual example to the contrary.

You would almost feel sorry for it. The NPO that wants to get rid of ON, that's a bubble. The propaganda machine is rolling along nicely.

Free Fact Politics: it was about themselves.

P.S.: Something keeps gnawing at me. Could Jort have deliberately chosen those factually correct examples? In a broadcast about Fact Free Politics? So why doesn't that coward open his mouth? Double agent? Agent Kelder and Co?