Bas van den Putte, professor of health communication at the UvA: “A brave attempt, but the execution is amateurish. The pictures were simply not good. The graphics showed something different than what Ernst Kuipers said at the time. So that doesn’t work. What goes in the ear and in the eye should be the same. It wasn’t. The pictures were also too complicated, there was too much to see and they weren’t explained well. So as a viewer you go and see what it says and you don’t listen to the story anymore.”
What Van den Putte did think was good is that Ernst Kuipers and Mark Rutte were shown from a closer look. “That makes it easier for them to enter your living room. Rutte just looked down a lot. That doesn’t work well, so he had too little contact with his audience at home. Rutte said he understands the entrepreneurs and understands that they suck. But he read it aloud, then it will come in less sincerely than if you tell it by heart.”
–
–
Van den Putte found the directing work messy. “The figures kept changing in size and position, so the sign interpreter was not always clearly visible. I would say: then opt for subtitles. The first part of the press conference was much shorter. I thought that was good: twelve minutes. but that the content could be better. Why can some sectors only open and others not? Could you have explained that better, so show what the effects are if you open the catering industry, for example. Or what happens if you open everything. I would have liked that seen pictures. Now the pictures added nothing.”
–
–
Lars Duursma, communication expert: “I didn’t think it was very different, but what really struck me was that there was a different atmosphere. The interaction between the press and the two speakers was really different. You noticed more irritation and irritation with De Jonge. frustration between the questioners and the minister. That is because De Jonge wanted to know things better and was not good at admitting things. Now Ernst Kuipers is of course still new, but I really noticed that other interaction.”
How did the new minister do? “Kuipers mentioned his four children in a question about loneliness. That created a personal moment. I thought his six-minute kick-off was calm and professional, but he was better in the part afterwards where he answered questions from the press. still that he is less good at reciting texts and then it is also a text that was largely prepared by others. That was visibly less his thing.”
What Duursma missed very much was the explanation from the cabinet: how the assessment was made. “So: why can the shops open, but the cinemas not? And why will you be allowed to go to the hairdresser but not to the theater? You have to clearly indicate how you come to that decision. It did come, but only in the answers with journalists. That consideration has to do with the intensity and duration of the contacts, the cabinet should have made that decision more clear. People want to know that.”
–
–
Marieke van de Zilver, who visited almost all corona press conferences for RTL Nieuws: “The new back wall was the first thing that struck me. It always said: ‘Together we get corona under control.’ Now the website of the national government is on it. The icons on the lecterns of Rutte and Kuipers are also different. At Rutte the icons now show distance, air and mouth caps. And at Kuipers: testing, vaccination and washing. So two new icons: those face masks and vaccinations.”
What the political reporter also noticed was that the speeches were much shorter. “They were ready at eleven past seven. At previous press conferences, the speakers were often still busy at seven thirty. I think this is better. At a certain point, people stop listening and they no longer watch the question round. You can only absorb a limited amount of information.”
–
–
According to Van de Zilver, the short speeches ensured that decisions were less well explained. “The discussion prior to the press conference was mainly about why one sector can now open and another cannot. So why can we shop again tomorrow, but not to a restaurant? I missed an explanation in that consideration.”
She thought Kuipers did a good job. “He was calm and did not let himself be distracted. I had hoped more for a long-term story. Kuipers has already said several times that he will work on this. Of course, he has only just started, but now the perspective remained. what depends on the fact that they will come up with a new weigh-in moment on January 25 and that they hope that more can then be done. But it was not said what that decision depends on and on what basis decisions are made. would be included in that process.”
–
–
Maaike Ferf Jentink is deaf and watched the press conference through the sign language interpreter. “It has now become a sign postage stamp. I was no longer able to follow the interpreter properly because the stamp is much too small. The interpreter’s facial expression is also almost impossible to see and that is an important part of Dutch sign language. essential information is given, so the position of the interpreter in the setting is very important.”
As a result, Maaike was unable to get in touch with anyone who was talking. “My eyes should only focus on the interpreter. At the previous press conferences I could also see the prime minister when he was talking. This gave me a much better overall picture. That has now completely disappeared. In addition, it also requires much more effort to and that is of course not the intention of a press conference that is about a crisis situation.”
The images of Kuipers only came into view for a short time. “Because I have to look at the interpreter and at the pictures, I couldn’t follow that well.”
As far as she’s concerned, the interpreter should have just stood between Rutte and Kuipers. “Then the press conference would be much easier for me to follow. It is essential to choose the most optimal setting together with the deaf. I do not think it is an improvement at all and that is a pity for all deaf people and people who desperately need sign language.”
–
–
