It is never smart to revisit your New Year’s resolutions, advice and reminders at the end of the year. Because why did the newspaper actually have to be “cautious” with frightening forecasts about Covid-19, as I recommended in March 2020? Only when the virus “is past its peak,” I claimed, would you be able to sharpen the rough outline of history.
Nice dream, ombudsman. Nearly two years later, there are long, windy lines in front of the test locations, the sound of trolley cases raises the fear of new variants coming to pay a contagious visit, and the caretaker cabinet in the barn is desperately looking for a hammer that has not yet been smashed flat.
In short. The gloom struck – briefly – partly because in my office hours, in addition to short, business-like questions, the well-known, broad corona issues also inevitably came by. Why was the newspaper not (even) more critical of the cabinet? Why was there no attention for ‘alternative’ approaches? An oppressive repetition of moves, without immediately wanting to mention that American film that MP Baudet, in addition to being a corona skeptic, of course, a Hollywood denier, had to be explained.
For journalism, this is an additional disadvantage of the pandemic: it is impossible to keep up with everything a newspaper writes about it. Subscribers are (fortunately) not robotic reading machines that store everything they see – and neither are journalists themselves, of course.
One subscriber to the consultation hour, for example, asked the interesting question whether there was enough attention for what corona is doing to the animal world. The Science chief promptly spooned a tub of longer and shorter, useful ones NRCarticles on exactly that subject—one of which, to be honest, I couldn’t remember myself either. So you see.
Criticism of the cabinet? The newspaper has been full of it, especially in the last few weeks Commentary, that Rutte III repeatedly accused of lack of vision. Although you expect a reprise of the large, factual investigation that NRC at the time to the first phase of the wavering policy.
What else did not come out of my wishes and advice? From the first wave I wrote a series of corona sections. About panicked headlines, about the troublesome work of reporters, correspondents and photographers, about the fantasies of moralists and futurologists, and about the two-world gulf between frightened alphas and ever-calm betas.
Let me run through them briefly and you can judge for yourself.
About the headlines I wrote that the newspaper had to be careful with forecasts that would only sow fear. But with a head like Countries must prepare for the worst, I would now think: say that! Although (because I also like to have the last word to myself), that superlative “aller” could still have been removed – with the maximum it is better to wait.
Situation now: Most headlines, as they were then, are businesslike and informative, not hyped up or sensational. I do share a related complaint from a reader, but it is separate from corona: why does it stay NRC using one “chewed up” type of headline “from the early days of clickbait” online? Namely, a heading that begins with a demonstrative pronoun. As: This book makes horrific revelations… about Dutch crimes in Bali. Or: This book about dealing with the Holocaust transcends all clichés… already a little sensitive head; ‘cliches’ about the holocaust?
Then the reporter’s job. That has certainly not gotten any easier, despite the periodic apparent normality after early relaxation. Two years with Zoom and Teams are making their mark, and it’s actually a wonder how NRC, and other newspapers, have continued to do what they did—and much more. Can also be said sometimes, isn’t it?
As for the philosophers and futurologists, they are still there, but the battlefield has shifted. Tile wisdom and castor oil recipes have been supplanted by a much tougher debate (which some philosophers preluded as early as 2020). Namely that about freedom and coercion, individual and community, state and society. Ideally a debate for NRC Handelsblad, a newspaper that puts the individual first but with an open eye for shared responsibility.
The Opinion editors rightly placed outspoken contributions against and for the urge to vaccinate, each time to the horror of the other party. That is a debate that needs to be conducted sharply. you better “very, very” careful with freedom (Maxim Februari). On the other hand: the Gulag is not around the corner from the test street.
Finally, I wrote about the gap between alphas and betas, or the lived reality and the scientific. Nice find, but now off the mark. The current controversies are fiercely political and social, the gamma-land of political scientists and behavioral scientists. Still in beta: I saw useful infographics elsewhere about the ratio between vaccinated and unvaccinated in hospitals. The New York times placed a dynamic map of Europe on which the infections can be followed. With complex stories, this helps readers enormously to get a quick and clear overview.
Also NRC has experience with innovative visual journalism, especially gained after the arrival of nrc.next in 2006. But my impression is that the paper newspaper can now go a step further (and not just with Covid stories). The last year is experimenting NRC creative and successful with the ear, but the eye of the reader also wants something.
Reactions: [email protected] Consultation hour every Monday
A version of this article also appeared in NRC Handelsblad on 4 December 2021
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of December 4, 2021
#Calmly #staying #work #years #corona #newspaper