DENK’s films are notorious in The Hague. The party continued past images online in which they focus on MPs from other parties with an ethnic background. They were posted on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube if they voted against DENK’s wishes.
–
–
Threats
Examples include supporting a motion that recognizes the Armenian Genocide or a debate that is not rescheduled because of the Sugar Feast. The party also described the then GroenLinks MP Zihni Özdil in a film as hypocritical. A loaded term according to Özdil because for some religious followers of DENK that is worse than an unbeliever or an apostate.
Many MPs with an immigrant background became the target of threats and received hate mails. THINK repeatedly denied having intended that. Still, the almost entire Chamber was furious and, except for DENK, passed a motion condemning the practice of ‘choosing MPs because of their origin and to intimidate them through social media’.
Other parties
Making films has long been no longer the preserve of DENK or FvD. All parties in the House are doing it. From PVV to SP, to even the somewhat conservative SGP. All have employees who edit the ‘highlights’ from a debate into slick short films.
And although usually no questions and answers are glued together, as Forum did this week, the party leader or politician of course always has a star role. The videos are then posted on social media at lightning speed, after which they are eagerly retweeted by their own politicians, employees and sympathizers.
–
–
Ask special questions
It has also led to MPs asking each other questions during debates especially for their own videos. And that is starting to stand out. Such as with chairman of the House of Representatives Arib, who already felt it coming when Baudet asked CDA Member of Parliament Omtzigt questions about a completely different topic than was being discussed at that time. “Last time you attacked him unilaterally and made a video of it”, she told Baudet. “I’m not going to reward that.”
Nevertheless, Forum made a video. Without Arib’s specific phrase and Omtzigt’s original answer. The CDA MP is angry and put the FvD video and images of the original debate on Twitter with the text ‘Cutting like this is not ok’.
Fake news
Omtzigt tells RTL News: “Baudet cuts a question from him to a small part of an answer that I gave to Sjoerdsma. Filming is fine. Broadcasting the question-answer combinations that show you well, is logical. But he cuts everything up. each other. If others did that, he would no doubt call it fake news. “
Baudet responds to Omtzigt on Twitter by saying that it is indeed clear that the video was cut, but that it clearly shows what Omtzigt thinks of the EU. “No, the excerpt shows our debate and then closes (after clear visual transition effect!) With two statements that you yourself uttered less than 5 minutes later. It shows: Pieter Omtzigt is deeply committed to the EU.”
–
–
Limited effect of movies
Professor of communication Jan Kleinnijenhuis also sees the increase in the number of videos. He thinks it came over from America. “You see it there in the election campaign for the presidency. Donald Trump and Joe Biden both make a lot of use of it. That is mainly intended to put the other in a bad light.”
Nevertheless, he doubts whether the effect of the films is significant in the Netherlands. “Research shows that you do not reach that many voters with it, except for a very small part of the population, who are already politically interested. They are already very well informed. People do not go beyond their own filter bubble that much.”
What does work to reach people, according to the professor, is the use of influencers. “You saw that last week, with the action to no longer comply with the rules. That has a reach beyond the filter bubble. But due to the important role of the media in the Netherlands, untruths are corrected fairly quickly. You can see that now. also in the case of Baudet and Omtzigt. “
–
–
Frits Wester: ‘It’s really not possible to distort reality’
Political commentator Frits Wester: “If you use this kind of dubious method and it comes out, and it almost always does, it comes back like a boomerang in your own neck. Of course politics is not journalism, and journalism is not politics. But editing questions and answers in this way is a mortal sin in journalism. Summarizing fine, but distorting reality is really impossible. The own supporters of the parties concerned will not care much about it, but you put yourself in front of the rest of the world As a result, you are taken less and less seriously and you end up in political isolation. But maybe they will see that in turn when younique selling point. It just doesn’t get you anywhere. “
–
–
