Pieter Klok, editor-in-chief at de Volkskrant, had a conversation with Jelle van Baardewijk, whom I hold in high regard. Anyone who wants to personally convince themselves of what Pieter Klok is should certainly do so, because I have read that Jelle gives him every opportunity to express his self-satisfied pedantries and I estimate that the VV readers will easily see through that. One consolation: looking at the “Red Line†demonstration, I give the Volkskrant another five, at most ten, years. Then that megalomaniac building in Sloterdijk will be empty.
We could instead be talking about the WHO power grab: the Pandemic Treaty that the WHO created, you know, the corrupt organization that proclaims and unscientifically maintains health threats, partly funded by the medical industry. The official lobby/PR agency for pharmaceuticals that is embraced by frightened governments. (We also saw from Eerdmans last week that lobbies work when billions are involved. He will probably make a step towards the EU.) But the Netherlands has not co-signed the WHO treaty. That's something anyway.
Several of these topics are touched on in comments under the previous article “Alarmism as a cover-upâ€. Not infrequently, comments deserve to be read more. vv followers sometimes turn out to be good writers with interesting ideas. That is why I am now posting this article with a more extensive comment than I intended.
Below I jump in where Alison, c and Cees Mul via WHO, media and DNW give rise to an extensive comment from Willem. With my response below.
Alison on 21/05/2025 at 06:03:
Why has the approval of the WHO pandemic treaty by the Netherlands received zero or no attention in the press?
con 21/05/2025 at 12:47
Because Minister Agema has not signed with 9 other countries? That is of course not the news that people (media/press) want to report.
Cees Mulon 21/05/2025 at 13:21
Did you see the conversation between Jelle van Baardewijk and Pieter Klok (UK editor-in-chief) at DNW? It clearly shows what is wrong with that newspaper.
The newspaper has a position on a particular matter. For example Ukraine. The Ukrainians are the victims (agree) of this conflict. So the bad guy is Russia.
If anyone dares to sketch a historical perspective of that conflict, he is already coloring outside the lines and is being dismissed. Because: suppose people start to doubt the black/white good/bad narrative, then a real discussion could arise in which the UK narrative is questioned and social unrest may arise. Replace Ukraine with Gaza, Covid approach, nitrogen etc. and the story is the same.
There is a position, often based on emotions, that usually corresponds to the position of an unelected small group of 'right-thinking people' (in their own opinion). Opposing voices do not get through. This is undoubtedly how it works at NRC, and perhaps to a slightly lesser extent at Telegraaf. I cannot judge whether Pieter Klok really means this or whether it is an excuse he is hiding behind to defend the censorship (because that is what it is).
Willemon 23/05/2025 at 09:31
I saw the interview on DNW. I thought it was fair of Klok. It is completely true that he (as the personification of the Volkskrant) MUST follow the issues of the day. Now that is the NATO position, earlier it was Covid, even earlier it was Obama's red line (that 'Assad should not gas his own population', otherwise bombings on Syria would follow), before that the mediagenic terrorism of IS, Al Qaeda, etc., before that again the WMD, etc, etc, etc. All trendy products where the question: 'is this true?' CANNOT be asked by a journalist. And that is exactly what I expect from journalism: journalism defeats the issues of the day or conventional wisdom, journalists cannot do otherwise.
Luijendijk once gave the beginnings of an honest answer to this (in one of his booklets) when, as an Israel correspondent, he was put on the news agency bus with tens of other journalists and then was informed at the West Bank or something about what the news agency believed to be true. After which Luijendijk was allowed to present this in his own sauce for the NOS news in the evening. And Luijendijk thought: 'But I don't understand it at all!' - Which did not alter the fact that he dutifully summarized the news agency's truth/conventional truth about the stavaza on the West Bank for the NOS news in the evening. That's how it works in journalism.
In 1919, Upton Sinclair wrote a book about the journalism of his time in which he spoke to an editor of the Los Angeles Times who said to him: ‘Sinclair, it’s been so long that I have written anything that I believed in, that I would not know the sensation.’ This is also the case with Klok. This is the case with all journalists who write for a newspaper that has to present the issues of the day as truth.
Journalists are no different from the Jumbo stockers who receive their items every day through the distribution center/press agency and are then expected to place the goods provided on the shelves as best as possible. What's in those products is not their responsibility. Whether those products taste good/contain truth, just like that LA Times journalist from Sinclair's book, they have no idea. They no longer have that sensation. What you say about the veracity of Volkskrant vs NRC vs Telegraaf is about as true as which supermarket sells the best food: Albert Heijn, Jumbo or ALDI. Yes, there are differences, but if you really want to eat well/want to know what is true, you will have to maintain your own vegetable garden/think for yourself. The fact that many people cannot grow their own food/think for themselves is the problem and not the fact that newspapers/supermarkets exist.
What was remarkable about the interview was the anger that came over Klok as soon as the c-word was uttered. THEN I saw that Klok is something more than the nihilistic LA Times journalist from the Sinclair quote. Klok knows perfectly well that THAT delusion of the day is not correct. But what can he do about that? The man is only allowed to talk about the issues of the day, he has no choice. And see the anger when someone else tries to get him to talk about it.
I also saw something else in that anger. On the one hand, what you will see when you start talking about a taboo subject (which creates tension). But also one of the stages of grief. Ultimately, Klok is just a human being who, like all those other Covid adepts, reacts the way a child reacts when he finds out/is told that Sinterklaas does not exist. Then a belief system breaks down, which must be accompanied by anger (and denial, dissociation [zombie behavior], depression), but acceptance of which is always around the corner the moment it turns out that the disappointment can be talked about openly.
In short, an interview that is interesting to watch and to save to watch again. There is a LOT in it, although you do need the ability to read between the lines. Anyway…
Anton Theunissenon 23/05/2025 at 10:07
I don't know if I'll watch that interview again; I'm gradually becoming familiar with Klok's bullshit stories, they always seem to be a waste of time.
But I find your resigned, even defeatist view of journalism far too non-committal. Journalism is also the Fourth Power, remember? The last defense of the citizen against the State.
Journalists say out loud that they objectively proclaim the truth. That they question power. That they are truth seekers. Stock clerks really don't say that. That fits better with fraudsters, scammers and dictators. And then also in the service of the government narrative.
If you normalize or condone this, you encourage totalitarian tendencies. You can't let this go that easily.
Willemon 23/05/2025 at 10:55
The citizen's last ring of defense against the State are the geese of the capitol.
Yes, the lyricism in newspapers can protect a society against the barbarism at the city gates. But even better than waiting for those geese to perform their lyricism or not, is to use your own senses about what is.
It can be useful to look at or listen to those geese once in a while (see, for example, that Klok interview on DNW). But to think that those geese possess the Fourth Power... that is not very different from wishful thinking. I mean: where can I find that journalism has ever done anything other than report the issues of the day? “All the Presidents Men†perhaps?
But that was a movie, you know!
Anton Theunissenon 24/05/2025 at 10:07
I also confirm that they DO NOT do it. At least not anymore (or I didn't pay attention at all in the past, that's also possible). Not so long ago we had VPRO and VARA on TV that sometimes threw a bat in the hat, we had VN, HP/De Tijd, etc. with opinions and circulation that still mattered to some extent. We still had quality journalism. There were polemics, information was exchanged. Now ON is being silenced, the print media is in an oligopoly, the EU is publicly canceling unwelcome information and everything is eagerly embraced by the incumbents who throw around 'subsidies', unhindered by a counterforce with substance - which should form the Fourth Power.
ChatGPT defines The Fourth Power
From Fourth Power generally refers to the media, in the context of the trias politica (the separation of powers: legislative, executive and judiciary). Although the media are not a formal state power, their influence on public opinion and political decision-making is considered so great that they are considered a “fourth estateâ€.
Key points of the Fourth Power:
- Control function: The media acts as a watchdog that monitors the other powers and exposes abuses.
- Agendasetting: By determining which topics receive attention, the media influences what politicians and the public are concerned with.
- Influencing policy: Media attention can lead to political action or policy changes.
- Informative role: Media provide information to citizens, which is essential for a well-functioning democracy.
Criticism:
The term “Fourth Power†is also sometimes used critical used:
- In some quarters the media is accused of propaganda or suppressing dissent, which then undermines the supervisory role.
- When media too much power appear to have, for example through framing or one-sided reporting.
- As media close ties with governments, companies or other interest groups and therefore lose their independent function.
You write that the real problem is that many people cannot think for themselves. I agree that many people cannot (or do not want to) think for themselves. But I firmly dispute that that is the real problem. There are also people who cannot walk, so you don't leave them to their fate. That is NOT the real problem.
The problem is that the government is taking advantage of this inability. These people have given a mandate precisely because they have no way of accomplishing all kinds of things themselves!
You ask for an example of disruptive journalism. But that's not the point. It is not about one specific example of journalism that turned everything around (which may have been a correction of a longer-term failure); it is about a constant, organic flow of information through the mass media that should nudge communis opinio towards reality rather than towards a strategic goal, whether ideological, commercial, religious, political or whatever. Staying in sync with what's happening – exactly what journalism now pretends to do. That's false, that's deception. Abuse of naivete.
In my opinion, you underestimate the potential and importance of a diverse media landscape, the most important pillar of the period of peace we have had in Europe. You - rightly - talk scornfully about the current deplorable state of journalism. But to then dismiss that with “it's better to think for yourself†I think it sounds very elitist. It is the same advice as “to get through the coming years, it is better to buy gold than sharesâ€. That's what people say among themselves who have money and see the economy collapsing around them because the majority of people CANNOT even buy what they want. The vast majority (at least 80%) simply do not have that ability, only the wealthy do.
The Media pillar traditionally had the task of keeping precisely that public informed, because the public cannot do it themselves. Journalists have come to regard themselves as social engineers, precisely because their information determines majority opinions and can thus bend democratic principles to their will. The pillars that were intended to protect citizens with information are only trying to keep each other out of the wind.
- Media is a subsidy-dependent oligopoly (newspapers receive support from the EU, public broadcasting is subsidized)
- In terms of content, the Political pillar is just as much of a joke as journalism.
- The Financial Pillar still keeps itself upright with pie-in-the-sky and debt juggling. This will last as long as people continue to believe that money has value and that debt is actually a delusion because you don't notice it anyway. (Media helps with this. Politics wastes billions.)
- Scientific pillars have eroded in areas where a lot of money flows through them. That temple is also on the verge of collapse. (But not according to the media.)
- Our constitutional state is teetering on a legal pillar with inimitable escapades that, where possible, conceals the rot in the other pillars. (Selective media coverage).
In that perfect storm, the Covid tragedy could develop.
Where is another one? opposing force to keep things healthy? Where is transparency, the most important ingredient of a democracy?
The building of our flourishing society is collapsing like in a super slo film. The total collapse is happening before our eyes. And 80% of course go along with it, the reality in the media is all they have, all they see, it is the context in which they function - and it shows something very different: from victorious wars to profitable climate measures and safe vaccines.
Our media, which should pull things apart and make them transparent, maintain the status quo at all costs (the government is their most important customer and consumer) and thus prevent society from organically moving with its own dynamics. They prevent bending until it cracks. The cracks have already burst in the walls. The building creaks and the first pieces fall.
The advice “Form your own opinion†is somewhat stark in comparison.
The indispensable Counterforces are no longer tolerated by the social engineers of our society. Thierry Baudet appears to be completely in sync with that care, I just saw.
It's nice that you include the comments in your reflections, Anton. I can't resist now :-)
A little about Pieter Klok: for me it was a revelation to hear how strongly people believe in their own truth, and to hear him say that they deliberately counteract opposing voices. You call them 'bullshit stories' and that's what they are, but that doesn't make them any less interesting. A new insight for me.
Coincidentally or not, I just watched a conversation between John Campbell, Neil Oliver and Tim Kelly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruU5GgTouY&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell
It's 1 hour and 20 minutes. I don't watch much Campbell anymore because I've seen most of it by now. But this one is special.
Many things that 'we' often talk about here are discussed. Also the role of the media. What strikes me is that they are now talking less about demonstrating with facts and research that the entire Covid-19 approach was completely 'bonkers', but that it is now more about the backgrounds and explanations. It is of course very important that facts are shown that the approach to this 'crisis' has done more harm than good, but I now know enough about the IFR, the operation of the mRNA 'vaccines', the deadly WHO protocols, the computer models, the dubious PCR tests, the government propaganda, etc. to put that behind me. Add it all up and you have a perfect storm. But even with all the evidence that exists now, people are not going to admit that the entire period is a black page in history.
How come? I recently spoke with a colleague. His wife suffers from atrial fibrillation. His daughter was spontaneously almost blind due to a blood clot in one eye. After vaccination. I also have plenty of examples around me. I told him about how the mRNAs do their work. They really have no idea. I could tell from him that the coin dropped. Response? “No, no, I can't go along with that, that can't be true.†I don't know if it made him think.
Neil Oliver fits in seamlessly with his 'staircase of disbelief'. Imagine a staircase reaching to the sky. And every step you go higher means that you have to let go of another familiar theory. The first step may be that you don't believe the whole Covid story. The next step might be to read about other vaccines that you still more or less trust until then. And then you find out that that is also pure propaganda.
You then realize that much of what you were presented with on various topics was never correct in the past. Then you are already on the third step. Someone who makes the first step never goes back to the ground floor, but will always take the next step. I think people subconsciously realize that opening a crack in the window can only lead to a complete opening, climbing all the steps, and then many certainties disappear. The step from a world full of certainties to a world filled with gray areas where good and bad are much less clear than you once thought is a big step.
Could that be the reason why people are shocked by unwanted truths? The red pill versus the blue pill scenario? As Willem also indicated, that may be where Pieter Klok's anger lies.
Covid was a wake-up call for many, but not for everyone. Also interesting to see how Campbell only realized in 2021 that it was wrong. He was law-abiding until then. But he did have the courage to turn 180 degrees and admit that he had not seen correctly. Others saw it earlier, but they probably already had distrust of institutions earlier.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that these types of forums are a blessing for people like me. There are probably a lot more of us than we think, I don't know, I can only guess. Old certainties have fallen away, and we have woken up in a sometimes hostile world. That's a strange feeling. What can we say and what cannot we say in certain circumstances? It is no longer allowed to speak out in public within institutions, as Thierry Baudet also notes. That's not good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjudm8qx3Q&ab_channel=DeDijk-Topic
“We†are people who read and understand each other's texts. Unfortunately, there are very, very few of those, I'm afraid.
Clock jumped out immediately and he lets Keulemans spread his nonsense because maintaining the status quo (including the authority of existing institutions) is important. “We†have no influence whatsoever on those intellectual wimps so at some point (after a few Keuleman's debunk posts in 2022) decided not to put any more energy into it, other than advising everyone to cancel their subscription.
They are very wrong people. Not so much that they are more wrong than the vaccinated who do not want to accept everything, but because journalists are expected to perform a task that requires higher demands than the average unsuspecting citizen, both intellectually and morally.
That's why Willem's comment triggered me. He doesn't think so: he sees that they are letting things slip and adjusts his expectations accordingly. That's just too easy: “Just let things go to hell,†is what I read in it. My belief is that we (and certainly “weâ€) MUST make those demands on the media if we want to protect our habitat. And not just “our†habitat, but that of the entire democratic world.
Collaborative media power
Media including newspapers are bound/captured in a web of politicians (for finances, information and interviews), companies (advertisements, information/interviews), a concentration of owners, shareholders, subscribers. They must take into account flak (angry letters sent, cancellations, withdrawal of advertisers, dissatisfied shareholders, dissatisfied government, exclusion from journalists' association).
Chomsky already indicated in 1988 with Herman in the book Manufacturing consent (recently translated into Dutch) that, without external coercion, the media often unconsciously conform to these parties and thus unthinkingly serve the existing system and thus bring citizens to consent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
Klok indicated in an interview with DNW that he had not read this book and did not want to read it either. On the other hand, he emphasized the independence of his editor-in-chief. In my opinion, this confirmed Chomsky's and Hermans' right.
He seems to have no insight into the forces that determine what is in the newspaper.
Klok will never put anything on the big clock.
And seems to be a conservative person who, as he himself indicates, is afraid to approach so-called authorities and institutions such as the RIVM (too) critically.
(Fitting, the picture above: Klok's bell is indeed not ringing!)
There is a fourth power, but not 'against' but rather a cooperating power.
Fear that this (also considering the book by Chomsky and Herman) is timeless.
The apparent critical revelations may have been a case of 'limited hangout'. Perhaps dirty laundry is now kept completely indoors.
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikel/2025/02/25/chomskys-manufacturing-consent-bijbel-van-elke-kritische-journalist-werd-eindelijk-vertaald/
Journalists think they are social engineers. It is striking that we used to think left=progressive, right=conservative. Klok wants to keep everything as it is because it is all so wonderful. In his ivory tower, the facts don't count. I find it nauseating.
I wrote a comment, but didn't get it posted yesterday.
Anyway, it gave me the chance to let the above sink in for a moment. I have nothing to add and I'll listen to my favorite George Michael CD again, with good advice:
Listen without prejudice
I'll set it up and I'm still curious about your final reflection!
In the public debate there is too much discussion about interests and not enough about the philosophical principles of liberal democracy.
The roots of our Western liberal democracy lie in the Enlightenment ideas of the eighteenth century, in particular the philosophical ideas about freedom, self-determination, democracy, freedom of expression, justice, fairness, meritocracy and free market (Locke, Kant, Adam Smith et al.).
Most philosophers of that time agreed that honesty, compassion, combating abuse of power and preventing power consolidation are important conditions for a liberal society to succeed.
Since the 1980s, such basic principles of liberal democracy and the free market have increasingly been lost sight of.
We have gradually started to allow more and more concentration of power and conflicts of interest, in the political, economic, journalistic and scientific fields. Globalization and increasing public-private partnerships play an important role in this. The real danger of this development is that free Western society is gradually turning into an oligarchic system. At the end of the Enlightenment, Pareto already warned about this with his “elite theoryâ€, also known as the “iron law of oligarchyâ€.
There has also been a change in mentality. Western society has become more opportunistic.
Opportunism – the conscious use or abuse of others – is hardly criticized these days. The legislation is so complicated that there is always something the opportunist can hide behind. In particular, the arbitration clauses included in most international treaties hinder the fight against polluting and other opportunistic practices by multinationals.
With the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1980s, opportunistic behavior has become increasingly common. It is increasingly seen as a key to success. Honesty and transparency are nice, but they don't achieve much (except perhaps a “position elsewhereâ€).
There is far too little principled discussion about these types of matters in political and other intellectual circles. As a society we have become sedate and think that everything is well arranged with our “thick law booksâ€. It is even so bad that a critical or differing opinion is seen by many as a danger to democracy. A critical opinion is difficult and often leads to cognitive dissonance. And, oh, oh, oh, then some real thinking has to be done and arguments have to be produced. It is much easier to label a critical person as an extreme right, or “stupid right†as a popular Volkskrant journalist used to refer to the “ordinary people†in almost every column.
The government also does not like critical voices. That is inefficient. The “New Public Management†requires everyone to be on the same page. Referenda and participation are difficult. They prefer a “Citizen Councilâ€. Then the participating citizens can first be properly indoctrinated, er, sorry, informed, before they can give some advice.
Too much discussion in the chamber about bills is also difficult. That is why the House is often insufficiently informed or informed much too late on controversial topics.
BIN NL is a government department that studies the behavior of ordinary citizens and adjusts it in the desired direction through "nudging" and "persuasive communication". The European DSA makes it possible to censor or “shadow ban†“dangerous†counter-narratives.
In 2023 I published a booklet (Conspiracy of opportunism), especially intended for my Volkskrant and NRC-reading acquaintances, to wake them up a little. I wrote this book partly in response to the corona crisis and my vaccination damage.
In this book I try to explain that our beautiful liberal society does need maintenance and that we must become more alert when it comes to oligarchization and network formation (and possible network corruption). An important chapter is about information and manipulation. In that chapter I discuss, among other things, the news media, the DSA and behavioral influence by the government. The last two in particular, but actually all three, are, in my opinion, undermining the democratic process. Much to my surprise, many of my acquaintances didn't find this chapter all that disturbing. Most people do not find it a problem that the government, together with the media and tech platforms, tries to control the opinion and behavior of the population. They also think that “the common people†are too “stupid†to think. Moreover, they believe that the government has everyone's best interests at heart.
They also do not see themselves as the target group of these influencing practices. They read newspapers and books and consider themselves people who think.
Although I was initially shocked by these reactions, I now see it in a much more nuanced way. I can't really blame them. It is experienced as a 180 degree turn: from trust in the government to distrust. And then your entire worldview is called into question. However, that twist does not have to be made at all. It's a matter of principle. Behavioral guidance by the government is by definition contrary to democratic principles, even if the intentions are completely sincere. I have explained this clearly in my book, but it still doesn't get across. I think that the contempt for populism and the people who vote for it is already too deeply rooted among the readers of the elite newspapers.
My book is also full of criticism of globalization and the neoliberal economic system, especially shareholder capitalism and the debt economy. Fortunately, I have been able to reach my acquaintances better in those areas and provide them with interesting information.
Most of my acquaintances are also willing to listen to my criticism of the corona policy. But as soon as it comes to the vaccines themselves, cognitive dissonance sets in for most.
But I'll keep trying to keep the conversation going.
Dear Miranda, the government does not love the people.
Politics has become the executive power of big capital.
An example:
https://deepnewz.com/germany/german-chancellor-merz-backs-eu-ban-on-nord-stream-to-block-russia-us-gas-link-a341e48d
Merz comes directly from BlackRock and that monstrosity is another tool in the hands of the Deep State. You know; You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy.
Well, of course I hope that I'm taking a far too gloomy view of it all.
But my fear is that liberal society no longer exists.
Don't worry. The system will implode on its own. Lust for power and greed can no longer be stopped. Unfortunately, democratic processes no longer have any control over this.
The citizens don't even have to revolt for this, the elite is destroying the system all by themselves. When all the citizens have been picked bare, they start against each other.
Until recently I thought we could still turn the tide, but that seems to have been the end of the road.
The transition period will be very unpleasant and there will be many innocent victims. By the way, that is already the case. But the control society will not last long.
Don't get excited. Keep a cool head.
I have had a problem with authority all my life, that is, authority that has just arrived. When Hugo de Jonge started pushing and pushing, it was over for me.
No injection, no test and no face mask for me, no matter how difficult it was.
I deeply distrust the MSM, but I also see that there are other sources that are at least as bad, if not worse.
But you write that the transition period will be very unpleasant and that's exactly it.
What rules now has no problem going even beyond obnoxious.
Not all that exciting for myself as I will soon be turning seventy.
It's more that I don't understand why people keep falling into the same trap.
I still try to resist defeatism. Otherwise I'm just like that doctor friend who, after I showed him some statistics, said: “Well, I'd rather work in my garden.†Or the wife of a specialist friend who asked my wife: “Can't he stop doing that?†Or that lawyer friend who looked at me mockingly: "...and then all those institutions are wrong, surely? And what they say on the news is certainly wrong too?"
https://www.ninefornews.nl/eentje-om-in-de-gaten-te-houden-dit-door-soros-en-rockefeller-gefinancierde-journalistencollectief-voedt-onze-media/
So just bread writers.
I think those creeps really think we're stupid.
Otherwise great piece again Anton.
Thanks Rien! And thank you too for your contributions 😉