Tijs van den Brink certainly not at 1

At the beginning of last year I wrote an article about Tijs van den Brink, then in response to a "Middenweg conversation". It was a Zoom recording of an hour and a quarter, as Rogier Rumke regularly initiated and published on a.o. Facebook group De Corona Middenweg. The article was intended for those who had seen the video. I looked at it again in response to the last blog by Jan Bonte, St. Tijs the Hypocrite. Tijs van den Brink is roasted from top to bottom. It's hurtful, offensive, and has all sorts of risers that I'm trying to avoid myself. I don't want to make myself impossible or unapproachable. Not that I'm waiting for contact with people who serve me off, but to maybe let them keep in touch with the dissent a little longer. In addition, my tone quickly becomes false and vile, not fun. Let me give you an example. Jan understands the art of formulating hyperbole laughably absurdist.

I try strategically to stay within the lines so that the communication channels are not completely muted. But Jan actually expresses perfectly how I think about the media, journalism and other propaganda. Do you see why I shouldn't use words like that? I would just insult sex workers if I wanted to point out that they are systemic problems.

Jan focuses purely on Tijs. From the Middenweg conversation I get the impression that Tijs is trying to work with integrity. He is one of the deceivings, not a deceiver. I think that is a mitigating circumstance, although he can be blamed for everything. Media icons should be much more aware of their (mis)leading influence if they decide to work with one party. So Tijs, don't worry too much, you're not the only one.

No one is inclined to bite the hand with strong contradiction, feeding them. Unheard of the Netherlands does and you see what comes of it.

Some paraphrased quotes from the conversation:

1. "Reporting on corona as well as possible and having a social debate about it"
2. "Op1 also gave Maurice a stage."
3. "We report on what's going on in society."
4. "It's not up to us to take a stand and say it every night. That's not how journalism works."
5. "All kinds of other voices have also been discussed in de Volkskrant."
6. "You have to critically question RIVM and OMT."
7. "I wouldn't know why I would invite Maurice at this time. The Deventer murder case didn't do any good either."

1. That failed: the debate was stifled (see also the column by Leon de Winter). Where were (regular) appearances of Roger Vleugels, Jos de Laat, Theo Schetters, Eline van den Broek, Jan Bonte, Geert Vandenbossche, Ronald Meester, Mattias Desmet, Pierre Capel etc. etc.?
2. Maurice was never invited to Op1 again after his unwelcome performance. Nowhere in the established order.
3. Op1 showed no interest in what was going on in society, with the exception of the ICs.
4. Night after night, the OMT views were propagated, and not only at Op1. They even continued to work in satirical shows where it is now fashionable to poke fun at parts of the population instead of the authorities.
5. De Volkskrant functioned as a VWS newsletter. If there were any criticisms, it was in a single letter. Maarten Keulemans was not to be taken seriously, if there was any criticism at all, it was saltless.
6. The rivm and the omt have never been critically questioned. In Op1, OMT-ers had the role to assess whether what was said was correct, in the rare cases that there was a guest who thought differently than VWS, See also these WOB documents. It was never a scientific heavyweight.
7. Maurice de Hond is one of the best science publicists introduced in corona with a lot of knowledge in the sociographical and political field, in itself a reason to let him join regularly. The Deventer murder case is, firstly, an ad hominem argument ("he was wrong at the time so this will not be correct either") and secondly, the last word on that case has not yet been spoken. In the case of a review, which is now taking place, it could well turn out to be a miscarriage of justice. Then he gets right again. In that light, it's even stranger that he's never invited.

Below is the original article again (slightly edited).

I have thought about it again, that Corona Middenweg conversation of Rogier with Tijs (nice guy, very approachable, top guy) but as a 'journalist' he is unfortunately not worth a cut. But he's not a journalist. He is an interviewer, as far as I'm concerned one of the better talking heads, just as van Ranst is a good propagandist and Kuipers is a very useful director.

Even an 'interviewer', certainly a host of one of the most important national talk shows, must be aware of controversies that play out in society, and certainly when they have an impact as in this crisis period. In any case, if Tijs is only the 'talking head', let his editors feel addressed. A journalistic product like a talk show is supposed to bring and interpret news. Well, this news fact [aerosols, face masks, questionable measures], which De Telegraaf, RTL etc. are now working with, that has been on the table for more than a year. Op1 has missed a huge scoop for a year – and it's not the only scoop that has ended up under the carpet like this. Why!? Unclear.

Take also the data manipulation of covid figures, which deliberately presented the situation as more serious than they were [a gross violation of scientific integrity]. "We didn't know" is no excuse. Wybren van Haga was accused of 'disinformation' 10 months ago when he mentioned exactly this fact in the House of Representatives. It was open and exposed on the table, blogs were full of it.

Collectively ignored by the old-fashioned media. Tijs claims that the media has no agreements between themselves and he sketches a caricature of how it does NOT happen (sitting together and meeting etc.). However, the key persons were contacted at the beginning of the crisis by the RIVD or Min. v. VWS.

Tijs, of course, digs his grave when he shows that he has consciously followed the narrative 'because it was better given the situation'. After all, he did the same when fundamental rights went overboard, people were demonized and minorities were excluded. Discriminatory privileges were handed out. Even when there were thousands of unexplained deaths. You can't "not see" that or dismiss it as "battle of the scientists", can you?

No, this is called "BEING WRONG", Tijs, not in the war but before, before it. It's the way there.