A great deal of attention is now being paid to someone who has not shown any sharp insights, original thoughts let alone analytical, critical reflections in recent years. While there was still sufficient reason. The scoops were there for the taking. But it's just not possible with our Tijs van den Brink, after all, he only presents. I must confess that I didn't expect much from his self-examination anyway, as well as could already be seen here and in March '23 again. What he suffers from really seems to be a mediagenic disorder, which is highly contagious given the range of every infected media individual. Real evaluation will have to come from abroad – but that's what the next post will be about. Let's start with Tijs.
On Radio1 I heard a debate between two climate alarmists who were squabbling over details. Like-minded minds who both don't know exactly how to proceed, that's called 'a debate' in Hilversum. In it, the following observation came up: 'we are all on the same planet' and I suddenly realized that I don't feel that way anymore. I really feel that I'm on a different planet than that clique in that Hilversum radio studio. On my planet, we make a mess of things just as well, but it's not nearly as dramatic and panicky as it is on theirs. As if two parallel universes are moving through each other or, conversely, our universe has started a fission process.
More and more I understand the statement 'the world is run by reptiles, I really believe that'. The statement is literally untrue -because of course I don't 'really' believe it- but such a statement as a whole can adequately reflect how you stand on something. In the old days, it would lead to curiosity in the good listener. After all, you are willing to defend such a proposition because it represents something important, so important that others should also see it, hence the hyperbole.
Moreover, it is a lot easier to talk if you refer to the cold, empathetic, anonymous, non-communicative, unblinkingly strangling and poisoning institutions and their cold-blooded spokespeople as reptiles. They really don't realize the suffering they are causing, that's how far it goes. See also Tijs – he really has no knowledge of what he has co-caused.
And why 'reptiles' in the first place? Everyone will have their own interpretation of this. I am thinking of giant dragons who inflict a fatal bite in the leg on a bovine and then watch quietly for days until they can eat the weakened animal at their leisure. Without an ounce of remorse.
Tijs van den Brink uses debates to come to terms with himself afterwards and immediately turns it into a format because he finds himself interesting enough for that. Apparently, there are no debates to better understand the reality of dissenters in the present moment, on an equal basis.
If there seems to be any light falling through a crack, then the door is kicked shut with an underlying ideology, belief or higher purpose that was more important. It can also be a delusion or a fear. Or, also often used as an argument: a belief of which they did not yet know whether it was important because no one could know that, but it could be so, because someone who is never checked (because he was trusted) suggested that. Hup, the flamethrower on it, is apparently the conscientious thought 'for their own good'. That's what trust does. I'm not going to put any energy into analyzing the logical errors – a lot of circular reasoning, I noticed that in the interview Flavio had with him (link at the bottom).
Would Tijs know anything about deprogramming people who have been in a cult for years out of full conviction where, thanks to their trust in the cult leader, they have been exploited, belittled and abused, without experiencing it themselves? And perhaps have enjoyed the honour of being assigned a role, of keeping others on their toes? These are the most grateful and therefore the most unruly members. You can't convert them in a few conversations. A new thorough brainwashing is needed against this.
Symptoms in colleagues
The media sect has more members. Pieter Klok, editor-in-chief of de Volkskrant, talked about his own blind spot on Radio1 yesterday. He teaches his editors that you should never give your own interpretation in the first paragraph of an article. First give the indisputable facts, only then the signature of the newspaper. These follow-up paragraphs provide the leeway in which you can recognize the DNA of the newspaper or the identity of a journalist. The facts, on the other hand, don't touch them. That, in a nutshell, is what he said.
He cited the situation in Gaza as an example. I thought to myself "... and the climate, and nuclear energy, and Corona, and Wilders..." These are all established facts that should not be tampered with. Speaking with one voice with the government, especially in times of crisis. Self-reflection...? Isn't that only necessary if it turns out that you have been wrong?
Klok doesn't understand that his own DNA is most expressive, what he not only accepts as facts, but also selects as newsworthy, embraces deeply and then propagates as The Truth. The starting points, the mantras that don't need to be examined, that's the real DNA. What matters most is in that first paragraph. Reflecting on that is the art.
Wouter van Noort (NRC) also made a contribution on Twitter in the 'wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst' (better: 'wir wissen es noch immer nicht') or mea-culpa-indulgence bag. Bart Maes' reaction was very close to my heart. (link also below)
So far. This is in response to a lot of consternation about very little, unless you relate it to the behavior of the Dutch media and not just to Tijs van den Brink, the poor guy who meant so well.
See the links below: the 'Letter to Tijs van den Brink' in indepen.nl with suggestions of what a real research tour could have looked like, the reaction of Bart Maes to the Tweet of Wouter van Noort, the interview of top interviewer Flavio Pasquino with presenter Tijs van den Brink and of course the reaction of Maurice de Hond, one of the mirror extras in the format of Tijs van de Brink. He opens up about what was cut out of the conversation for the final public screening.
I haven't seen the broadcasts of Tijs himself yet, that's in then "viewing figures -minus 1" for the NPO. This is how we contribute together.
The following contributions on this subject stood out for me. Tijs is now the head of Jut, but he should hold all his colleagues accountable.
Maurice de Hond about his conversation with Tijs, after watching the broadcast
Indepen gives suggestions about the topics that Thijs could have tackled, had he really been interested in something other than himself:
Top interviewer Flavio Pasquino in conversation with Tijs, presenter at the Public Broadcasting.
Lawyer Bart Maes responds to Wouter van Noort's lame mea culpate: