Marc van Ranst, in Belgium 'flu commissioner' or state spokesman on health crises, gave a fun, at times hilarious presentation in 2019 about the communication around the swine flu. He tells an entertaining story that shows skill and a sense of communication.
It seems as if he came up with the name "Swine Flu" himself and was also the strategic mastermind. That may not be Putin's dasha, but for whom the WHO communication manual with a professional eye his story really doesn't contain any news. He just executed it nicely. Anyway, a presentation can also contain some juiciness, otherwise the audience will get the idea that they are looking at a civil servant's report.
Van Ranst is loosely on his feet. He clearly thought: 'it's been so long now, I can talk freely at this meeting'. So he wasn't at all prepared on the next flu wave, neither was he aware of the power of social media. Thanks to these two mistakes - he refers to both in his presentation - he gets more attention than he thought he was going to attract at the time.
Question asked by: Mattias Desmet
Mattias Desmet, professor of clinical psychology, shared the video recording of the presentation and asked his FB readers what they thought of it. I have been active in communication for almost 40 years and that profession is close to my heart. My answer became a bit long for a comment, hence a blog article.
This is the video with the presentation by Marc van Ranst:
From post by Mattias Desmet:
Dear all, the video below in which Professor Marc Van Ranst describes his communication strategy as flu commissioner...
Posted By Mattias Desmet onSaturday, November 28, 2020
The bold presentation explodes in his face
Everyone recognizes in the presentation what has recently happened (and is still happening) around the coronavirus.
A first problem is that it does not matter much to van Ranst whether the message is factually correct or not. The starting point is simply that it is correct. Every criminal finds his lawyer, every institution has its errand boy. Functions must be fulfilled. But yes, in recent history there are painful examples where the lack of a moral compass or own duty of investigation (of all involved but certainly of communication people) has been disastrous.
On the other hand, if van Ranst had not done it, there would have been another professional in his place, perhaps even more talented, with all the possible consequences that entails. so I'm actually not that anti-van Ranst. The systemic danger, on the other hand, is thick on top:
A ruler and a cooperative doctor is all a communications professional needs to overthrow a democracy.
Science and fundamental rights must give way to our own good
Van Ranst continued to perform his task properly in 2020, in accordance with the WHO communication manual. In his presentation he talks about "our message" and on the other hand it is "fake news", or everything that is not in line with his own message. As I said, this false contradiction fits the position of such an official. Scrutiny? That's what his clients have to do.
Regardless of the scientific content or factual support, he translates and spreads a message. It is unfortunate for him that his clients were the very sources that actually produced the fake news. I say that so firmly, because I do not know why I am not allowed to use the same certainty as he does; There is plenty of substantiation.
Who watches the watchmen?
But what is vital in an open society is that his message should be put through the wringer. First the mangle of journalism and then, if weighty things come out of it, by parliament. Journalists must look for underlying evidence, consult other, renowned scientists and test against existing social frameworks: civil rights, fundamental rights, medical standards, democratic validation, the right to bodily integrity, you name it. In the event of libel complaints, the court can offer a solution.
But no: the state virologists proclaim outdated mantras and journalists simply bleat them, as if they were on a subsidy drip from the public sector. When the virologists say that fear is the only thing that helps, journalists scare everyone. They lose all credibility, but that can be repaired. The collective memory is not so good, they know that too.
The few citizens who legally oppose this dangerous nonsense are systematically dismissed by the judges. The very last correction mechanism has also disappeared.
Learned nothing from serving up criticism
That wrecked system is what the discussion should be about, not messengers like Mr. van Ranst. However, I do think that the knowledge about the Swine Flu should have made Van Ranst a bit more alert.
Van Ranst complains about changing politicians, as a result of which acquired knowledge disappears again. At the same time, he himself is living proof that the retention of the same persons is no guarantee of progressive insight.
What he says about those books, which were easy to talk about afterwards, really doesn't hold true now. The substantiated criticism is now not retrospective, they are timely and scientifically substantiated responses based on currently available knowledge, which virologists and ('science') journalists can also have at their disposal. Just like Wodarg then and again now. But yes, they disrupt the message and are therefore automatically fake news.
Furthermore, there are still some small folds, but you cannot put such a presentation along a super tight yardstick:
- No budget, but a call center that can process 1,000 calls per day?
- A family that lets you spoil the holiday with your 'hobby'? Really, a "hobby", so selfless?
- No more mortality rates compared between Flanders and Wallonia and drawn conclusions about the necessity of your work?
Don't let the other van Ranstjes hear it, what that ruined holiday was actually good for.
Afterburners 7-12
[Edit 1: In the Netherlands we don't have such a 'spokesperson' who uncritically tries to create support for debatable policy. For us, that role is fulfilled by the quality media. I don't know which is worse.]
[Edit 2: A 'Flu Commissioner' takes a lot of fame and glory from the actual responsible. I do not know what the minister responsible is called in Belgium. In Belgium, people probably heard of Hugo the Younger. I've seen pictures of her once, I think, but not enough to tell by her shoes how vain she is.]
[Edit 3: I've come across the name "Sciensano" many times as a WHO branch, but who is a branch owner there – no idea. I knew the name Marc van Ranst very well, especially through some Flemish FB connections. People like to target him there. An ideal lightning rod, and that is also a well-known communication strategy. He does not mention van Ranst; It is also questionable whether he fully realizes this, with his "hobby".]
[Edit 4: In the above piece, Wodarg is mentioned. The link that fits well now is this later article about the side effect thrombosis after vaccination]
