Why a Vandaag's online editor became furious about mineral deficiency criticism
EenVandaag ignores major research from The Lancet in reports about mineral deficiency, leading to angry reactions from the editor and fierce discussion.
So I had the editor of EenVandaag on the line online. He clearly wanted to get his word out about my piece I had written about mineral deficiency and EenVandaag's coverage about this. He wasn't mad, he was furious. I had written “A fluke”! A term that the man repeated about 5 times.
You like my flute here. And yes, I criticized the part on the EenVandaag website. An article on the EenVandaag site written by a communication science intern, Nina Hagenberg. “How did I get it in my head to say that Nina's part was rattling? Such serious allegations!”
Well, because I might expect EenVandaag to include new large-scale scientific research in a piece about mineral deficiency in the world?
Could that be possible?
Too much to ask this time.
Normally, journalists rely on 'the science', but especially for this case a major study by The Lancet, left to the side. Oh yes, the editor also tweeted a few times that EenVandaaAG does not 'trivialize' the mineral shortage at all, as I wrote.
“We didn't say that at all!” he shouted.
The son on the other side of the house was now wondering who was on the phone.
But why, then, is the headline that “worries are not necessary at all?”
“Doesn't that fall under the heading of 'trivializing'?”
The definition of trivialize According to Van Dale, it is “presenting as a trivial”, which means that someone dismisses something as unimportant or makes it smaller than it actually is. This can also be described as talking about a serious topic as if it were unimportant, and is often associated with minimizing or underestimating the seriousness of a situation.
“The experts said that worries are not necessary! That's not what EenVandaag says at all!”
And then: “Our food is rich enough, as long as you choose the right things.”
So, according to the experts.
How those “right things come about on a scarce Earth?” Could that have been a good question? The intern and the editor didn't get that far in their questions.
The editor kept shouting and chanting about “experts”.
When asked how these experts are asked, the magic word came from journalism.
“Journalistic consideration.” The generic umbrella where everything disappears under.
The fuss ended with me starting to finish the list of questions.
If: WWhat is the scientific basis for the information you used in the article? Why was it decided not to include certain scientific reports or studies in the analysis? What is the fact-checking process when publishing health-related topics? And more questions like that. It only made the man more furious. The listening stage was now far past.
How did that man get so agitated on a normal weekday Tuesday at 2 p.m.? Or are those the normal manners in Hilversum? Four times I asked him what the purpose of the conversation was. I got no response.
He just “messed up” a few times. Are these the normal manners in Hilversum?
Oh yes, he got even angrier when I called EenVandaag “mainstream”. I still can't figure out what's wrong with that.
Is that similar to calling someone a Nazi or something?
What about that part of me? I just wrote “pieces to sell my stuff”!”
So that sat!
By the way, we only have “one stuff.” Something that used to be in the earth but no longer. like The Lancet shows clearly. You can buy my 'stuff' here, with a 100-day money-back guarantee.
