COLLECTIVELY EMPATHIZING WITH THE ‘INNOCENT VICTIM’
Source: ANP FRAMING THE ASYLUM - S E E K I N G CHILD IN A CROSS - MED I A ENVIRONMENT
BRECHT VISSER
JUNE 28, 2019 | STUDENTNUMBER: 10571396 MA TELEVISION & CROSSMEDIA CULTURE | UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM SUPERVISOR: DRS. M.C.C.J. REESINK | SECOND READER: DR. J.A. TEURLINGS
Abstract The notion of framing plays a role in all forms of social interaction. Especially in a cross-media environment, the way reality is represented cannot be ignored. However, research mostly focus on the impact of framing and relatively little attention has been given to the display of frames in an ongoing debate. This thesis aims to demonstrate the ways in which personalizing the political issue ensures a shared discourse about the Children’s Pardon between various media organizations. The case studies on the online documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land and the subsequent interactive debate on television explain the repetition of one specific frame. While focusing on the empathy that is used to define the situation of several children that will be deported in the form of a frame analysis, I will describe this “victim frame”. Furthermore, by elaborating on the notion of celebrity politics and examining the political responses, I argue that the “victim frame” is reinforced over time, what makes it impossible to establish a conflicting frame in television that is not being refuted. By examining the role of (both online and broadcast) television in this debate, I clarify the concept of framing in the current media environment.
Keywords media frames, media agenda, frame analysis, agenda-setting, political issues, personalization, Children’s Pardon, immigrants, Terug Naar Je Eige Land
2 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 4
2. Theoretical Framework ...... 9 2.1 Agenda-setting and media logic in a digital era ...... 9 2.2 The context of framing ...... 11 2.3 Shared empathy to present political issues ...... 14 2.4 Framing immigrants and steering immigration policies...... 17
3. Analysis ...... 20 3.1 Children as innocent victims in Terug Naar Je Eige Land (BNNVARA 2018) ...... 23 3.1.1 Setting the tone: laughter vs. seriousness ...... 24 3.1.2 Defining the situation: personal problems vs. political issue ...... 27 3.1.3 The responsible parties appointed: confronting and mocking the politicians ...... 29 3.1.4 Situate the immigrants: multicultural and assimilation frame...... 32
3.2 Cross-media attention to the Children’s Pardon ...... 35 3.2.1 The interactive debate: compliant or conflicting to the documentary ...... 36 3.2.2 Celebrity politics: making the political issue personal ...... 40 3.2.3 Political responses: justifying the policies and statements ...... 44 3.2.4 The emotional approach: framing the political decisions ...... 47
4. Conclusion ...... 49
5. Discussion ...... 51
6. Bibliography ...... 52
7. Audiovisual Sources ...... 56
8. Appendix ...... 59 8.1 The interactive debate surrounding the Children’s Pardon on television ...... 59
3 1. Introduction
“In a few minutes they will shoot me, and I will die.” These are the words of the eight- year-old boy Nemr, when he explains what he thinks is going to happen when he arrives in Iraq after being deported from the Netherlands, his country of birth. Television presenter, Tim Hofman argues in the online documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land (BNNVARA, 2018) that children without a residence permit should not be deported after staying in the Netherlands for a period longer than five years. He refers to a policy that was introduced by the Dutch government in 2013. The so-called Children’s Pardon gives families with children the possibility to stay in the Netherlands when they have been living in this country for more than five years, but they only receive a residence permit when they meet certain conditions that are set by the government. The documentary claims that the policy is not working properly since it is difficult for many families to meet the predetermined conditions. Terug Naar Je Eige Land (transl. Back to Your Own Country) follows five children that are or will be deported to their (or their parents’) country of origin, even though they were born or grew up in the Netherlands. After releasing the online documentary, a petition was initiated by the makers of the documentary to raise awareness among politicians about the citizens’ dissatisfaction with the current Children’s Pardon. By producing the documentary, distributing it online and broadcasting it on national television, the public broadcaster BNNVARA did encourage the public debate. They also shared additional online videos and addressed the topic many times in their prominent talk shows De Wereld Draait Door (BNNVARA) and Pauw (BNNVARA) to reach a broader and more diverse audience, to spread their ideals and to ensure that the topic remains relevant. Consequently, the overall attention of other media organizations, politicians, experts and celebrities towards the documentary and the shortcomings of the Children’s Pardon was helpful in sharing the message and setting the political agenda. The online petition was signed over 250.000 times, which made it possible for the documentary makers to address the House of Representatives in person about this topic. Before this address could happen, one of the ruling parties changed their mind about deporting these children and, within three months after the release of the documentary, the ruling parties came to an agreement and decided to immediately end the policies surrounding the Children’s Pardon. The already existing cases, that were not eligible for the policy before, will be reconsidered again and because of temporarily (easier to follow)
4 rules, most of them will receive a residence permit. By changing the policies and spending more money, the government expects that in the future these families will not even have the ability to stay in the Netherlands for such a long period waiting for a decision about their deportation (Adriaanse and Rijlaarsdam). According to Roggeband and Vliegenthart, the public attention to migration issues increased significantly in the Netherlands after 9/11 (543). There are more discussions about welcoming immigrants and more often the negative impact of immigrants on Dutch society is part of these discussions. Nowadays there is frequent talk of a completely failed immigration policy in the Netherlands (524-525). This is not only discussed within the political sphere, but the media also try to explain these abstract political ideas to the public and provoke a public debate. Most of the time, the debate that is being initiated or addressed by the media consists of individual cases (e.g. Mauro 2011; Howick and Lili 2018; Hayarpi 2018). The documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land also depicts personal stories of only a few children to explain the political issue in a way that is easy to understand. Literally, a face is put on the abstract discussion. Later on, I will explain that the way media organizations like BNNVARA or RTL represent the political situation, affect the interpretation of the responding media and the public’s ideas around this topic (Haynes, Merolla and Karthick Ramakrishnan). In their turn the cross-media responses can have its influence as well. By framing the topic, only a certain point of view will be explained. It has been shown that politicians also intervene in the public debate and respond to the media’s attention. Consequently, the politics intervention in previous cases, that were highlighted by the media, have led to exceptions to the policies for only these children. Right now, in case of the Children’s Pardon and the extensive commotion about it in the media, a more general solution has been found, despite the presentation of several personal situations. How is it that this media attention seems to affect the political agenda? Furthermore, how is the media actually representing the political issue of migration in a multimedia environment and how do other media organizations or individuals react to that? In other words: this thesis examines the interactive role of television in informing the public and activating the politicians by framing the topic of immigration. While in current literature about agenda-setting and framing immigrants mainly empirical research has been done or the primary focus is on the impact of the framing, the central point of this research is the framing of the abstract political topic. In addition, the contemporary interaction between online and
5 broadcast television regarding this topic of immigration will also fill a research gap, since most researches have been focused on only traditional press media. The online documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land, the interviews in prominent television shows about the Children’s Pardon and additional online videos that are visible within the television shows as well, function as a case study for this research. I will approach the documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land and the media’s responses towards the debate in the form of a critical discourse analysis. By examining the way of talking about immigration, blaming the politicians and personalizing the abstract policy, I aim to explain the discourses that are being (re)presented in the documentary including their credibility. Like Rose mentions: “[A discourse analysis] can be used to explore how images construct specific views of the social world (…) [and discovers] how those specific views or accounts are constructed as real or truthful or natural through particular regimes of truth.” (192-193) To describe the discourses within the media texts, I aim to discover the frames that are presented. Although an analysis of frames can be achieved in several ways, Kitzinger mentions that in media studies a frame analysis can be seen as “another word for discourse analysis” (140). So, these techniques of a discourse analysis can also be used to identify the different frames promoted in the content and from now on I will use the notions of a discourse analysis and a frame analysis interchangeably. The dangerous part of conducting a frame analysis lies in the implicit character of frames. Sometimes frames are hard to recognize, since they can be constructed as natural or common sense, corresponding to what Rose already mentioned before. Important is to ‘think outside the box’ and reach beyond the dominant discourses to expose the frames within the media content (Kitzinger 151). In their turn, the responses of other media organizations to the documentary or to the presented topic consist of these self-constructed frames as well. Kitzinger marks that a frame is constructed out of the ‘organization and inter-relation of ideas’ (Kitzinger 148). Consequently, reactions upon reactions can intensify existing frames or create new ones. By looking at the way reality is presented, key participants are portrayed, problems are defined, responsible parties are identified and finally solutions are presented, it will be possible to investigate how events are turned into social issues (Kitzinger 156-158). To find out how media influences each other and might affect the public debate, I start this thesis by approaching relevant research about agenda-setting and media logic. Even though I am aware of the fact that agenda-setting research mostly includes empirical
6 approaches, this literature will still be relevant to provide background information about the role that media can play in a digital era, in a time when responding publicly to other representations is easier to access than ever. Consequently, the way in which certain topics are presented is of great importance in the public debate. By explaining the context of framing and using examples of conducted framing researches I aim to clarify the overall emergence of frames in multiple media contexts. This is useful in distinguishing several frames in media coverage, but it also shows how media tries to represent reality. To represent reality media frequently personalize political problems and use the involvement of celebrities to gain extra attention to the topic. When referring to applicable literature, I argue that these emotional representations in media create a shared empathy by continuously building on previous ideas in the form of an ‘ultimate flow’. The final section of the theoretical framework gives context to the current immigration frames that are already discovered by scholars. This section sets the ground for the subsequent analysis. To start the analysis, a frame analysis of the documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land will be conducted. To find out how the online documentary is situating themselves within the immigration debate, I mainly focus on the audiovisual aesthetics that are depicted. The combination of serious conversations and laughter provide the necessary accessibility towards the topic, but also makes sure the earnestness of the topic is being addressed. I argue that laughter could actually be a strategy to gain awareness about the topic. The documentary explains the situation surrounding the Children’s Pardon by letting personal problems interact with political ideas. This shows not only the importance, but also the shortcomings of personalizing the abstract topic of the Children’s Pardon. Finally, the appointment of politicians' responsibilities in the documentary and the recognition of specific frames are discussed to present the general idea that the documentary conveys. The second part of the analysis consists of the responses in television shows towards the documentary, online videos and social media regarding the Children’s Pardon. From now on I will refer to these responses as the interactive debate. By looking at the way the documentary’s message is represented, divided in compliant or conflicted towards the documentary, the analysis demonstrates at first that the previously created frames are often being continued in the responsive media. Also, celebrities are able to reinforce the unified thoughts on the Children’s Pardon and despite the politicians are trying to justify their conflicting ideas, they do not always seem to be taken seriously by the media. The frames used
7 in the audiovisual media ultimately confirm the shared vision towards the asylum-seeking children. Finally, I will conclude this thesis with the main argument that the personalization of the topic in the documentary ensures one dominant frame that returns in all responding media coverage. Especially the broadcast talk shows seem to be situated in a media bubble where it is impossible to establish a conflicting frame.
8 2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Agenda-setting and media logic in a digital era In the early sixties, political scientist Bernard Cohen noted that mass media “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (13). This thought has been further developed when communication scientists McCombs and Shaw came up with the concept of agenda-setting. They discovered a strong relationship between the emphasis on certain topics by the mass media and the publics’ interests in and concerns about these topics during the American presidential elections of 1968 (181). Agenda-setting became an important topic in communication studies and plenty of empirical researches were conducted on the effects of agenda-setting (e.g. McCombs and Shaw; Skogerbø et al.). The notion of public opinion, addressed by Walter Lippmann in the 1990s, had an impact on the scientific approach of agenda-setting. Public opinion is formed through the way the world outside is experienced and the pictures in our heads evolve, controlled by media. Since most parts of what is happening in the world is “out of reach, out of sight, out of mind”, everybody is experiencing most events second-handed (Lippmann 29). All concerns on the public agenda will be presented through a pseudo-environment constructed by media. The producers of media have the ability to structure a completely new reality around the topic they represent (McCombs 1-3). So, the way media present and consequently frame a certain topic is important in their influence on public opinion. Nowadays the role of new media cannot be ignored in agenda-setting anymore. New media change the perception of the reality, which in the mass media was explained as a uniform ‘window to the world’. Scholars prospected that the shift to new media would deleteriously affect the positive aspects of agenda-setting. Chaffee and Metzger (2001) predicted the end of mass communication and described some possible consequences for agenda-setting. While, in mass communication, the public received their information from only a few professional gatekeepers with similar journalistic news values, it is currently possible to access information from an innumerable number of sources which all contain different personal values and approaches to the topic. Also, new technologies enable the public to filter and personalize the news they receive. Algorithms even make sure that people completely miss out on certain (news) topics, so the public would not share the same issue of interest. It was prospected that
9 these multifarious ways of accessing topics would make a unified media agenda and one public opinion impossible and the effects of agenda-setting would decrease or even disappear accordingly (Chaffee and Metzger 375; Shaw and Hamm 225-226). However, more recent examples show the importance of new media in agenda-setting (E.g. Me-Too Movement). It turned out that new media actually stimulates togetherness and generates the tools to unify the public. McCombs refers to research that shows the overlapping media outlets in all different forms of both new and traditional media that have an outcome of “a high degree of consensus among the public about the major issues of the day” (20). The developments in new media do not fundamentally change the traditional understanding of agenda-setting, but they alter the way in which the media agenda is created (Skogerbø et al. 194). This leads to the question who actually sets the agenda of the media itself. The answer can be found in the intermedia agenda-setting. The news worthiness of events and topics is mostly validated by observing other journalists, copying their main stories and reflecting on their ideas (McCombs 130). When prominent newspapers or other media organizations approach a certain topic, it is likely that other media address the same topic as well, but when for example local media organizations or individuals approach the topic, it will be seen as less relevant. This expresses in a highly homogeneous agenda in mainstream media – from movies and social media to talk shows and newspapers. While most of the time the persistence of agenda-setting in new media has been acknowledged and it seems certain that new forms of media can determine the media agenda nowadays, scholars still disagree on the role of individuals in intermedia agenda-setting. On the one hand, people who normally do not get any attention in mass media, can find a stage in social media to present their ideas, influence others and gain power. This consequently shows that the public is able to tell the media what issues they want to think about instead of the other way around (Chaffee and Metzger 375). Also, the various sources in media can increase the diversity of voices, according to Paulussen and Harder. Their conducted research showed that newspaper journalists used social media primarily to present the voices of ‘ordinary citizens, celebrities and sports people’ instead of official institutions and experts (549). On the other hand, studies conclude that social media would essentially reinforce power of well-known opinion leaders and political elites (Karlsen; Meraz; Skogerbø et al.). Even though the public can sometimes have a leading role in agenda setting through new media, mainstream media organizations mostly just expand the existing homogeneous agenda themselves (McCombs
10 132). Additionally, political elites are often the ones who ‘still lead the dance’ by using social media platforms like Twitter to set the agenda (Skogerbø et al. 215). To explain the mass media’s role in society and its impact on social institutions and behaviour, Altheide and Snow developed the concept of media logic. They focused on an “underlying media logic that dominates our increasingly mediated (or mediatized) social order” (Altheide 119). In media logic the media formats (i.e. rules and codes for defining, selecting and presenting media content) affect the public debate. The effects go hand in hand with the notion of mediatisation, which shows the results of media influence on the aims, statutes, conducts and logics of societal institutions. Recently, in the digital era, media structures and technologies influence people’s daily lives constantly. People do not live with media anymore, but actually live in media (Deuze). Also, a shift from curated media to user-generated media appears. Now, not only the public but also politicians, celebrities and other parties, can generate their own content and share it directly with a broad audience online. This leads to the claim of scholars that, due to the ubiquity of internet and media platforms, users are now (to a certain extend) enabled to alter the media environment with their online deeds and actions (Thimm et al. 3). This consequently changes the way media logic works. Media is not only influencing one social context anymore, but different forms of media are creating various social contexts. However, while at first new media was seen as a democratic and open way to share content, the new media platforms are – just like mass media in the traditional form of media logic – shaping public opinion by filtering stories and adding more value to one topic than the other (Van Dijck and Poell 6). This section shows that media logic and agenda-setting still are of great importance in an environment where the interaction between traditional and new media is growing.
2.2 The context of framing The prominent role of media organizations in intermedia agenda-setting and their influences on society, emphasize the importance of the way in which reality is defined and understood. That explains why the concept of framing is entangled within agenda-setting. “While agenda- setting theory deals with the salience of issues, framing is concerned with the presentation of issues.” (De Vreese, 53) For example, the way a journalist interprets and represents the topic influences the public’s frame of reference, but also another journalists’ work. So, in this case the framing of the topic can subsequently boost or reduce the salience of the issue.
11 In 1974, Gofman was the first one extensively developing on the notion of framing. He used the concept for describing social interactions that make us “locate, perceive, identify and label” the situations and information that are encountered every day (Kitzinger 135). Later on, many scholars elaborated on this concept. Entman (52) looked at framing as a way to promote a “particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation” of the topic addressed and according to De Vreese framing “involves a communication source presenting and defining an issue” (51). He explains the practice of framing as a process. While elaborating on various studies focused on different types of frames and framing effects, De Vreese marks the three stages of framing: frame-building, frame- setting and the consequences of framing (51-52). During the process of frame-building the source depends on both the internal factors in journalism (e.g. editorial policies, news values) and the social factors outside the profession (e.g. cultural aspects), which lead to the formation of issue-specific and generic frames in reporting. Consequently, frame-setting includes the way individuals (could) interpret the media frames of issues and events. In these first two stages the intermedia agenda-setting is relevant again, since journalists could mirror the already existing frames. Finally, the consequences of framing are divided on the individual and societal level. The individual level explains the personal attitudes toward the topic based on the framing taking the persons behaviour into account and on the societal level frames can influence or motivate collective action or political decision-making (De Vreese 52). In addition to these stages, framing can be analysed in various ways that are all interlinked through the frames reliant on a deeply rooted culture. For starters, framing analysis can be conducted about the production of media coverage: what is the background of the sources, how do they operate and how does this affect the issue that is being told? Furthermore, the content within the framing can be analysed. This analysis will focus on the actual (re)presentation of the issue in traditional or new media, on the way the public reflects on the framed topics and on how the public possibly mirror these interpretations. Conclusively, following on the consequences of framing, the implications for audiences can be examined. Assumptions as well as empirical research can be conducted to present insights on the impact of the emerged frames on the public (Kitzinger 138). The process of framing a topic and framing research can be clarified by approaching several studies committed to illustrate the emergence of frames and its consequences in media coverage on climate change (Moernaut, Mast and Pauwels; Wiest, Raymond and Clawson).
12 Journalists are influenced in several ways, which determines the qualities of the frame presented in the journalists’ reporting and shows the process of frame-building at the same time. First of all, journalists have to fulfil their responsibilities in practicing ‘good journalism’ to meet the values of being fair, ethical, respectful and neutral in their reporting. In the case of climate change, journalists want to educate the public and raise awareness but they have to survive in a competitive market as well (Moernaut, Mast and Pauwels 1321). Besides these internal factors, social factors stimulate the framing as well. The interpretive approaches of journalists are based on debates including the positions of NGOs, scientists, politicians and activists. Both the internal and external factors influence the journalists, who mirror their personal positions in their coverage and consequently frame the notion of the topic. The next step, frame-setting, includes the reflections to the rendition of the topic. For example, media frames affect the interpretation and severity of climate change. Framing in a local context (e.g. more hurricanes) depicts concerns around the problem and on the other hand the framing of benefits (e.g. longer growing season, less heating costs) show the decrease of concerns (Wiest, Raymond and Clawson). Finally, the consequences of framing demonstrate the responding behaviour of individuals and society. In this previous example, the frames either positively or negatively shape the intentions to address climate change or support for governmental policy action (Wiest, Raymond and Clawson 195). As I briefly mentioned before, the frames that emerge during the process of frame- building differ from issue-specific frames to generic frames. While issue-specific frames can describe a specific problem, topic or event and reveal which aspects of that issue were selected and which were left out, a generic frame can be identified over time and in various societal contexts and offers a general understanding that is similar to other representations of issues in media (Kozman 780, 791; De Vreese 54). These forms of framing do not only explain how media represent the reality, but also highlight recent news values and emphasize the emergence of political power. Entman marks about this empowerment of media:
“Frames call attention to some aspects of reality while obscuring other elements, which might lead audiences to have different reactions. (…) Framing in this light plays a major role in the exertion of political power, and the frame in a news text is really the imprint of power it registers the identity of actors or interests that competed to dominate the text.” (55)
13
Besides providing information, media organizations can choose who they want to interview, what questions they are going to ask, what sentences they quote and the structure, words or pictures they use. This is only the beginning of an innumerable list that describes the ways that media (including journalists, but also television- and filmmakers and vloggers for example) influence the topics they represent and shape the stories they publish. Especially during a media hype, reporters tend to look for confirmation regarding the specific frame that is being presented, which concludes in a selective perception and reporting that reinforces the original frame (Vasterman, Yzermans and Dirkzwager 111). The notion of framing actually uncovers the radical assumption that it is not possible in any way to correctly present reality. In comparison to agenda-setting – as I quoted De Vreese about these differences before – framing does not focus on the extent or impact of media attention, but it focuses on the nature and qualities of the attention (Kitzinger 137).
2.3 Shared empathy to present political issues Curtin (13) explains television these days as a ‘matrix medium’ referring to its flexible and dynamic way of communicating. He marks that the traditional media conglomerates are still influencing and shaping the media landscape, but they are not able to reach the mass audience through simply broadcasting at one particular time scheme anymore. They need to embrace the importance of the interactivity between distinctive forms of media and create “a field of paths and possibilities for multiple users” to reach an extensive audience (Curtin 13). Caldwell focuses on the forms of the programming strategies in traditional and digital media. In the emerging days of digital media, new practices were seen as radically dissimilar to the practices of traditional media. However, according to Caldwell, traditional media’s programming is actually employed and modified for the production of media in the digital era. “From interface and software design to merchandizing and branding campaigns”, it has all been derived from previous strategies, what makes the old and new media a convergent industry (132). One of these strategies concerns Raymond Williams’ notion of flow. While the original flow of shows following each other fluently in traditional television was being fragmented by for example the remote-control, VHS, DVD and more recently the Internet, the new form of flow will be marked by the interaction of multiple media platforms. Newcomb and Hirsch (567) argue that when similar topics are addressed within different genres a new form of discussion will arise. The
14 choices of the television producers to express political issues in a certain way, will affect the text of the ‘ultimate flow’. By looking at this flow – explained by Newcomb and Hirsch as a ‘viewing strip’ – the public is able to explore the shared meaning of the television text instead of seeing only one explanation of the topic in a specific television program. According to Vasterman, Yzermans and Dirkzwager the shared meaning between texts is not being created accidentally. They argue that through selective reporting the frame is being repeated and a broader narrative structure appears. By marking the flow as a ‘news wave’ the role of intermedia agenda-setting in distributing the frame is visible:
“A news wave is created by these intensive news-making activities of the media and are then reinforced again and again by extensive coverage of the social actors’ reactions, responding to the massive media attention to a topic. Once a topic gains a certain level of attention in the media, it attracts more attention, and, because it attracts more attention, it becomes more newsworthy.” (111)
To find out how the political issues are depicted in both traditional and new media, it is important to focus on the way empathic relationships between the topic and the audience develop. Caldwell (141-43) states that the interactivity between the various ways of accessing content online and through traditional media is based on an emotional flow in which expressing core values are more important than providing information. So, the aesthetics are being used to reaggregate flows and disperse texts in the digital era. Höijer argues that “the compassion that the audience expresses is often directly related to the documentary pictures they have seen on television” (520). The publics’ interpretation of these, especially emotional, pictures make us empathize with the represented situation and the public intends to see this representation as a direct access to reality. Most of the time this compassion increases when the images present the characteristics of an ‘ideal victim’. This includes the depiction of women, elderly and especially children in a poignant situation:
“A child is, however, the most ideal victim in the perspective of compassion. When a child shows his/her feelings by crying or looking sad, we may feel pity both through our own memory of being open and vulnerable to the treachery of adulthood, and in terms of our adult identity – our desire to protect the child. When the child stares into
15 the photographer’s camera she or he may be perceived as looking directly at you as an audience, reminding you of her or his vulnerability and innocence.” (Höijer 522)
The subsequent emotional state can, according to Höijer, be divided in four forms of compassion: (1) tender-hearted compassion focuses on the suffering of the victim; (2) blame- filled compassion contains the suffering of the victim in combination with resentment and anger; (3) shame-filled compassion expresses the publics’ guilt about their own comfortable lives, which creates the moral obligation to help others and (4) powerlessness-filled compassion shows awareness about the limits to actually provide the help someone needs (522-523). In Höijers’ article, these forms can be understood as the publics’ response to media framing, but they are also visible within the media coverage itself. That means that forms of compassion can be depicted in the frames as well. So, the emotional media coverage is continuously influencing the public, other journalists and politicians, but also contains the dual ability to deploy emotion as part of political propaganda strategies. To challenge the dominant and emotional messages of the politicians, television makers are using aesthetic modalities themselves to pay attention to the credibility of these original messages (Warner 18-19). This “political culture jamming” is functioning as a strategy to doubt the already existing discourses and create new political insights, not by being completely neutral or show abstract statistics, but through the creation of alternative emotional laden images that make us realize the actual emotional political context the public is dealing with (32-33). Another strategy in which the emotion in individual media products and ultimate media flows are visible, is the celebrity’s involvement in media items about politics. Celebrities can offer an effective way to break with the political agenda and create or encourage a public discourse about political issues (‘t Hart and Tindall 260). When they are actively committed to a particular case, they even can act as public leaders. In contrast to politicians, they can just focus on one goal of personal interest, instead of representing and answering a diverse group or voters. Most important in this form of celebrity politics is that celebrities can use their fame “to orchestrate intense media coverage, evoke public emotion, and thus mobilize large numbers of people.” (263-64) Their books and documentaries, for example, are only impactful due to the public attention attracted by the celebrity. If the same content was to be produced by an unknown individual, it would most likely be overlooked by the public. However, to be successful in reaching their goal, ‘t Hart and Tindall argue, celebrities need to gain
16 trustworthiness and should step up for the ‘right reasons’ (the greater good instead of self- regard) (264). Celebrity activism can be divided into in three forms: staging symbolic dramas to make the situation visible, face-to-face lobbying of the ones who are responsible and taking direct action. Celebrities are consequently able to educate society about political issues that otherwise could be seen as irrelevant (271-72). Larabee adds the role of new media in celebrity politics. It will be easier to share the day-to-day life of celebrities which generates intimacy and a more direct connection between the fans and the celebrity. This automatically attaches the public emotionally to the political case the celebrity is committed to. Media organizations can eventually use this empathetic relationship with the audience to get their message across powerfully.
2.4 Framing immigrants and steering immigration policies The portrayal of immigrants in media coverage is a frequently discussed topic in case studies that focus on framing. Research showed that immigration and integration debates include a variety of issue-specific frames (Bos et al. 99). In these frames, asylum seekers and minority groups are presented either as innocent victims, whose only option is to come here, or as threats to the host society. The victim and intruder frames are further explained by Van Gorp in his essay on Belgium press coverage of the asylum issue. By portraying asylum seekers as “being in a situation that is due to a force that lies beyond their own actions and responsibility”, awareness is raised about this people’s need of help and policies should act accordingly. Conversely, by portraying them as “a threat to one’s own cultural and economic achievements” and treat them as suspects or even criminals, the political discourses will discourage people from seeking asylum or root for deporting them. (Van Gorp 489) Besides this contradiction in media coverage on immigrants, scholars address and named six other types of frames that are employed in media to present the topic of immigration. Broadly, they can be classified in the victim or intruder frame as well, but these frames also show more detailed approaches. I describe the frames in descending order of tolerance towards immigrants and their culture. The (1) multicultural frame contains respect for cultural diversity and directs to more latitude for differences in society. Consequently, in the (2) emancipation frame the views and orientation of immigrants are problematized. Immigrants should actively work on their own emancipation process supported by
17 governmental policies. The (3) assimilation frame was added after events like 9/11 and the assassination of the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn and can be seen as a counterpart of the multicultural frame. Immigrants are blamed for not integrating (fast enough) in the country they live in and this frame includes the idea that ethnic minorities should actively adopt the norms and values of the major society. The (4) restriction frame marks that the entrance of immigrants is a problematic issue. In this frame the news coverage is in favour of restrictions to these new immigrants. Further on, the (5) victimization frame explains the fate of immigrants (especially woman) as victims of a dominant and misogynous culture. The final (6) Islam as a threat frame deals with the primary vision that the Islam culture and religion on its own is seen as a disastrous problem. (Bos et al. 99; Entzinger 129-30; Vliegenthart 37-38) According to Bos et al., the assimilation frame is currently being considered as the most salient in policy framing (99). Even though more research is required to reach a definitive conclusion, the authors of this article hypothesize that media coverage will mainly focus on the way minorities adapt to the norms and values of their host country. Haynes, Merolla and Karthick Ramakrishnan argue that, consequently, public opinion is slowly adjusting to the presented frames. Media are able to present new information about the immigration policies, can prime the issue which affect the publics’ beliefs and feelings and finally consider certain topics or point of views as more relevant than others (30). These optional qualities of framing relate to the considerations of an individual while forming a personal opinion. So, media framing influences the individuals’ opinion, especially when there is not a stable and uniform understanding of the topic yet. At this moment public attitudes towards immigration and asylum seekers can be defined as inconsistent and unstable perceptions, which consequently might empower the media to steer public opinion while presenting a unified approach in their framing. Besides the quantitative measures of attention towards a policy, also the issue-specific framing is important to create an interaction between the public and the controversies in solution surrounding that issue (Dekker and Scholten 204). Resulting from their qualitive comparative analysis of media effects on Dutch immigration policies, Dekker and Scholten mark that the agenda-setting of policies is strongly related to the dominant issue-specific frame that is challenging the current policies. Also, by emphasizing on one specific event or individual cases in the immigration policies, “media framing can portray government policies as being impersonal and morally unjust” (Dekker and Scholten 216-217). This creates a situation in
18 which a clear distinction is made between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’. The immigrant, in this case the victim, is being depicted as the ‘good’ one who is challenging the ‘bad’ policy makers by personifying and dramatizing the current situation regarding the immigration policies in the media. Through the presentation of a personal strong moral, the abstract topic is addressed from one point of view and explained as the right way to handle the situation. Finally, when a high level of disagreement exists in the immigration policies, media can ‘host’ the negotiation between the separate frames, actors and policy controversies (217). The practice of political culture jamming – using aesthetics to gain attention to the contradictions in political policies – is an example of how media contributes to the negotiation. Media can not only support certain policies, but they can doubt the policy makers, reject the existing policies and present new solutions.
19 3. Analysis Over the past decade legal rights for children to stay in the Netherlands after spending (most of) their lives there have been discussed frequently in both media and politics. Several individual cases, highlighted in the media, have led to a public debate on asylum policies in the Netherlands and accordingly political adjustments of these policies were made (e.g. Mauro; Howick and Lilli). It will be difficult to determine what the actual causal relationship is between the way the topic is being addressed in media and the legislative changes implemented by the government. Even though the straightforward opinions of journalists, activists and citizens are pressuring the politicians, the essential part of this complete process of framing lies in the way the topic is addressed and how these opinions are created and depicted. That is why, in this research, I will not focus on the question where frames come from by conducting a production analysis or explaining causal impact of the media coverage on the Children’s Pardon. Rather, I will analyze the audiovisual content to show how media coverage about this topic is created through the interaction of multiple media forms and how the topic of immigration is being framed. Kitzinger explains frames as ways to organize reality and accordingly, to understand the world. Since it is impossible to present reality exactly as it is, it is important in media studies to focus on how the reality is represented and which aesthetics are used for that (Kitzinger 157). First of all, I will analyze the online documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land that was released in November 2018 by the public broadcaster BNNVARA. As I mentioned before, in media studies a discourse analysis and a frame analysis can be used interchangeably, which shows the qualitative approach of the thesis. In line with the key questions that Kitzinger describes about this method (“How is the problem defined? How are key players portrayed? Who is presented as responsible? What solutions are proposed?” (157)), I will mainly focus on the questions below to find out how the topic of immigration is being framed. How are the children depicted? How is the public being addressed? How are those responsible assigned? How are emotions portrayed/responded to? Which persons (including their expertise and point of view in the debate) are interviewed and are their ideas encouraged or refuted?
20 How are statistics and political subjects presented? What verbal and visual descriptions are used to explain the issue? The documentary brought the shortcomings of the current immigration policies to the publics’ attention and encourages the public to actively pressure the politicians to come up with a long- term solution. The public broadcaster BNNVARA took a specific position in the public debate by starting a campaign to let the children stay. The topic was not only addressed by the documentary, but also in their talk shows and through their online television channels. Consequently, other media organizations (both public and commercial broadcasters) joined the debate and reflected in their television shows on the documentary itself and on the commotion surrounding the Children’s Pardon. I address the interactive debate in television shows in the second part of the analysis to find out what frames are overlapping or diverging. To analyze (a part of) the interactive debate, I focus on all talk shows and current affair programs of the national television networks in the Netherlands – both online shows and broadcast television – that referred to either the documentary or the Children’s Pardon itself the period from the documentary’s release (November 1, 2018) to a few days after the government’s decision to alter the policy (January 29, 2019). By checking the online database of each individual television program in this particular genre to collect video excerpts related to the topic in the specified period, I came to a list of ten television shows that paid attention to the topic in at least one of their episodes from which I analyze the studio conversations and additional videos that are depicted within the television shows (see the appendix for a complete overview of the episodes concerning the Children’s Pardon). I specifically opted for talk shows and television shows in the current affair genre (rather than news television) since they enable guests to share their expertise or opinions. According to Tolson, talk shows “matter because they are a focus for considerable public debate and because they are crucial to the landscape of popular television” (3). Also, the shows often refer to compound responses presented through multiple media platforms. In this way, they depict the interactive debate and since they are able to choose what content they want to refer to, they unavoidably (re)frame the topic they represent themselves. Consequently, in the second chapter of the analysis, I do not only take into account the aforementioned questions, but I will also cover the following questions to reveal the cues that lead to identifying frames. What parts of the documentary or debate are repeated and what is left out?
21 Which responses are mentioned in reference to other media (newspapers, online video’s) and how are these responses analysed? Which guests are invited to share their opinion and are their ideas encouraged or refuted? How are celebrities participating in the debate? How do the politicians respond publicly towards the debate? How do the media organizations respond to the events surrounding the debate? How do the media organizations stimulate the occurrence these events themselves?
22 3.1 Children as innocent victims in Terug Naar Je Eige Land (BNNVARA 2018) The online documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land (translation: Back to Your Own Country) is part of BNNVARA’s first online television series #BOOS. In this show, television presenter Tim Hofman exposes social grievances by giving ‘ordinary’ people a voice. Through the presentation of personal narratives, the more structural social and political issues around the topic is addressed with the intention to trigger the public debate and find an overall solution for the issue. In terms of distribution, the show is rather similar to vlogs. Every week a new episode is released on the YouTube channel of #BOOS, the duration of each episode is around fifteen minutes and the viewers are encouraged to share their opinion in a comment beneath the YouTube video. The show is characterized by its humorous animations and sound effects to explain the situation. The deliberately misuse of the Dutch language during the entire show and in their social media content does not make the show seem serious at first sight. However, the series actually tries to activate the public, which is in accordance with the rules set by the public broadcaster’s aims and missions to accomplish a free, curious and social society (Mission and Identity, BNNVARA). In 2018, two years after releasing the first episode of #BOOS, the makers of the series decided to make a documentary about a subject that, according to them, was too important to neglect: The Children’s Pardon. Even though the topic was extensively addressed in the media in the years prior to the documentary, BNNVARA wants to pressure the government to come up with a long-term solution for the problem that before only was solved for the one or two children that were depicted in the media and whose stories were emphasized (Tienhooven). The public broadcaster is therefore aware of the effect of personalizing a social problem and ultimately wants to achieve the opposite. With the slogan “for a Children’s Pardon that actually works” they want to reach a completely new organized policy, instead of debating about the residence permit for only a few children and making specific exceptions to the current policy. Terug Naar Je Eige Land follows Hofman while he is visiting three families who are not eligible for the Children’s Pardon and, therefore, cannot stay in the Netherlands for much longer or families that have been deported already. Throughout the documentary the children are depicted as innocent victims causing that the portrayal of the political issue is dominated by the aesthetics that express different emotions (i.e. sadness, disbelief, anger and most of time laughter). In the analysis I will focus on the aesthetics – specifically the aesthetics of words and images – used in the documentary to inform the public about the political issue and to urge
23 the political leaders to take responsibility. First, by analyzing how the differences between joking around and serious conversations are depicted, I aim to show the tone of the documentary and their strategy to gain an empathic relationship with the public. Secondly, this empathic relationship visible as well in the way of addressing the situation in its entirety, as a political issue, or focusing on the personal problems of only a few depicted children is explained. Thirdly, blaming governmental organizations and holding them responsible leads to the idea that the problem is easy to solve, if they would care more for the children. Finally, in the last part of the analysis of the documentary I intend to show what frames are used by BNNVARA to organize and represent their interpretation of reality.
3.1.1 Setting the tone: laughter vs. seriousness Like the episodes of #BOOS, the documentary is characterized by cheerful sounds, comical animations and the frequent use of street slang. This slang is immediately visible in the title of the documentary. By misspelling the word ‘eigen’ (translation: own) on purpose, the ‘popular’ tone of the documentary is set. On the other hand, the title can also refer to low educated people with an anti-immigrant attitude who sometimes pronounce ‘eigen’ as ‘eige’. As presenter Tim Hofman explains in the documentary: “Like adults on Facebook, who are member of a Facebook-group about picking up secondhand stuff for free, will say: Back to your own country.” This immediately shows the ambiguity of the images and statements throughout the documentary. Due to the jokes of the presenter and the fun aesthetics it does not look like a serious narrative at first sight, but this style is actually being used to make the laden topic accessible for discussion. Also, the free relationship between Hofman and the children contributes to this. He approaches the children directly and makes sure every topic, even the ones that normally are seen as uncomfortable to talk about, is being addressed. The style of portraying the children is, for example, visible when they tell the presenter about their poignant living situation, ironic words like ‘lit’ or ‘sounds nice’ pop up on the screen or the presenter makes a joke about looking forward to say goodbye to their friends again or about wearing the same underwear for over a week after being deported. These comments actually emphasize the fact that their situation is not ‘lit’, ‘nice’ or something to look forward to and it actually is an issue that needs to be resolved. This contradiction between trying to be popular and funny and, at the same time, emphasizing a serious matter often recurs throughout the documentary. According to Bergson, laughter is not just an emotion, but it can
24 be understood as a social gesture with ‘a utilitarian aim of general improvement’ (17). Laughter actually allows us to draw attention to the mechanisms of our habits and automatisms. Most of the time people are not paying attention to the social constructions around them, that is why they do not always realize that they automatically response in a certain way to certain images or events. Laughing about something makes us aware of the construction of the situation. Warner agrees while noting: “If we can laugh at it, we can examine it, evaluate it, even critique it. Laughter has the power to disrupt any analytical paralysis engendered by fear.” (33) In the documentary, statements and political views of the governmental parties are refuted and mocked in the edited animations while explaining the complexity and ambiguity of the current policies. The documentary actually tries to disrupt the view presented by politicians through “fighting the dominant emotion-laden images with alternative emotion-laden images” (Warner 32). Laughter, as result of these images, makes the public realize that their personal interpretations are constructed by the framing of politicians and other parties of interest. This form of ‘political culture jamming’ occurs in the scene where the recent debates regarding the Children’s Pardon are being discussed and during the animation which explains the reason why Nemr, one of the children in the documentary, needs to go back to Iraq. While referring to the governments website which is stating that it is not safe in Iraq at all (image 1 and 2) and through showing the ambiguity of the statements of politicians (image 3 and 4), the documentary arouses mistrust and doubt about the complete policy and the already existing discourses in the immigration debate. Due to the presenters personal disbelieve about the situation (image 5 and 6), it becomes clear that the children will be deported for illegitimate reasons.
Image 1: Nemr is showing the website of the government about Image 2: Nemr depicted in an ‘unsafe’ Iraq the safety in Iraq
25 Image 3: Hofman explaining the contradictions of the Image 4: Hofman explaining the contradictions of the government in the Children’s Pardon government in the Children’s Pardon
Image 5: Hofmans respons to the controversial statements of the Image 6: Hofmans disbelief about the choices of the government Prime Minister
One of the conversations between Nemr and presenter Tim Hofman clarifies that laughing about everything is not the only solution. When Nemr mentions that Hofman is making too many jokes, Hofman first answers: “That’s a good thing, right?”, but they finally agree that, besides the jokes, it is important to have serious conversations as well. This more serious approach of the topic is marked through the more tense music and the poignant images of the children, that create an empathic relationship between the public and the children (Höijer). In this case, the children are presented as victims of a deficient system and negligent policies. When Hofman asks Nemr what he thinks is going to happen after he gets deported to Iraq, his parents’ country of origin, the music intensifies and starts building suspense. Nemr replies that he expects to die within a few minutes after arriving in Iraq and, at that moment, all the background sound abruptly stops to create an extra shocking effect. The children of the family Andropov, who already are deported to Ukraine, and the ex-cancer patient Kingsley are also depicted as innocent victims. By focusing on their anxiety problems, medical situations and the desolated environment they live in now, the issues the children encounter are presented as serious and also unbearable issues. Finally, even a scientist is explaining the importance of keeping these children in a safe and familiar environment, which will highlight the earnestness of the situation.
26 The interchange of laughter and seriousness, make sure that the jokes are illustrated through a more serious explanation of the situation, but it also works the other way around. The serious conversations and complicated explanations are being simplified through an original and funny approach. The multiple perspectives constantly emphasize the great urgency to find a solution for these children.
3.1.2 Defining the situation: personal problems vs. political issue The documentary approaches the topic by discussing both personal problems and larger political issues. Overall, these problems and issues are visible in interviews with the children and their families, explanatory animations and a direct address from the presenter in a studio setting. As I mentioned before, the filmmakers seem to be aware of the consequences of approaching only personal problems instead of the more structural political issue behind the personal situation. In the documentary, Hofman repeats once again that it is not ideal to use specific personal stories in order to let these children stay in the Netherlands. With this comment, he is responding to one of the political leaders that mark that children, like Nemr, should not be the victim of all the attention that the media is seeking for him. While Hofman understands the politician’s reasoning, his argument is that Nemr has no other choice. When the government is not helping these children, their “last hope” is the media’s attention. In a studio setting, Hofman explains that previous cases proved that media indeed can influence political policies. The documentary’s overall aim is that politicians come up with adapted policies, to make sure that not only the children that are depicted in the documentary can stay, but also the (at least) four hundred children in the Netherlands who have to leave the country as well. However, the main focus is on the three families whose stories are presented. By concentrating on individual cases, like the physical and mental disabilities of the portrayed children or the circumstances in their countries of origin, the documentary shows how the current Children’s Pardon specifically impacts these children. One by one, the children are depicted as the ‘ideal victim’ and the presenter’s compassion is showed. Hofman emphasizes his empathy and indignation during the interviews with the children and together with the aesthetics visible during the children’s answers, the compassion will be transferred to the public. Höijer marked that seeing a kid cry or looking sad, it makes us feel pity since everyone experienced the innocence of being a kid ourselves and adulthood gives us the natural desire to protect children in need. A direct address will even reinforce this effect (522).
27 In the documentary, the children are depicted several times while looking directly into the camera, their sad faces or, indeed, their innocent laughter are capable of generating compassion (image 7 and 8). During these scenes there seems to be no attention for the underlying political situation.
Image 7: Kingsley Image 8: Dennis
Nevertheless, several times the documentary tries to zoom out and explain the more abstract problem behind these specific stories. In these animations or explanations by the presenter in a studio setting, the role of the government and the media are being discussed. For example, without involving the stories of the three families, there is more general attention for the origin of the Children’s Pardon, for the regulations surrounding the lawsuits and for the current debate in media and politics. However, Kitzinger argues that facts do not speak for themselves. It is about the way they are presented and described within the context (149). Highlighting certain points and leaving out others, is framing the situation and might influence the interpretation of it. By setting up a role play, the presenter explains the biggest shortcoming of the current Children’s Pardon, the cooperation criterion, in an interactive way. The topic is being addressed by replacing getting a residence permit with getting a lollipop (image 9). The only way to get a lollipop (receive a residence permit) is to sign a form that says: “I don’t want a lollipop.” (agree to leave the country). If they do not sign the contract (do not agree to leave the country and start a lawsuit), they definitely will not get a lollipop (receive a residence permit). But when the children sign the form and ask for the lollipop, Hofman points to the contract and says that they just agreed
with not getting a lollipop (leaving the country). Image 9: Hofman is explaining the cooperation criterion through a role play with several children. He is holding a contract which The role play in the documentary shows the says: “I don’t want a lollipop”.
28 children the ambiguity of the policy in the simplest version. Using this metaphor helps to understand the complex situation but the explanation also may fail due to the limited information that is given and through avoiding the complicacy of the criterion and the rest of the policy. In the end, the emphasis is repeatedly on the personal problems rather than political issues. While the chairman of one of the ruling political parties is being heard one last time, the images of him explaining the complexity of the whole situation is interspersed with the most poignant images of the documentary. Through this form of editing, everything the politician says seems to mean nothing in contrast to what the children have to experience at the moment. His political statement and his contribution to the explanation of the political issue are overpowered by the personal situations of the three families. The documentary shows their defense against the political ‘chatter’ about the children, instead of actually doing something, but the political issue is now being depicted as a simple matter with an obvious solution. Despite the actual mention of the four hundred other children (in comparison to previous media attention about the Children’s Pardon) and the background information of the Children’s Pardon explained in today’s society, that clarifies that the policies need to be adjusted, the prominence is given to the three stories and these children are functioning as a personalization of the final aim.
3.1.3 The responsible parties appointed: confronting and mocking the politicians Throughout the documentary, there is much talk about those responsible for the current situation. The interviews and voice-over show that the parents and politicians are held responsible for the precarious lives that the children live. Hofman asks the parents of the three children that are deported to Ukraine: “Have you ever thought: shit man, do I want to have three children in this situation?”. He now questions the parents’ choices. Later on, he even mentions: “I'm just trying to stand up for those four hundred kids, without the parents, without political color, only for the four hundred kids.” However, the parents get away with it easily. Aside frome these statements of the presenter, the parents are, just as the children, depicted as victims of the system. Only a few critical questions are asked to the parents in the complete documentary and after the parents reply that they thought they were doing the right thing; Hofman seems to agree and stops asking questions. Despite some possible small mistakes that the parents were not aware of, they are not held responsible for their children’s situation. By
29 leaving this responsibility out, the documentary represents the actual situation incompletely and steers the public’s reaction accordingly (Entman 55). The politicians and the overall approach of the government, on the other hand, are not spared. The mistrust in the government is depicted by presenting the case of Kingsley. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (personified as a middle-aged white man in a suit, image 10 and 11) are blamed for not giving the 16-year-old boy a residence permit. While explaining Kingsley’s medical conditions and the inhumane reaction of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the documentary responds to the viewer’s emotions and gives the audience a specific government department to be angry at. The voice over states: “You let a child, who is under medical supervision because he had cancer in his eye, stay here, right? Well, not according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, also known as the INS. Because they just want Kingsley to leave, via court.” The solution to the overall problem looks like a simple adjustment of the INS right now. When they (still personified as a middle-aged white man) just refrain from going to court, the problem seems to be solved. Also, the ministers are mocked in the animations. While laughing, the prime minister is literally kicking Nemr and his family out of the country and the secretary of state is being critiqued because of the exceptions made for only a few specific cases (image 12 and 13).
Image 10: The Immigration and Naturalization Service personified Image 11: The Immigration and Naturalization Service personified as a middle-aged white man in a suit who sues Kingsley as a middle-aged white man who sends back Nemr and his family
Image 12 : Prime minister Mark Rutte is literally kicking Nemr and Image 13: Secretary of State Mark Harbers is being blamed for his family out of the country. giving away residence permits to only a few children.
30 Despite the fact that in a democracy multiple rational voices and factual insights are prerequisite, Warner agrees that engaging in this form of mockery is crucial to fight the dominant political discourses and their commercial branding techniques by using them yourself (32). Subsequently, Hofman visits the House of Representatives together with Nemr to confront the politicians face-to-face with the failing of the Children’s Pardon. Nemr is holding the microphone and literally asks the representatives of the ruling parties why he needs to leave his country of birth. With this direct and personal question, he responds to both the emotion of the politician and the viewer. Hofman acknowledges that it is not a decent way to confront the politicians with an individual case by bringing a young child to the House of Representatives. But through the personal interaction with Nemr the topic is more visual to the politicians. This challenges the politicians to position themselves in the debate and it gains political consciousness about the urgency of the discussion. It has been made clear that the politicians need to take responsibility. The documentary finally claims that it is not important whose fault it is, left wing parties, right wing parties, parents or maybe all of us, but the importance is that the children cannot help it and that there is an urgent need to find an ultimate solution for all of them: “But regardless of who is to blame, the fact remains that, right now, there are about four hundred children who are most likely to be deported from the Netherlands.” (figure 1)
“Ja, hallo en welkom bij Boos waar we dus nu een boze Nemr, Kingsley, Maksim, Dennis en Arina en nog zo’n vierhonderd kinderen die wachten op het kinderpardon proberen om boos te maken. Tja, want als je die kinderen wegstuurt, naar Nigeria of Armenië, of Irak, of Oekraïne, of waar dan ook, dan gaan ze stuk. Dat heb je net gezien. Dus maak van deze kinderen even de zon in ons zonnestelsel, waar alles nu om mag draaien. En misschien denk je, ja goddomme die vervelende linkse politiek door hen kan iedereen eindeloos procederen en dan krijg je deze rotsituatie. Ja dat kan. Misschien denk je: ja hoor, waarom doet rechts altijd zo moeilijk over immigratie en asielzoekers, dit krijg je ervan. Ja, dat kan ook. Of misschien denk je wel: die ouders, waarom nemen die überhaupt kinderen als ze net gevlucht zijn uit een land waar het onveilig is. Ja dat kan. En voor alles valt wat te zeggen. Maar wiens schuld het ook is, feit blijft dat er nu zo’n vierhonderd kinderen zijn die zeer waarschijnlijk uit Nederland gezet worden. Zo, zonder pardon. En al die planeten van linkse politiek en rechtse politiek en ouders en ook wij draaien om die vierhonderd kinderen heen en we kijken toe. We kijken toe hoe vierhonderd kinderen die hier nooit voor gekozen hebben en er niks over te zeggen hebben de dupe worden van al het gekonkel en gekut van iedereen om ze heen. Bedankt links, bedankt rechts, bedankt ouders en bedankt de rest van het universum. Lekker werk pikken. Terwijl Nemr, Kingsley, Maksim, Dennis, Arina en de rest alleen maar denken: Hee, dit, dit hier, Nederland, dit is gewoon mijn eigen land.”
Figure 1: Final speech of Tim Hofman in the documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land.
31 In the documentary the pressure on politics is constantly being increased to achieve this goal. Ultimately, Hofman mentions that he does not only want to explain the situation, make a point and – in his own words – bully politicians, but he is eager to resolve this issue. In a direct address, Hofman asks the audience to sign a petition, so he can speak in the House of Representatives about his concerns about the current execution of the Children’s Pardon policy. The documentary does not only inform and educate the audience about the political issue, but by taking direct action and involving the audience in this case he also connects the viewers. Including the fact that the children are presented as the ‘ideal victim’ and the politicians as the ones responsible for the poorly organized policy, a joint view emerges about the distinction between the ‘good’ and ‘innocent’ immigrants and the ‘bad’ and ‘inhuman’ policymakers. The topic is now being addressed through one dominant perspective in which the ruling political parties are morally unjust and since this form of framing contests current policies, the topic is being forced to the political agenda (Dekker and Scholten 216-217).
3.1.4 Situate the immigrants: multicultural and assimilation frame The general point of view regarding ‘open borders’ or welcoming immigrants to the Netherlands is not being claimed literally. As showed above presenter Tim Hofman, as voice over, tells that both left- and rightwing parties have reasonable arguments about immigration (figure 1). With this the documentary seems to aim for the importance of freedom of speech and for a representation of reality that is as neutral as possible. However, the overall idea of the documentary about helping these four hundred children to get a residence permit, show BNNVARA’s loyalty to both parents and children. Within the documentary several discussed frames are recognized. Referring to Van Gorp’s victim and intruder frame, the previous analysis of the documentary definitely shows the victim frame in which people ended up in a situation “that is due to a force that lies beyond their own actions and responsibility” (Van Gorp 489). Furthermore, the multicultural and assimilation frame are simultaneously visible. The documentary shows their belief in left-wing parties rather than right-wing parties. During the visit to the House of Representatives the presenter is more critical to the right-wing parties. Hofman and Nemr do not confront the left-wing parties with the current outcome of their initiated policies. Although Hofman argues in his final speech that their role in the policy making did not help the children (figure 1), yet the documentary itself does not seem to support this point of view. Also, in one of the animations, the shifting opinion of the chairman of one of
32 the ruling parties about this immigration topic, is acknowledged as catastrophic when Hofman mentions that, during negotiation with right-wing parties, the chairman “has given away his soul”. Again, it is clear that it is not only a matter of solving the problem, regardless of which party is to blame, but the position of the documentary in the overall immigration debate becomes visible as well. In conversation with the children, Hofman makes clear that it should not matter where you are from or what your cultural or religious manners are to receive a residence permit. When he sees some Christmas decorations at Nemr’s place, Hofman asks the kid: “I thought you were Islamic?” Nemr’s answers the following: “Yes, but I just like Christmas, with a tree and lights.” Despite the cultural differences that the presenter had in mind, he is determined to help Nemr and the four hundred other children with different cultural backgrounds. Also, Kingsley’s case shows this multicultural frame where cultural variety and differences in society do not matter. While Kingsley mentions that he thinks that he even likes Dutch humor more than his Dutch friends do because he cannot stop laughing during Dutch movies, Hofman reacts laughably: “You can also stay here if you hate Dutch humor. You don’t have to come up with that right now. No one really likes Dutch movies.” At the same time, these presented examples emphasize the way the children are already adjusted to the Dutch culture. Even though the documentary does not problematize other cultures, by extensively emphasizing the children’s Dutch characteristics the impression is created that after adjusting completely to another country’s culture, an immigrant should be able to stay there. This goes against the multicultural frame and suggests that immigrants should integrate quite fast, like presented in the assimilation frame. The national characteristics are visible in the animations where the children are depicted with typical Dutch snacks and recognizable Dutch objects, like windmills and the national flag (image 14 and 15). Additionally,
Image 14: Maksim, Dennis and Arina portrayed in Ukraine with Image 15: Kingsley portrayed in the Nederlands with a Dutch typical Dutch snacks cookie and AJAX cap
33 the question being asked during the interviews about their Dutch characteristics, emphasizes the importance of this level of integration in their (extra) right to stay. The more integrated they are, the more the documentary shows that they belong here. Finally, when even VVD’s chairman Klaas Dijkhoff, a clear opponent of the Children's Pardon, mentions that “it would be fantastic” if all those children could stay and the same situation will not repeat itself in the future, it becomes clear that these children actually belong here and there is just one overall solution to the problem imaginable: to give these children a resident permit.
34 3.2 Cross-media attention to the Children’s Pardon Since its origin in 2013 the Children's Pardon has been the subject of the public debate many times. Characteristic to this debate are recent campaigns, initiated to let (some of the) children stay in the Netherlands. A few months before the release of BNNVARA’s online documentary, a “publicity offensive” started to prevent two children, Lili and Howick, from being deported. First relatives and friends and later on the children rights organisation Defence for Children and celebrities were committed to ensure that Lili and Howick get a residence permit, even though their mother already had been sent back to Armenia (Huisman, de Graaf and Herderscheê). Later that year the Protestant church organized a service that lasted several consecutive months to make sure another Armenian family could not be deported during that time (Huisman). The media embraced these actions and the children were often depicted as innocent victims, that are in need of our help. So, the documentary was not the first one to come up for the rights of the children. Before the release of the documentary much (media) attention was paid to the subject already. However, Terug Naar Je Eige Land was the first that did not focus on one or two children (who were lucky enough to get prominent attention in the media), but by making this documentary a collective call for finding a solution to the overall problem was initiated. In this analysis I do not consider all the events later that year and the adjustment of the policy in the beginning of 2019 as a direct effect of the documentary, but I look at the way in which media react to each other and repeat certain frames. After the online release of the documentary, there was much discussion about the Children’s Pardon again. Prominent talk shows, current affair shows and related video’s online regularly respond to political discussion around migration, but also look at the way other media organizations or individuals, like celebrities, present the issue. Once again, the portrayal of the political issue is dominated by expressions of emotion. While analysing the audio-visual discussions about the Children’s Pardon, I will first examine both the conflicting or compliant parts of the media coverage in the television shows towards the online documentary. This includes the repetition of certain video excerpts, interviews with the documentary makers, but also the depicted norms and values about this issue. Secondly, the role of celebrities in addressing political topics is being examined. Their fame is gaining extra publicity and therefore their personal constructed frames reach a broad public. The repetition of these celebrities’ statements in several television shows is contributing to the cross-media interaction. Because the politicians come under fire, their
35 responses to the debate are discussed in the third paragraph. I will focus on the way they justify (or attack) the current policies and their (or each other’s) previous statements. Finally, I conclude the analysis with addressing the emotional frames that are used to explain the final agreement between politicians and the adjusted policy.
3.2.1 The interactive debate: compliant or conflicting to the documentary The first days after the release of the online documentary produced by the public broadcaster BNNVARA, both the documentary and the topic of the Children’s Pardon are frequently discussed in several television shows and videos that are posted online. Excerpts of the documentary are shown; studio guests are asked to share their expertise or opinion about this topic, personal situations of immigrant children are mentioned and also the way the topic is addressed in the documentary is reflected upon extensively. As McCombs mentioned, the news worthiness of the topic of immigration in this case is determined by both traditional and new media that are observing and copying or reflecting on other journalist’s main ideas (130). Since the topic is being addressed by multiple prominent television shows, it is more and more likely that other media organizations will discuss the topic as well and consequently an intermedia response is set in motion. This leads to a homogeneous media agenda, which ultimately, according to the notion of media logic, affects the public debate as well (Altheide 119). However, when the media’s agenda is determined by this interactive debate, the ideas and statements about the topic do not necessarily have to correspond. Yet, in the media coverage of the documentary a clear distinction could be made between two responses: one is agreeing with the approach of the documentary and the statements that are being made and the second is depicting the same statements about the willingness to let these children stay, but does not agree with the way the children are depicted in and are ‘deployed’ for the aims of the documentary. While several people, who think that the attention is unnecessary and indicate that the politicians must adhere to the current agreement about this topic, are being heard, the shows seems to disagree with these people and convey the general message of the documentary: the situation of the children is poignant and they are in need of help. First of all, to draw extra attention to the documentary, BNNVARA invited Tim Hofman in total seven times to their prominent talk show De Wereld Draait Door to talk about the documentary and the developments around the topic. Hofman gets the possibility to say whatever he wants; the presenter does not correct him in his distinct opinion and the
36 bewilderment of the other guests about the current political situation proves his statement. Mainly the poignant descriptions of the children’s daily lives represented in the documentary are repeated in the talk show and little response is given to the other side of the story. Every time when Hofman is visiting the talk show he addresses the people directly by looking in the camera and by appealing to the public to sign the petition. Once he summarizes the poignant situation: “Look at this child, he was born in this country and he will be sent to Iraq in an unreasonable way” (De Wereld Draait Door, November 1, 2018). By showing his tender-hearted compassion Hofman appeals to the empathic ability of the audience. By mentioning how well organized the Netherlands normally is, he shows that it is ridiculous that we cannot make sure that these children have a safe home like we do. Now he expresses the shame-filled compassion which could cause the public’s feeling of a moral obligation to help and to sign the petition (Höijer 522-523). The presenter of De Wereld Draait Door allows all publicity that Hofman is asking for and he even shows the unity among the BNNVARA programs by asking his questions about the documentary with reference to the makers of Terug Naar Je Eige Land as ‘we’. This form of ‘togetherness’ is also visible in BNNVARA’s late night talk show Pauw (November 7, 2018). In this show the Secretary of State, Mark Harbers, is invited to explain his professional point of view about the Children’s Pardon. Harbers is explaining ‘the other side’ of the story, puts certain views expressed in the documentary into perspective and indicates that it is not as easy to let these children stay in the Netherlands as Hofman suggests. Presenter Pauw is critical towards the Secretary of State and even though Tim Hofman does not get a stage, the documentary is still used as a trustworthy document of the abstract issue. Poignant excerpts of the documentary are being showed and the same arguments for the ambiguity of the regulations as in the documentary are presented (image 16 and 17).
Image 16: Nemr is showing the website of the government about the Image 17: Harbers is confronted with the same map in the talk safety in Iraq in Terug Naar Je Eige Land. show Pauw.
37 While later in this section I will explain that the representation of the children and the direct confrontation with the politicians are often criticized, the talk shows of BNNVARA rarely pay attention to this critique or ask these questions themselves. The presenter of De Wereld Draait Door (November 1, 2018) is actually complementing Nemr on his brutality towards the politicians in the House of Representatives. This shows once again that the responses in the talk shows towards the topic are similar to the idea represented in the documentary. Besides the attention of the two talk shows produced by the same public broadcaster BNNVARA, other shows try to explain the situation as well and reflect on the documentary and the additional petition within the first days after its release. They do not only respond to the documentary itself, but also summarize the resulting media coverage of the topic. By showing the extensive attention of other media organizations, celebrities and politicians to this topic, the majority of the shows seem to agree with the fact that the children are presented as the face of a bigger political issue. Even though, in the more news related show EenVandaag (November 2, 2018 and January 21, 2019), the presenters try to act independently and only mention how public opinion is being expressed online, they clearly emphasize the reasons why action should be taken instead of, for example, explaining the reasoning of the statement by the prime minister that he is not going to change any policy about this topic at all. The outcome of an online panel provides some perspective in EenVandaag when it concludes that 49% of the twenty-one thousand participants is for the expansion of the Children’s Pardon and 46% is against it (Klapwijk). In other words, EenVandaag shows that almost half of the representatives of the Dutch population agrees with the fact that the children should be deported. However, the representation of the personal stories of the children and the depicted tweets of left-wing politicians show the biased preference of the television program and ultimately reinforce the frame that the children belong here. However, the documentary is criticized as well. The most commonly used argument is that exposing the children to the straightforward statements of the politicians and extensive media attention will damage them even more. In the showbiz talk show RTL Boulevard (November 1, 2018) media personality Olsay Gulsen gives her opinion about the confrontation between Nemr and the politicians in the House of Representatives and mentions:
“We should not hide the fact that many children are traumatized when they live here for longer than five or ten years and then suddenly have to go back to a country they
38 don't know, [but] the confrontation [in the documentary] is too intense. The child will not leave the House of Representatives with a happy feeling. [Hofman] also gives him hope.”
Consequently, in RTL Late Night multiple tweets are used as references to explain the current debate about the moral incorrectness to approach the politicians in this way. Even in the soccer related talk show Veronica Inside (November 2, 2018) the topic is being addressed. The sidekicks of the presenter do not agree with Hofman’s strategy to embarrass the politicians with sentimental images of the children. According to this show Hofman is “only in it for himself”. They assume that he loves to be “at the center of attention” and that he wants to show what he is doing for society to improve his own reputation. They agree with Hofman about the way people emotionally sympathize with the moving situation of the children, but “if you think about it, there will also be some problems. [For example,] the rules that the Netherlands has set.” (Veronica Inside, November 2, 2018) These responses to the documentary and Tim Hofman’s performance make the public aware of various shortcomings. But whatever opinions are given, it definitely stirs up the debate and keeps the topic relevant, as the presenter of RTL Boulevard (November 1, 2019) is mentioning. This brings us back to the notion of agenda-setting: because of the extensive attention to this topic, the media is at least “telling its [public] what to think about” (Cohen 13). However, while some media organizations are not fully going along with the documentary’s approach, they keep agreeing with the documentary’s main statement about the poignant situation of these children. Within the academic field there is a debate about the construction of a social context by media. New media’s democratic way of sharing content makes it possible for anyone to share their opinion. Thimm et al. are arguing that the ubiquity of internet and media platforms lead to the emergence of several social contexts instead of one shared discourse as it was before (3). Nevertheless, in this situation, the broadcast television is still deciding what tweets they share or which guests they invite to talk about the topic. By adding more value to one topic than the other, the power of well-known opinion leaders like Hofman and other celebrities is actually being reinforced. This concludes in one common representation of reality in the crossmedia flow that is emerging by the interaction between the talk shows and the online media they represent.
39 3.2.2 Celebrity politics: making the political issue personal As showed in the previous section much attention is paid to the celebrities’ opinions. In most television shows, just as Paulussen and Harder concluded from their research into social media references in newspapers, ‘ordinary citizens, celebrities and sports people’ are used as trustful sources or are invited as guests to speak about this topic (549). Various guests who happened to be in the studio, are asked about their thoughts regarding the documentary and the Children’s Pardon. They share their emotional and suggestive opinions like “there must be a place for every child here, right?" (RTL Late Night, November 1, 2018) and “for God’s sake, what kind of country do we live in?” (De Wereld Draait Door, November 1, 2018). These celebrities sharing their message is important in making (and keeping) the topic relevant (‘t Hart and Tindall 271-272). In case of the Children’s Pardon a combined group of celebrities, for example actors, singers, television personalities, scientists and many more, share a unified message with a great number of people and, at the same time, reach a diverse audience. To start with, Tim Hofman’s fame is playing an important role in the documentary and in the interviews and television items afterwards. This can be considered as a strategy to gain extra attention for the documentary. As discussed before, celebrities have the ability to encourage the public debate and educate society about political issues (‘t Hart and Tindall 271- 272). Tim Hofman acquired his fame as one of BNNVARA’s television presenters. When he started the online television series #BOOS in 2016, Hofman became well-known in both media and politics for his commitment to solve political and social issues by presenting personal narratives in his television show. Due to his great perseverance and his brutality in reaching his goal, he consequently got a lot of things done. Both the public and politicians are familiar with his reputation and since they are aware that he has the power to reach and influence the public with his fame, they might respond different to him than to every other documentary maker with a different background. Similar to the explanation of celebrity activism by ‘t Hart and Tindall, the use of celebrity politics is visible through the symbolic dramas that are depicted and enlarged by Hofman, the face-to-face lobbying of the politicians in the documentary and the direct action that Hofman takes with his overall campaign and petition. By presenting the stories of the children and getting personally involved in their situation, Hofman makes the abstract topic easier to understand and brings it closer to the audience. The emotional relationship does not only appear between the public and the children, because of the way they are depicted, but it also
40 appears between the public and the celebrity. Since it is easy to share personal thoughts through social media nowadays, the public is already familiar with the celebrities’ ideas and personal situation and they are able to identify themselves with the celebrities, which makes it easier to agree with the position in the Children’s Pardon debate the that the celebrity might take (Larabee). Besides the fact that Hofman uses his status as celebrity to join talk shows and interviews and to gain a lot of media coverage about the Children’s Pardon and the online petition, this form of celebrity politics turns out to be a helpful method online as well. One episode of #BOOS (December 12, 2018) is dedicated to handing over the signatures to the Parliament. Hofman as personalization and initiator of the petition takes the lead and he invited many celebrities and representatives of several communities to come to The Hague and demonstrate together with him. By presenting these famous politicians and deputies of the church, advocacy and science, Hofman shows that a unity among citizens has developed. Once again, Hofman is using his own fame and the fame of others to gain publicity and while referring to the involvement of all these people multiple times on broadcast television, BNNVARA uses all its media platforms to make the people aware of the way that everyone can work together to solve the political issue. The publicity of the celebrity has effect on the depicted children as well. Hofman explains in De Wereld Draait Door (November 2, 2018) that two of the depicted children were given a priority arrangement, because they were recognized from the documentary. That is actually what Hofman aims to prevent. He does not want a ‘Talk Show Pardon’ (Zondag met Lubach), in which every child who gets the chance to tell his or her story in a talk show or receive the celebrities’ attention will finally be discern as ‘harrowing’ enough to get a residence permit, while others will not be depicted and do not get this possibility. Instead of making it political, Hofman decided to portray even more children in short video’s that he shared online. Other television shows follow his example and besides depicting the children in the documentary, also other children who are experiencing the same problems are given a stage. Vasterman, Yzermans and Dirkzwager referred to these extra stories as “positive feedback loops” that expand the news wave that was initiated earlier (111). At this point the emphasis is on the personal problem rather than the political issue. When the political situation is being discussed in De Wereld Draait Door (November 2, 2018), the presenter mentions that the conversation drifts away from the main topic: the situation of the children. On the other hand, by inviting
41 the Secretary of State (Pauw, November 7, 2018), interviewing a political reporter (RTL Late Night, all episodes) and ask for an explanation from a professor (EenVandaag, November 2, 2018) these shows try to put the personal situation in a broader context. So, just like the documentary, the political background is being addressed multiple times, but is eventually being personalized by referring to the children. In line with Hofman’s goal to help all children, #BOOS releases fourteen extra videos on the website of the documentary presenting Dutch celebrities in conversation with the children that will be deported soon. The stories of these children (other children than depicted in the documentary) are gaining value through the attention of the celebrity. Each celebrity shared their video on their personal social media accounts as well. They are all well known as an actor, singer, influencer and television presenter in different levels of society. So, besides reaching BNNVARA’s own online audience, the social media followers of the celebrities are included and instructed to take action and sign the petition as well. One example is the video of Anna Nooshin, which is visible on the website as first of all fourteen videos. The making of this video and more background information about the children and Nooshin’s thoughts on the situation are being showed in her personal, frequently watched, vlog on YouTube. Nooshin was once an asylum seeker herself and she got the permit to stay in the Netherlands. She now became a famous television presenter, a self-made entrepreneur and an online influencer. The goals she reached in her life become arguments used in proclaiming her idea that every child deserves a chance for a good future in our country. While sharing her personal story (something she does not do often, according to the title of her video: “I do not really talk about my past”) and comparing it to the story of Rita, one of the asylum seeking children, the audience is again confronted with the victim frame and the urgent need to offer these children a residence permit. Recently, in broadcast television it can be hard to reach a broad audience that is interested in all fourteen videos. Although sharing these videos with similar formats online would be more constructive since it addresses fourteen smaller, but more diverse, target groups. By sharing these video’s a few weeks after the release of the documentary and by already referring to it in De Wereld Draait Door (November 2, 2018) makes sure that the topic is still be part of the public’s agenda. I explained earlier that the responses of the guests who happen to be in the studio (most of the time celebrities who are invited to talk about other topics) are depicted as valuable additions to the debate, while they do not necessarily have much background knowledge about
42 the topic or have had time to delve into it. The status of the guests is in their turn important in sharing the message to evoke public emotion and mobilize the audience more than someone less known would be able to (‘t Hart and Tinall 263-264). Shortly after the release of the documentary the celebrities are asked about their personal thoughts and consequently their emotional opinions are shown. But as time goes by the media attention and campaigners, like Tim Hofman, are not actively stirring up the public debate anymore. Poell and Van Dijck blame in these situations the reduction of interest in certain hypes after some time on the way new media works:
“At the same time, the interactions and interests that tie dispersed social media users together to form protest movements, generating instant moments of togetherness, inevitably dissolve when social platforms algorithmically connect users to the next wave of trending topics.” (534)
The reason for the media attention is therefore no longer the release of the documentary or events organized by the campaign, but in the beginning of 2019 the political developments lead to the media’s reporting. When the topic is extensively being discussed within the government, more experts are invited to explain the interests of each ruling party and the possible scenario. Instead of interviewing celebrities or sharing their tweets and opinions, the politicians themselves are in the centre of the attention. The public does not need to be activated to pressure the politicians anymore. Right now, the public is most of the time being informed about the events that the politicians initiate by their choices and point of views. Consequently, the more ‘showbiz’ focussed television show RTL Boulevard does not pay any attention anymore. Besides Hofman’s performances in De Wereld Draait Door and a short recap in one #BOOS episode, he is not expressing his ideas much further or uses his function as celebrity to create solidarity among the public. He seems to have reached his goal: the politicians reconsider the Children’s Pardon. So, the debate contains a narrative structure in which at first, as Vasterman, Yzermans and Dirkzwager clarified (111), the intensive news-making activities of the media is steering the media agenda itself. Later on, the politicians appear to be the instigator of the media’s attention, causing a still existing, but less visible, interactive debate between the media attention.
43 3.2.3 Political responses: justifying the policies and statements The audience is being confronted with an extensive explanation of the Children’s Pardon and the governments responsibilities in the documentary. The policies are analysed and in reference to these policies celebrities and media organizations share their visions and thoughts as well. This leads to the following situation that not only the documentary makers and the children are pressuring the politicians, but the public and other media organizations come up with fierce criticisms (or occasionally support) as well. Although the political parties already had the opportunity to defend their point of view within the documentary, most of them need to come up with extra explanations and justifications after the release of the film as well. One scene in the documentary immediately went viral after the online release. It concerns a statement of Klaas Dijkhoff, chairman of the ruling party VVD, while he responds to Nemr in the House of Representatives. To confront Dijkhoff with the thoughts the eight-year- old boy has prior to his deportation, Hofman asks Nemr: “what do you think that is going to happen when you are going to Iraq?”, to which Nemr concisely answers: “dead”. Chairman Dijkhoff, looks at Tim and says: “Yes, so…”. A lot of online critique towards the unsympathetic attitude of the chairman is being expressed by using the hashtag #jadus (translation: #yesso). The talk shows, in their turn, respond to and maybe even reinforce the commotion. This shows that online media users can affect the media environment and the talk shows agenda (Thimm et al. 3). According to several media organizations Dijkhoff’s statement seems to uncover the “disinterest of politicians” (De Wereld Draait Door January 30, 2019) and despite the fact that the presenter of the documentary tries to force the chairman’s hand, “it is still a good thing that he is confronted with the consequences of his policies” (RTL Late Night November 1, 2018). Dijkhoff’s statement is been explained as an unfortunate incident, but, according to the presenter of De Wereld Draait Door it did show the gap between the politicians and children: “it impressed people, causing their mobilization (…), [they might think] this is not how we want to treat each other” (January 30, 2019). This situation is an example of how media logic operates. The commotion and negative responses towards the VVD-chairman, forces Dijkhoff to clarify his unfortunate statement and he does that in a video that the VVD is sharing online via Twitter. In this message he tries to prove that he actually does care about the boy’s fate and explains that he did not want Nemr to get his hopes up by giving the answer he wants to hear. He actually blames the parents for not leaving the Netherlands and he does not take
44 responsibility for the uncertain situation they are in now. Finally, Dijkhoff accusses the documentary makers of an unfair representation of reality. With this approach Dijkhoff seems to justify his appearance in the documentary and, since he is at the center of attention already, takes the opportunity to explain the political views of his party regarding this topic. It looks like the video presents some new insights in the debate and nuances the dominant discourse in the documentary and the talk shows. However, the video of Dijkhoff is being depicted in the television shows as well. This does not only show the constant interaction between traditional and new media and the spreading of point of views, but also enables the talk shows to continue presenting the discourse they already created. In De Wereld Draait Door (November 2, 2018) Dijkhoff’s words are refuted by providing evidence that they did not edit the video to make the VVD chairman look bad, “if you see the video, there are no editorial cuts. This is how it actually was”. Even though the parents might have made some mistakes, the show explains that the government still need to take care of these children by emphasizing its vision:
“When you place a swing and the rubber tiles beneath it are not good, (…) the government will arrange it, because those children can hurt themselves. When it is about four hundred children who need help of the government, because their parents made mistakes (…), we suddenly do not offer help anymore and simply blame the parents.” (De Wereld Draait Door November 2, 2018)
Hofman’s comparison makes the abstract problem of the parents’ responsibility visible and knows how to refute the nuances of Dijkhoff. Furthermore, the visit of Secretary of State Mark Harbers to the television show PAUW, consists of contesting the assumption being made in the documentary. But, the more Harbers seems to justify the choices for current policies and future improvements, the more critical the presenter of the talk show is. Although the idea among scholars arises that new media enables anyone to join the debate and multiple social contexts will be created (Thimm et al. 3), the dominant role of the talk shows seems to prove the contrary. Dijkhoff and Harbers are situated in a dominant frame, which appears to make it impossible to establish a contradictory frame to convince the television shows of their political opinion.
45 In January 2019 the attention for the statements of VVD’s chairman and the Secretary of State was replaced by the media coverage of the actions of another ruling party, CDA, since they unexpectedly presented their new point of view regarding the Children’s Pardon. Although the regulations concerning the Children's Pardon were already settled in the coalition agreement, three out of the four ruling parties want to reconsider the policy. While expressing positive reactions towards this change, media organizations make plenty of assumptions about the reasons behind this reversal of CDA. The Christian party is being accused of using this fragile topic to gain popularity by possible voters before the upcoming elections. It is an ‘ugly political move’ according to the presenter of Jinek (January 22, 2019). Another, by the media presented, reason is getting revanche. Since the VVD did not consult CDA about a statement regarding the climate topic the week before, it is possible that the party now wants to present a counter statement. Because of the commotion the party seems to feel compelled to give an explanation. One of the party members records a video with answers to frequently asked questions and the video is shared on the parties’ social media. In the talk show Jinek (January 22, 2019) the chairman of CDA defends the new statements and addresses specific criticisms expressed by multiple media organizations. They try to refute the criticism by giving a unified motivation for the parties’ switch. In doing so, they discuss arguments and rely on sources that already have been mentioned in the documentary and television programs. Through both media platforms, they state that CDA always has cared about these children, but that they can no longer justify the political policies since young innocent children are being arrested and other asylum seekers cause inconveniences and can still stay in the Netherlands. Also, the “damage note” of forty scientists about the mental health of the children and “the serious consequences for their brain development” (Scherder, Van Os and Zijlstra 7-8) have been important considerations in promoting an adjustment to the policy. The “damage note” was presented earlier in De Wereld Draait Door (December 6, 2018), whereby Hofman consciously asks the audience to put pressure on CDA by sending the party an email about this. Furthermore, CDA emphasizes the fact that some of these children are autistic or in need of medical support, just like two of the children depicted in BNNVARA’s documentary. While Dijkhoff assigns the responsibility of this situation to the parents, CDA in their turn asks the Secretary of State to take responsibility through investigating the issue and come up with solutions. With their crossmedia statements, CDA creates a distinction between the immigrants that are causing unpleasant situations as
46 ‘intruders’ and the innocent children as ‘victims’. Additionally, they now claim that the solution actually can be found in the adjustment of the governments’ policies. The political party seems to follow the discourse that was presented in the media for a longer time already.
3.2.4 The emotional approach: framing the political decisions I have made clear that the talk shows and celebrities used emotional approaches to explain the political issue. In line with this the framing of the children as innocent victims continues in the interactive debate. When the politicians decided to alter the policies and most children will be able to stay, the framing does not stop, but keeps making clear that the children belong in the Netherlands. In many cases, the way in which a presenter talks about the topic, explains a lot about their position in relation to the children’s fate. The presenter of RTL Late Night (January 21, 2019) describes the switch from CDA as “a light at the end of the tunnel” for the children, explaining his relief that the long and insecure period is finally over. Furthermore, in the talk show 5 Uur Live (January 30, 2019) the presenter ends the interview with a political reporter mentioning that it is ‘fantastic news’ that not only one or two children can stay, as happened before, but that almost seven hundred children will get the possibility to build a future in the Netherlands. By emphasizing the fact that the children have been here for a long time and mentioning that they build their lives here, the assimilation frame appears again: the children have adapted to the Dutch culture, so they should get the opportunity to stay. Subsequently, the guests who are invited in the studio’s, contribute to the frame- setting. Earlier I explained that the celebrities or opinion makers did not address the Children’s Pardon that often anymore. While the documentary was losing the attention, this time the political decisions were a reason for the talk shows to address the topic again. Which resulted in the invitation of experts or politicians themselves to discuss the topic. The shared view towards the children is sometimes being nuanced by sharing conflicting opinions in the talk shows, but these opinions are simply dismissed or overruled by compliant ideas and the matching frames remain visible. By approaching the Children’s Pardon as a political issue and discussing the formal facts about it, it now seems that the celebrities and the empathy that they generate are no longer of importance. Actually, the opposite seems to be true, despite the more analytical discussions around the topic and the less famous status of the experts, still a lot of attention is being paid to the emotional feelings that this fragile topic can create. The children and their families are depicted and once again the politicians are confronted with
47 these poignant situations some children have to go through. When it has been decided that the majority of the children can stay, it appears that one family is recently deported. RTL Late Night pays attention to this family and shows a video shared on social media in which a young deported girl asks if she can please come back to the Netherlands because they live there in a small cold room. The presenter also confirms that the family does not belong there. One of the ruling politicians is confronted with this specific situation and he is being asked what he is going to do to help this family. Despite the more political approach of the topic, poignant images are still shown and the feelings that they evoke are still salient (RTL Late Night January 30, 2019). The emotional frames around presenting abstract information, is important in influencing other media coverage and the public debate (Kitzinger). In addition to the emotional approach of the television shows and the poignant images that are being depicted, most of the invited political experts and politicians actually confirm the fact that the children belong here and that it will contribute to their wellbeing. Three months after the statement that he will not pursue any changes, the Secretary of State changed his mind and mentions that “of course everybody is happy for the children” and that “if most of them can stay, it will be for the best interest of the children” (Nieuwsuur January 30, 2019). Despite the political approach at this moment in the debate, celebrities, like the comedian Peter Heerschop, still get the opportunity to share their personal thoughts and make the political topic personal again. Heerschop seems to bring the guests in the studio together by mentioning: “why are we talking about winners and losers? (…) It should be our intuition to take care of these children.” (Jinek January 29, 2019) By collectively empathizing with the children as innocent victims, the unified frame of willing to help the children, will be visible throughout the complete debate.
48 4. Conclusion
My findings largely confirm that BNNVARA’s cross-media campaign stirs up the debate by sharing their biased opinion using various media platforms. The public broadcaster seems to determine the media’s agenda, since the extensive media attention that was paid to the Children’s Pardon consists of many references to the online documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land. Chaffee and Metzger proclaimed “the end of mass-media” and expected that in a cross- media environment reaching a unified media agenda was impossible (374). The results of the analysis disprove these statements. They demonstrate that the talk shows are still of great importance in sharing a message and that a unified agenda seems to arise because of the interaction between traditional and online media. Furthermore, this thesis does not provide a definitive answer to the disagreement among scholars about the role of individuals in setting the agenda, but it still shows some new insights to the academic debate. Besides the traditional media’s ability to keep the topic relevant by reporting on each other, the excerpt from the documentary with Dijkhof’s ‘unfortunate statement’ is being hyped on social media (by using a specific hashtag). Since the online commotion is covered in the talk shows, the social media users – rather than the media organizations themselves – are now expanding the homogeneous media agenda. The narrative structure of the debate continues when the the media agenda is set by political decisions. While all these three parties determine the agenda, the topic remains newsworthy in any case. The frame analysis shows that the abstract political topic is explained with an emotional approach of the children’s situation. The personalization of the topic is visible in all television programs. Instead of presenting the asylum-seeking families as intruders to the Dutch society, they will be depicted as innocent victims that are situated in miserable circumstances due to political injustice. Here it follows the distinction between immigrant frames that Van Gorp described earlier (489). I argue that the aesthetics that lead to this framing are reinforced by the deployment of celebrity politics and by depicting only a few persons as responsible. The presentation of this strong moral and the focus on the high level of disagreement among politicians, result in the possibility for the television shows to host the debate and come up with general accepted solutions (Dekker and Scholten 217). The dominant frames that are depicted by BNNVARA are frequently repeated by directly showing images of the documentary or agreeing with the representation of the children as
49 innocent and helpless. The shared idea that the children should be able to stay in the Netherlands is repeated by every television show I analyzed. It was initially thought that online media would cause a diversity of voices instead of one representation of reality in mass media (Paulussen and Harder 549). Although various people are heard in the television programs and social media responses are mentioned during the interactive debate, the shows can still choose what to emphasize and what to refute. In the situation of the Children’s Pardon this leads to one shared discourse originated from different approaches. Because of the constant repetition of the dominant frame, it seems to be impossible to establish a conflicting frame in the television shows. Approaching the children as innocent victims is considered as the ‘popular response’ towards the debate. An opposing response, however, will be refuted immediately by presenting the personal situation of the children. Despite the, at least, 250.000 signatures for Tim Hofman’s petition, the television show EenVandaag still mentions that almost half of their online panel is against the expansion of the Children’s Pardon (Klapwijk). In this regard, the unified frame I discovered in the television shows is a remarkable outcome of this study. Eventually all frames appear to focus on the personal story behind the abstract topic. The asylum-seeking children and their families are seen as innocent victims and since they spend most of their lives in the Netherlands and adapted to the Dutch culture, deporting the children is understood as ‘inhumane’. By constantly referring from one media source to the other, a flow is originated. Since every time when a new representation takes place the frame of reference is becoming smaller, it will be hard for the media reporters to zoom out and illustrate the bigger picture. What is subsequently visible through reinforcement of the dominant frame. Consequently, the television shows end up in a bubble together, what makes it almost impossible to come up with and express a completely new frame. While, in the past, a shared view of the texts arose because of the programming strategies of prominent television networks, a collective meaning of the presented texts about the Children’s Pardon will now arise in the interactive debate.
50 5. Discussion
In this thesis I elaborated on the notion of framing and the additional disillusion to accurately represent the truth. While I tried to make sure to legitimately conduct this research by, among other things, following Kitzingers’ advice to conduct background research to the broader cultural context through immersing myself in the immigration topic (151), it is important to always keep in mind the role of my personal frame of reference and subjective interpretations. The words I use or the sentences that I quote, will frame the topic once again. Since scholars, just like media reporters, will never be able to represent reality correctly, this ‘re-framing’ is unavoidable. However, it is important to be aware of this shortcoming at all times. Furthermore, in this study, attention to the social media responses was only paid when they were depicted through the national television networks. This could possibly explain the homogeneous frames that I described in the conclusion of the thesis. Follow-up research could therefore show the publics’ reaction by analyzing various social media channels. It would be relevant to not only address the frames shown in the social media coverage, but also examine the final step in framing that De Vreese described as the consequences of framing (51-52). Online responses to the documentary Terug Naar Je Eige Land or the reactions to the subsequent interactive debate on television will be helpful to find out if the public actually agrees with the dominant frames. This follow-up research should show whether the public will copy these presented frames, like Haynes, Merolla and Karthick Ramakrishnan suggested (30) or if they will disagree with the presented ideas and take a conflicting position, like the outcome of the online panel from EenVandaag is implying (Klapwijk).
51 6. Bibliography
Adriaanse, Mark Lievisse and Barbara Rijlaarsdam. “Coalitie doorbreekt impasse rondom het kinderpardon.” NRC. January 29, 2019. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/01/29/impasse-rondom-kinderpardon-krijgt- trekken-van-een-crisis-a3652143 Altheide, David. “Media, Logic and Social Power.” Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 3.2 (2011): 119-136. Bergson, Henri. Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. Rockville: ArcManor, 2008. Bos, Linda, et al. “It's the Frame That Matters: Immigrant Integration and Media Framing Effects in the Netherlands.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 55 (2016): 97–108. Caldwell, John T. “Second-Shift Media Aesthetics: Programming, Interactivity, and User Flows.” New Media. Theories and Practices of Digitextuality, Eds. Anna Everett and John T. Caldwell. London/New York: Routledge, 2003. 127–144. Chaffee, Steven and Miriam Metzger. “The end of mass communication?” Mass Communication and Society, 4 (2001): 365-379. Cohen, Bernard C. The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963. Curtin, Michael. “Matrix Media.” Television Studies After TV: Understanding Television in the Post-Broadcast Era. Eds. Graeme Turner and Jinna Tay. London: Routledge, 2009. 9–19. Dekker, Rianne and Peter Scholten. “Framing the Immigration Policy Agenda: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Media Effects on Dutch Immigration Policies.” The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22.2 (2017): 202-222. Deuze, Mark. “Leven in Media.” Omzien naar de Toekomst: Jaarboek ICT en Samenleving 2008|2009. Eds. Valerie Frissen en Jop Esmeijer. Lippenhuizen: Media Update Vakspecificaties, 2008. 67-84. Dijck, van José and Thomas Poell. “Understanding Social Media Logic.” Media and Communication, 1.1 (2013): 2-14. “#EIGELAND - voor een kinderpardon dat wél werkt.” Petities.nl. 2018. https://petities.nl/petitions/eigeland-voor-een-kinderpardon-dat-wel- werkt/signatures?locale=nl.
52
Entman, Robert. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication, 43.4 (1993): 51-58. Entzinger, Han. “Changing the rules while the game is on: From multiculturalism to assimilation in the Netherlands.” Migration, Citizenship, Ethnos: Incorporation Regimes in Germany, Western Europ and North America. Eds. Michal Bodemann and Gökce Yurdakul. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006. 121-144. Gorp, van, Baldwin. “Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press coverage of the asylum issue.” European Journal of Communication. 20.4 (2005): 484-507. Huisman, Charlotte, Peter de Graaf and Gijs Herderscheê. “Hoop, onrust, vlucht en uiteindelijk het goede nieuws: Lili en Howick mogen blijven.” Volkskrant. September 8, 2019. https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/hoop-onrust-vlucht-en-uiteindelijk- het-goede-nieuws-lili-en-howick-mogen-blijven~bc63b905/. Huisman, Charlotte. “Estafette-kerkdienst in Den Haag om uitzetting Armeense familie te voorkomen. ‘Ik heb nog twee meter preken op de plank liggen’.” Volkskrant. October 27, 2019. https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/estafette-kerkdienst-in-den- haag-om-uitzetting-armeense-familie-te-voorkomen-ik-heb-nog-twee-meter-preken-op-de- plank-liggen~b85071a6/. Hart, ‘t Paul and Karen Tindall. “Leadership by the famous: celebrity as political capital.” Dispersed Leadership in Democracies: Origins, Dynamics, and Implications. Eds. Kane, J. et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. 255-78. Haynes, Chris, Jennifer Merolla and S. Karthick Ramakrishnan. Framing Immigrants: News Coverage, Public Opinion, and Policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2016. Höijer, Birgitta. “The Discourse of Global Compassion: The Audience and Media Reporting of Human Suffering.” Media, Culture & Society, 26.4 (2004): 513-531. Karlsen, Rune. "Still Broadcasting the Campaign: On the Internet and the Fragmentation of Political Communication with Evidence from Norwegian Electoral Politics." Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 8.2 (2011): 146-162. Kitzinger, Jenny. “Framing and Frame Analysis.” Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates. Ed. Eoin Devereux. London: SAGE Publications, 2007. 134-161. Klapwijk, Petra. “CDA-kiezers verdeeld over verruiming kinderpardon.” EenVandaag Opiniepanel. January 21, 2019.
53 https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/fileadmin/Rapportage_kinderpardonv2- compressed.pdf Kozman, Claudia. “Measuring Issue-specific and Generic Frames in the Media’s Coverage of the Steroids Issue in Baseball.” Journalism Practice, 11.6 (2017): 777-797. Larabee, Ann. “Celebrity, Politics, and the ‘Me, Too’ Moment.” The Journal of Popular Culture. 51.1 (2018): 7-9. Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan, 1992. McCombs, Maxwell and Donald Shaw. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36.2 (1972): 176-187. McCombs, Maxwell. Setting the Agenda: Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2014. Meraz, Sharon. “Media Agenda Setting in a Competitive and Hostile Environment the Role of Sources in Setting Versus Supporting Topical Discussant Agendas in the Tea Party Patriots' Facebook Group." Agenda Setting in a 2.0 World: New Agendas in Communication. Ed. Thomas Johnson. New York: Routledge, 2014. 1-27. “Missie en identiteit.” BNNVARA. https://home.bnnvara.nl/pagina/missie-en-identiteit. Moernaut, Renée, Jelle Mast and Luc Pauwels. “Working Mechanically or Organically? Climate Change Journalist and News Frames in Mainstream and Alternative Media.” Journalism Practice, 12.10 (2018): 1311-1331. Newcomb, Horace and Paul Hirsch. “Television as a Cultural Forum.” Television: The Critical View. Ed. Horace Newcomb. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994. 561-73. Paulussen, Steve and Raymond Harder. “Social media References in Newspapers.” Journalism Practice, 8.5 (2014): 542-551. Poell, Thomas and José van Dijck. “Social media and activist communication.” The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media. Ed. C. Atton. London: Routledge, 2015. 527-537. Roggeband, Conny and Rens Vliegenthart. “Divergent framing: The public debate on migration in the Dutch parliament and media, 1995–2004.” West European Politics. 30.3 (2007): 524-48. Rose, Gillian. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2016.
54 Scherder, Erik, Carla van Os and Elianne Zijlstra. “Schaderisico bij uitzetting langdurig verblijvende kinderen.” Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2018): 2-11. Shaw, Donald and Bradley Hamm. “Agendas for a public union or for private communities? How individuals are using media to reshape American society” Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda setting theory. Eds. Maxwell McCombs, Donald Shaw and David Weaver. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 1997. 209-230. Skogerbø, Eli et al. “Agenda-setting revisisted: Social media and sourcing in mainstream journalism”. Social Media and Politics (2016): 190-222. Thimm, Caja, et al. Media Logic(s) Revisited: Modelling the Interplay between Media Institutions, Media Technology and Societal Change. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Tienhooven, Gudo. “Tim Hofman: Kinderen mogen niet de dupe worden van politiek gekonkel.” Algemeen Dagblad. November 1, 2018. https://www.ad.nl/show/tim- hofman-kinderen-mogen-niet-de-dupe-worden-van-politiek-gekonkel~a33f4be0/ Tolson, Andrew. Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 2001. Vasterman, Peter, Joris Yzermans and Anja Dirkzwager. “The Role of the Media and Media Hypes in the Aftermath of Disasters.” Epidemiologic Reviews, 27 (2005): 107-114. “Verantwoording.” BNNVARA. 2018. https://verantwoording.bnnvara.nl. Visser, Brecht. “The Emotional Politics of Immigration.” Unpublished student paper. University of Amsterdam. January 26, 2019. Vreese, Claes de. “News Framing: Theory and Typology.” Information Design Journal & Document Design, 13.1 (2005): 51-62. Vliegenthart, Rens. Framing Immigration and Integration: Facts, Parliament, Media and Anti- Immigrant Party Support in the Netherlands. 2007. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, PhD dissertation. Warner, Jamie. “Political Culture Jamming: The Dissident Humor of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” Popular Communication, 5.1 (2007): 17-36. Wiest, Sara, Leigh Raymond and Rosalee Clawson. “Framing, Partisan Predispositions, and Public Opinion on Climate Change.” Global Environment Change, 31 (2015): 187-198.
55 7. Audiovisual Sources 5 Uur Live. “Jurjen van den Bergh over het debat in de Tweede Kamer.” RTL. January 30, 2019. https://www.rtl.nl/video/8b3654c2-dddf-44fe-b596-84f112906909/. #BOOS. “#BOOS DOCU: TERUG NAAR JE EIGE LAND.” YouTube. November 1, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1tjz6l7TGQ&t=4s. #BOOS. “DE GROTE TERUG NAAR JE #EIGELAND UPDATE | LIJFSHOW #6 | #BOOS.” YouTube. November 8, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gqnUI954SA. #BOOS. “DENNIS EN MAKSIM OPGEPAKT EN WORDEN LAND UIT GEZET EN BUMA HEEFT HET ZWAAR | #BOOS S02E30.” YouTube. December 12, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkHhFBk8Rp8. #BOOS. “WOONSTAD LAAT MEISJE IN RATTENHUIS WONEN EN NEMR MAG BLIJVEN | #BOOS S02E45.” YouTube. April 4, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74enWoKB9QI. CDA. “Kinderpardon.” Facebook. January 23, 2019. https://www.facebook.com/kiesCDA/videos/379732382837880/. #EIGELAND. 2018. BNNVARA. https://home.bnnvara.nl/pagina/eige-land. De Wereld Draait Door. “#BOOS-documentaire ‘Terug naar Je Eige Land’.” BNNVARA. November 1, 2018. https://dewerelddraaitdoor.bnnvara.nl/media/428656. De Wereld Draait Door. “Burgerinitiatief Tim Hofman succesvol.” BNNVARA. November 2, 2018. https://dewerelddraaitdoor.bnnvara.nl/media/430476. De Wereld Draait Door. “Tim Hofman laat zich niet uit het veld slaan door staatssecretaris Mark Harbers.” BNNVARA. November 7, 2018. https://dewerelddraaitdoor.bnnvara.nl/media/464624. De Wereld Draait Door. “Tafelheer Tim Hofman over het kinderpardon.” BNNVARA. December 6, 2018. https://dewerelddraaitdoor.bnnvara.nl/media/581909. De Wereld Draait Door. “RESPECT 1 - Barbara Baarsma, Tom Egbers, Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal & Tim Hofman.” BNNVARA. December 14, 2018. https://dewerelddraaitdoor.bnnvara.nl/media/582431. De Wereld Draait Door. “CDA toch achter ruimer kinderpardon.” BNNVARA. January 21, 2019. https://dewerelddraaitdoor.bnnvara.nl/media/584346. De Wereld Draait Door. “Coalitie akkoord kinderpardon - Nemr en Tim Hofman.” BNNVARA. January 30, 2019. https://dewerelddraaitdoor.bnnvara.nl/media/682243.
56 EenVandaag. “Rutte wil geen verruiming van het kinderpardon ondanks succesvolle petitie.” AVROTROS. November 2, 2018 https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/rutte-wil-geen- verruiming-van-het-kinderpardon-ondanks-succesvolle-petitie/. EenVandaag. “Protestantse kerken: CDA regel een nieuw kinderpardon.” AVROTROS. November 3, 2018 https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/protestantse-kerken-cda- regel-een-nieuw-kinderpardon/. EenVandaag. “CDA-kiezers verdeeld over versoepeling kinderpardon.” AVROTROS. January 21, 2019 https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/panels/opiniepanel/alle- uitslagen/item/cda-kiezers-verdeeld-over-versoepeling-kinderpardon/ Jinek. “Joost Vullings & Wouter de Winther over de onrust binnen de coalitiepartijen.” KRONCRV. January 22, 2019. https://evajinek.kro-ncrv.nl/fragmenten/joost-vullings- wouter-de-winther-over-de-onrust-binnen-de-coalitiepartijen. Jinek. “Er is eindelijk een akkoord! Xander van der Wulp en Wouter de Winther over het Kinderpardon.” KRONCRV. January 29, 2019. https://evajinek.kro- ncrv.nl/fragmenten/er-is-eindelijk-een-akkoord-xander-van-der-wulp-en-wouter-de-winther- over-het. Jinek. “Sybrand Buma en Joost Vullings leggen het kinderpardon onder de loep.” KRONCRV. January 30, 2019. https://evajinek.kro-ncrv.nl/fragmenten/sybrand-buma-en-joost- vullings-leggen-het-kinderpardon-onder-de-loep. Nieuwsuur. “Reportage: Meerderheid Kamer voor versoepeling kinderpardon.” NOS. January 19, 2019. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/video/2268155-reportage-meerderheid-kamer- voor-versoepeling-kinderpardon.html. Nieuwsuur. “Kinderpardon: nieuwe stresstest voor de coalitie.” NOS. January 21, 2019. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2268462-kinderpardon-een-nieuwe-stresstest-voor- de-coalitie.html. Nieuwsuur. “Reportage en gesprek: Is het kinderpardonakkoord realistisch?” NOS. January 30, 2019. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2269835-kinderpardon-lost-niks-op- schrijnende-gevallen-zullen-blijven-komen.html. Nooshin, Anna. “Weekvlog: Ik praat nooit echt over mijn verleden - Anna Nooshin” YouTube. November 22, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYhKT12TFNQ. Pauw. “Staatssecretaris Harbers gaat het kinderpardon niet verruimen.” BNNVARA. November 7, 2018. https://pauw.bnnvara.nl/media/468056.
57 RTL Boulevard. “Tim Hofman confronteert politici in Terug Naar Je Eige Land.” RTL. November 1, 2018. https://www.rtlboulevard.nl/video/tv-fragmenten/video/4471221/tim- hofman-confronteert-politici-terug-naar-je-eige-land. RTL Late Night. “Klaas Dijkhoff overvallen door vraag asielkind: 'Ja, dus?’.” RTL. November 1, 2018. https://www.rtl.nl/video/6dd70b02-e26c-9a63-a90b-f2bcf7806dee/. RTL Late Night. “’Asielkinderen krijgen onterecht hoop door nieuws over kinderpardon’.” RTL. January 21, 2019. https://www.rtl.nl/video/2776460c-a472-09e0-76ab-ea2b1e1d4f4f/. RTL Late Night. “Gert-Jan Segers over Kinderpardon: ‘Dit biedt vertrouwen’.” RTL. January 30, 2019. https://www.rtl.nl/video/926da5df-60c5-6249-c637-90da55e0b5d3/. Veronica Inside. “Tim Hofman wil goedkoop scoren.” Veronica. November 2, 2018. https://www.veronicainside.nl/video/fragment_tim-hofman-wil-goedkoop-scoren. VVD. “’Nog even over de kinderpardonfilm.’ - Klaas Dijkhoff.” Twitter. November 2, 2018. https://twitter.com/vvd/status/1058310492400349184?lang=en. Zondag met Lubach. “Het talkshowpardon - Zondag met Lubach (S09).” YouTube. September 16, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVHFDTIoMKc.
58 8. Appendix
8.1 The interactive debate surrounding the Children’s Pardon on television The table depicts all television shows that discussed the documentary or the topic of the Children’s Pardon in a studio setting and includes several online videos to which these shows refer for the period between November 1, 2018 and January 31, 2019.
Date Show/source Channel Title 01-11-2018 De Wereld Draait Door (BNNVARA) NPO1 #BOOS-documentaire ‘Terug naar Je Eige Land’ RTL Late Night RTL4 Klaas Dijkhoff overvallen door vraag asielkind: 'Ja, dus?’ RTL Boulevard RTL4 Tim Hofman confronteert politici in Terug Naar Je Eige Land 02-11-2018 De Wereld Draait Door (BNNVARA) NPO1 Burgerinitiatief Tim Hofman succesvol. EenVandaag (AVROTROS) NPO1 Rutte wil geen verruiming van het kinderpardon ondanks succesvolle petitie Veronica Inside Veronica Tim Hofman wil goedkoop scoren Twitteraccount VVD Twitter ‘Nog even over de kinderpardonfilm’ – Klaas Dijkhoff 03-11-2018 EenVandaag (AVROTROS) NPO1 Protestantse kerken: CDA regel een nieuw kinderpardon 07-11-2018 De Wereld Draait Door (BNNVARA) NPO1 Tim Hofman laat zich niet uit het veld slaan door staatssecretaris Mark Harbers. Pauw (BNNVARA) NPO1 Staatssecretaris Harbers gaat het kinderpardon niet verruimen. 08-11-2018 #BOOS (BNNVARA) YouTube DE GROTE TERUG NAAR JE #EIGELAND UPDATE | LIJFSHOW #6 | #BOOS 21-11-2018 #BOOS (BNNVARA) Website No title. (Online videos of Dutch celebrities in conversation with children that will be deported) 22-11-2018 Anna Nooshin Weekvlog YouTube Weekvlog: Ik praat nooit echt over mijn verleden - Anna Nooshin 06-12-2018 De Wereld Draait Door (BNNVARA) NPO1 Tafelheer Tim Hofman over het kinderpardon
12-12-2018 #BOOS (BNNVARA) YouTube “DENNIS EN MAKSIM OPGEPAKT EN WORDEN LAND UIT GEZET EN BUMA HEEFT HET ZWAAR | #BOOS S02E30.” 14-12-2018 De Wereld Draait Door (BNNVARA) NPO1 RESPECT 1 - Barbara Baarsma, Tom Egbers, Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal & Tim Hofman 19-01-2019 Nieuwsuur (NOS) NPO2 Reportage: Meerderheid Kamer voor versoepeling kinderpardon 21-01-2019 EenVandaag (AVROTROS) NPO1 CDA-kiezers verdeeld over versoepeling kinderpardon De Wereld Draait Door (BNNVARA) NPO1 CDA toch achter ruimer kinderpardon Nieuwsuur (NOS) NPO2 Kinderpardon: nieuwe stresstest voor de coalitie RTL Late Night RTL4 ‘Asielkinderen krijgen onterecht hoop door nieuws over kinderpardon’. 22-01-2019 Jinek (KRO-NCRV) NPO1 Joost Vullings & Wouter de Winther over de onrust binnen de coalitiepartijen. 23-01-2019 Facebook CDA Facebook De afgelopen dagen hebben we veel vragen voorbij zien komen over de versoepeling van het #Kinderpardon. Kamerlid Madeleine van Toorenburg geeft antwoord op de meest gestelde vragen. 29-01-2019 Jinek (KRO-NCRV) NPO1 Er is eindelijk een akkoord! Xander van der Wulp en Wouter de Winther over het Kinderpardon 30-01-2019 5 Uur Live RTL5 Jurjen van den Bergh over het debat in de Tweede Kamer De Wereld Draait Door (BNNVARA) NPO1 Coalitieakkoord kinderpardon - Nemr en Tim Hofman. Jinek (KRO-NCRV) NPO1 Sybrand Buma en Joost Vullings leggen het kinderpardon onder de loep Nieuwsuur (NOS) NPO2 Reportage en gesprek: Is het kinderpardonakkoord realistisch? RTL Late Night RTL4 Gert-Jan Segers over Kinderpardon: ‘Dit biedt vertrouwen’
59