Instead of trying to find the truth himself, a science journalist wants to make a portrait of those who are committed to it. Well, we've seen before how corona critics were destroyed by friendly interviewers. And then say afterwards: "Look, we certainly paid attention to the dissent! (But yes, it's not right.)" Herman does not participate.
He quite rightly points out that those maligned 'sceptics' have taken up the journalistic task that has repelled the media. After all, they are – at least according to Maarten Keulemans – just 'messengers'. But they are narrative messengers. That's a euphemistic description for 'collaborationist propaganda channels'.
Why a conversation with the critics? Do something with their output. Show that there are plausible and sensible arguments and calculations. Make a point of this data obfuscation that prevents independents from getting far enough with their analyses. Demand transparency or you won't trust them! Demonstrate that first. Stick your neck out first, then maybe we'll talk further.
Read Herman Steigstra's answer below. Very neat, especially when you consider how he has been taunted by this and that. 👇
The paper newspaper invited me as a "hobbyist" for an interview. The government, as well as the media and paper newspapers, are "tone-deaf" to opinions that are at odds with "the consensus". The newspaper wants to write about it. I politely decline the offer, but I do have some suggestions.
Why does the paper newspaper ignore the reports that since 2022, young people have been the canaries in the coal mine. Hundreds more deaths than average, but the journalists ignore the reports. The new media wrote about it, but the paper newspaper remained silent.
Why does the paper newspaper ignore the reports that the vaccines do not do what they promise? In the first month, even negative protection with more deaths than necessary as a result. Only the government's messages were adopted unquestioningly: "safe and effective". I published the findings, the paper newspaper was silent.
https://virusvaria.nl/cbs-heeft-onwerkzaamheid-vaccin-zichtbaar-gemaakt/
There has been unexplained excess mortality since April 2021. I publish about this every week and show the latest figures. An average of 250 unexplained deaths per week, the paper newspaper is silent. Only the new media recognize it. This is the latest graph, journalists are looking away.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vergeet-alle-grafieken-herman-steigstra-fvqhe
Nivel comes up with a report that would show that after the start of vaccination, unvaccinated people would suddenly die ten times as fast as vaccinated people. The paper newspaper even exaggerated it by stating that vaccinated people benefited more from cleaner air, no flu and quieter on the streets.
The dissent received hardly any attention. A little attention was paid to the calculation error that was in the first version of the Nivel report, but after that the conclusion became even more improbable. The paper newspaper had already predicted it.
That the explanation for the Nivel counts would lie in the chaos during the registration of the vaccinations did not occur to the paper newspaper. Maurice de Hond and I, among others, published about this. Nivel's Fata morgana: 5.5 weeks are missing from the figures. The paper newspaper was silent.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fata-morgana-van-nivel-herman-steigstra-op9ve
There is nothing left of the critical newspapers of which we were so proud during the resistance in the Second World War. Paper newspapers that now obediently adopt what the government whispers to them. To make up for it, an invitation to be put in the spotlight, but first show that as a journalist you follow the government critically.
A controlling role, testing against the available opposing opinion. You don't have to agree with that, but that is the role of the Dutch journalist. This was just a selection of hundreds of articles I wrote. In addition, there are thousands of professionals who also write about this, reputable, at home and abroad. NOTHING at all in the paper newspaper.
The Netherlands is now dangling at the bottom when it comes to giving an honest picture when reporting on corona, on an equal footing with countries where we believe that freedom of expression is in a serious state.
And as for the invitation: I politely decline it (I'm "pretty nice in real life too"). The paper newspaper may invite me again when she has improved her life, but I do not promise that I will accept the invitation.
Neat answer. I agree with Herman!
Keulemans is not to be trusted.
Good luck to you all and thank you for all your efforts!
The invitation is rather derogatory. Real science knows how it works, and then there are some amateurs who juggle with numbers. These are then shown to the readers as a kind of rarity. That is the tenor of this invitation.
NRC once published an article with interviews with vaccine refusers. That was also along these lines. Each and every one of them put forward strange arguments that made it seem as if all 'wappies' are weird conspiracy theorists. It therefore confirms the image that NRC readers have of Covid skeptics. Same with the BBC documentary 'Unvaccinated'. I think most people who read virusvaria or Maurice are better informed than the average narrative supporter. These kinds of people are never given a chance to speak in MSM.
It would be nice to have a real debate. By content. The biggest problem is that people can't imagine that the government is deliberately cheating us.
I myself did not come to my conclusions out of distrust of the government. It was the other way around. First, you observe that news coverage doesn't match reality. This was in the beginning. Models, predictions, numbers, IFR, face masks. It didn't make sense at all. Then you first think that it might be ignorance of the government (not good either). But later it turns out that the deception was deliberately set up. That a whole propaganda machine has been deployed. That MSM and social media are in the driver's seat. And the NOS, you name it. All clearly demonstrated by WOO documents.
To keep faith in the government, you would have to be very naïve. Or have to have very large blinders on.
Maarten pretends that 'we' are desperately trying to drag in arguments out of a kind of distrustful attitude. I think it's the other way around: it is precisely through observations and a non-biased opinion that people like Anton and Herman come to their conclusions. Unfortunately, you have to conclude that the government has deliberately deceived us. I wouldn't have believed it myself a few years ago.
People who have a worldview in which a trustworthy government, led by competent politicians, has the best interests of the citizens at heart, will not easily accept that they have been cheated. Anyone who falls outside those norms must be a crazy scientist or an amateur cipher. An interesting species to study, but not to seriously argue with.
I think you are right not to accept this invitation. Unless you can determine the conditions yourself. And only publish with the consent of the result.
Hmm, a reaction along the lines of 'she can invite me again when she has improved her life' is certainly not without some disdain.
I understand Herman's frustration, after 4 years of opposition and insults. Still, in my opinion, it would have been better to accept the invitation. It marks the 1st crack in the bastion of the MSM. "There is a crack in everything. That's were the light get's in".
A crack or a trap?
The way the MSM are now profiling themselves, it can only be a lure so that they can frame themselves again.
First transparency, then honest debates, then substantive corrections. Then they are allowed to explain how it could have gone so wrong and only then, if they still find it necessary, background reports and rehabilitation.
The critics don't want that at all, they don't do it for the fame. It's different with many TV personalities and writers.
They have completely painted themselves into the corner. At this stage, they might come to realize that they are a stain of shame, a black page in history. They have scheming, taunting and lying. They have allowed themselves to be deceived, to be swept up in totalitarian or at least megalomaniacal madness. While they are the ones who should be questioning the institutions! They still don't admit it.
Because they wanted to be the good citizens who do what the government says. In times of crisis, you have to be extra alert. They decided to collaborate, against the threatened civilian.
And then have an 'open conversation'? I wonder who's naïve enough to put their head on that chopping block.
Why not first do a background report on how it could have gone so wrong? What was it like in those newsrooms? What did they say to each other at the coffee machine? Why was all the sensible criticism with the columnists of De Telegraaf?
They don't need to understand those critics, they need to understand the matter!
Until then, I take any invitation to a critic as an attempt at character assassination.
You're just a bit naïve about this. Sorry to write that.
In this case, the MSM is not to be trusted. Even Keulemans has recently experienced this with Zembla. They will twist your words and leave things out or add them.
If you get the chance to review before publication, your comments don't matter, they just do it without permission.
The readers are money, the readers should be happy and the readers suffer from cognitive dissonance regarding government policy during corona time and the -non- effect of "vaccines".
I'm usually sidelined with my opinions. But recently, someone from the healthcare sector showed some interest: she had seen painkiller on Netflix and got some suspicion.
I myself was invited by the Volkskrant 30 years ago – all very decent, including the interview. Until it was published full of fabricated lies and a monstrosity of a headline and illustration.
You're right to decline Maarten's offer. And, yes, he's a nice guy in real life, but don't do it in this one.
They are still nicely described here, those journalists. To me, they remain spokespersons for a democide.
Offer 'from Maarten'...? And that has been carefully varnished! 😉
That tone....Can only be Maarten. And what about his attic room?
Someone who says he is nice in real life is all the more unbelievable and really dangerous. I've experienced a nice manager, charming and charismatic and... No empathy or a working conscience at all. The man bullied 4 of his 7 employees with his psychopathic tricks. All 4 needed a psychologist, counsellors and social workers to regain their confidence and recover from his psychological misdeeds. The other 3 employees have all been given a raise (golden cage) in order to be able to carry out his plans and sow discord. He was very skilled at twisting your words or redating events to your detriment. Just like the nice Maarten, the real truth doesn't stand a chance.
It is not surprising that this is a civil servant. The conditions within the civil service have been perfectly set up since 2000 for incompetent psychopaths. The motto is also that a manager doesn't have to know what it's about, after all, he just has to manage. That's what I was told by a top official (the one about those broken trains). Yes, in real life my manager was pretty nice too. His name was also Luc ifer.