It's a nice idea. For example, Lubach piggybacks on the hype of the filler word 'how then' and links that to a question that we should all ask Wilders. But what he doesn't seem to realize is that he only helps Wilders to more votes in the elections. And worse: he gives us the idea that we can all turn things around by tweeting #how then'. Then we also get a good feeling: we did 'something' about it, didn't we? The problem is that we didn't do something about Wilders, but helped him to more seats.
All those likes , shares and retweets on the clips, articles and so on have only made the well-known politicians more famous. That applies to Pauw, Jinek and Matthijs van Nieuwkerk. The message is lost in the form and only contributes to more attention, fame and therefore votes for the politician they seem to want to slow down.
More voices with more media attention
The result is that the politicians who get the most media attention, actually get the most votes. And this happens by doing two things: communicating often and spreading controversial messages. How many times has Wilders himself not publicly indicated that he laughs his head off
It is namely media, celebrities and other influencers who continuously bring controversial people or their statements to the attention and keep them there. They justify this from the duty to bring news and to be critical of what is happening in our society. Or they want to protect people from the consequences of a wrong choice, whatever that may be.
In doing so, they contribute, consciously or unconsciously, to the election results: parties with extreme positions are more often in the news and, due to the reactions, also stay in the news longer. This works more to the advantage of well-known parties such as the PVV and VVD than lesser-known parties such as DENK and Artikel 1. It therefore seems noble to put these parties in the spotlight, but the large opposites of these small parties benefit more from this than those small parties.
Elections: Who are we going to focus on?
The research has confirmed our position that the more hosptial ceos mailing list famous the less, also with politicians. Even if the message of that politician is a negative one. Rather thanks to. And that in the latter case the media and celebrities in particular reinforce this effect.
Furthermore, we have received confirmation that we look at politicians with a great deal of disdain. You almost wonder why anyone would want to become a politician. I hope that with this research, the voter, the politician and the media have gained more insight into everyone's role in elections. The cliché 'unknown makes unloved' also turns out to be true in reverse. We get the politicians we pay attention to. And if we don't want them, we should especially look at ourselves.
Why don't we pay more attention to Jesse Klaver, for example, who we apparently judge most positively? He says 'at least go vote', instead of 'vote for me'. I hope this article will encourage you to think about what you do want. What are you going to pay attention to in the run-up to the elections? What are you going to do with the insights from this article?
Thanks to Imre Scheffers, Simon Schreuder and Claartje Broeren for their contributions to this article.