Jeroen Pauw is being severely criticized by investigative journalist Kim van Keken. She finds it shocking how the presenter complained about Pieter Omtzigt in Op1 last night.
Pieter Omtzigt, who leads the polls with his party NSC, has no sense in hysterical TV debates full of sound bites. He wants ‘in-depth conversations’ and discussions with no more than two or three participants. “That seems a lot better to me than the campaign as a game show. If we look at who has the most witty one-liner, we won’t solve problems.”
A minute
And NPO mastodons Jeroen Pauw and Rick Nieman are not happy with that at all. They were in Op1 last night to monitor their trade and to reprimand Omtzigt. “Television simply has a number of rules and one of those rules is: it must also be a bit of fun and it must also be a bit exciting,” says Jeroen.
Rick agrees: “Debates are just part of it. If you cannot explain in one minute, because he gives that specific example, what your position is on a certain matter, then you should think again very carefully about what your position actually is. The nuances will come later. You can say whether you are for or against, right?
Zero reflection
Kim van Keken, the investigative journalist who made the news last year with a revealing article about questionable power constructions within the NPO, featuring Jeroen Pauw, thinks it is unprecedented. “Aha, the spin is that Omtzigt is not very good online and that is why he wants more time. So everyone at Op1. Including the presenters,” x’t them.
She continues: “And according to Nieman you should be able to tell everything in a minute. Pauw says that Wilders always has a good joke. And both have zero reflection on how they have stripped political debates for years. Nieman compliments Pauw (his former colleague) extensively. Actually, all the debates of the three are great. What an embarrassing display this is.”
‘Really disappointing’
The two were mainly busy congratulating each other, Kim sneers. “By the way, presenters Sven Kockelmann and Fidan Ekiz were really disappointing. Zero critical attitude. Ekiz himself said that Omtzigt would like more content because he is not good with one-liners.”
She continues: “By the way, these gentlemen are so arrogant. They know what the viewer wants to see, they claim. But even though they are figureheads of the NPO, they have not been able to stop the aversion to linear viewing. Then you would expect some modesty.”
Debate circus
Kim also points out Jeroen Pauw’s double role. “Op1 producer receives free airtime to promote his own debate formats (‘left or right’ and ‘prime minister’s debate Baudet/Rutte’). In the program that he produces himself on behalf of the public broadcaster. This producer simply has a huge business interest.”
These gentlemen need to be put on the spot by politicians in The Hague, says Kim. “After the embarrassing performance of Pauw and Nieman on their own program and broadcaster, I hope that all politicians say: ‘You know what? We will no longer participate in the circus of debates that these gentlemen glorify.”
pancake
According to Pauw, Omtzigt makes a caricature of TV debates. Kim: “Haha! Omtzigt makes a caricature of it, says the man who facilitated a kind of boxing match between Baudet and Rutte.”
She concludes: “And that argument: ‘newspapers already do interviews’? As a public broadcaster you have only one task: inform viewers well and thoroughly. Pancake. (…) I’ve said it before. This campaign is going to be terrible and it is not because of the politicians.”
Fragment
A fragment: