‘As a science journalist he may have worked in the shadows in the past, but now he is in the full light’, the jury writes. What sets you apart from other journalists?
‘That de Volkskrant has a scientific editorial staff, suddenly turned out to be very important in this pandemic. We already had good contacts with scientists, I myself have been writing about viruses for twenty years and I am no longer afraid of complicated words in medical journals. I am thrilled to have been named Journalist of the Year, but only because de Volkskrant gives journalists the confidence and space to gain this kind of expertise.
‘The secret of the blacksmith is that I have written almost exclusively about corona for the last two years. That saves a lot of time: I’m good at it and I know who to call. But I also just sit late into the night reading the latest studies, though. From the moment it became clear how serious this virus outbreak was, I went into an adrenaline rush that I couldn’t really get out of. Also because I just like it, huh. These are special times, although they are taking a little longer than expected.’
You were also accused in the past two years: you would not be critical enough of established science, specifically the OMT and the RIVM. Is there something in that?
‘I do not think so. I am someone who is very critical, who checks everything, that was already the case before the corona crisis. One of the last pieces I wrote before the pandemic was an article in which I flared an RIVM study. It was about the blue light of the phone making it harder for you to fall asleep, but that conclusion turned out to be a big deal.
But broadly speaking, the established science has just been right about the coronavirus and how it behaves. I just made a reconstruction about the question: did we really have to go into lockdown in December, or did RIVM exaggerate omikron? For this I looked at which figures and studies were available at the time and I spoke to many people involved, sometimes off the recordincluding people who are very critical of RIVM.
‘In the end, I can really do nothing but conclude that based on the knowledge at the time, it was quite understandable that we went into lockdown, especially because the Netherlands started boosting late and the hospitals here were fuller than in neighboring countries. People will probably say again that I am in the pocket of the RIVM. I get tired of it sometimes.’
Is your role as a science journalist perhaps also different from that of the investigative journalist who sees it as his primary task to control power?
‘I really don’t see that big of a difference. My view is correct: science journalism is not science communication. I don’t simply pass on what scientists tell me, I try to calculate figures myself, check claims and ask the annoying questions. You say this, but this research says something different, right?
‘When I write something about RIVM or OMT, I always try to call a scientist who is not involved. The outside world sometimes thinks that science is a mess, but that is not the case: scientists all look at each other with a critical eye.’
Have you learned new things about your profession as a journalist in the last two years?
‘Once again I realized how important it is to stand next to people and write about their questions. We journalists sometimes have the tendency to say: the readers know this, we talked about that last month. But I notice that it is really appreciated if I explain things in a very accessible way. You cannot assume that everyone knows what antibodies are by now.’
The jury praises that you ‘don’t lock yourself in an ivory tower’ and start a conversation with everyone. You look up the discussion on Twitter and joined the coronasceptic discussion platform Cafe Weltschmerz. Why do you think this is important?
‘There is a lot of polarization, people attack each other in a high tone. I think it is important to answer the questions that arise. It helps that I can easily see through emotions: I’m not immediately offended when people call me a pharmaceutical whore or something like that. Recently someone was very annoying on Twitter, then I sent him a personal message and a nice conversation started.
He indicated that his life was in ruins due to the corona measures and that he feared that they would never disappear. I said that I understand his concerns, that I also have people in my immediate environment who are having a hard time. When he noticed I was taking him seriously, he turned around and changed his tone.
‘People’s concerns are too easily ignored, especially by politicians. You should not dismiss people who have doubts about vaccination as saboteurs of society. I think one of the best initiatives is the Rotterdam doctors who go on the market and talk to people with a migration background about their vaccination doubts.
‘Journalists often tend not to show the back of their tongue on Twitter: you have to be aloof. While you can show that you are human too on social media.’