De NRC was voor mij altijd een baken van kwaliteitsjournalistiek. Des te onthutsender is het als zo'n instituut woorden verdraait om het gelijk te halen. En helemaal als dat gebeurt in het katern "Wetenschap". Er is van alles af te dingen op het betreffende artikel maar ik beperk het even tot de intro:
In the article, Maurice de Hond is criticized for the statement that the coronavirus spreads exclusively via aerosols. That statement has never been proven, other possibilities of contamination have never been ruled out and there are all kinds of objections. In this way, NRC shows that what Maurice claims is not true, that he contradicts himself - in fact he should simply not be taken seriously. After all, there is all the evidence that the virus is not spread exclusively through aerosols.
He is judged on the use of the word 'exclusively'.
That is not a mistake on the part of the headline maker, see for example later in the article:
"Het advies van De Hond ophis websiteto use regular face masks [...] is contrary to his claim that transmission exclusively via aerosolen gaat. "
Deliberately incorrect quotation of M. de Hond in NRC [emphasis mine]
NRC places a screenshot from the offending video with the article smartexit.nu. It is understandable that they do not post the fragment in question as a video, because then you hear what is actually said:
Willfulness or misunderstanding?
What is going on in the media? I simply don't recognize the news sources that I always valued. Has the taboo culture in the Netherlands already taken such forms that we start joking to avoid the elephant in the room?
Could this taboo culture also be the reason why so few leading medical scientists have dared to take a stand? If even NRC covers this issue, I will be heartbroken. Whether we are prepared to listen critically to each other will have a huge impact on our society. Twisting words and deliberately misquoting does not fall under 'critical listening'. The stubborn confession of positions and the constant repetition of mantras is the greatest disaster that can happen to us.
General Confusion: Individual Self-Protection vs. managing outbreak risk
Wat de boel nog ingewikkelder maakt: de thema's 'individueel besmet worden' en 'het tegengaan van uitbraken' lopen altijd erg door elkaar. Dat gebeurt ook in de TV-pleidooien van Maurice de Hond, die vaak in een paar minuten zijn punt moet zien te maken. Hij doet daarbij boude uitspraken als "In de buitenlucht kan er niks gebeuren." Daarmee bedoelend: geen uitbraken, geen superspread events, geen plotselinge tweede golf - want daar gaat het allemaal om. NRC laat dat niet op zich zitten en countert met een angstgedreven kop:
Yes of course you can. Through mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, for example. The headline does not really cover the article because it contains more, including about indoor infections, the importance of ventilation, etc. But the trend is clear: NRC is no longer a beacon of objective journalism, it is a newspaper with an agenda and clickbait headlines are not avoided.
It is that I am a staunch opponent of conspiracy theories and dismissing news from the mainstream media. I understand it more and more.
