Collectively Empathizing with the ‘Innocent Victim’: Framing the Asylum-Seeking Child in a Cross-Media Environment

(1)

F R A M I N G T H E A S Y L U M - S E E K I N G

C H I L D I N A C R O S S - M E D I A

E N V I R O N M E N T

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

C O L L E C T I V E L Y

E M P A T H I Z I N G W I T H T H E

‘ I N N O C E N T V I C T I M ’

(2)

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

(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)

(5)

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

(6)

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

(7)

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

(8)

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.

(9)

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

(10)

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

(11)

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 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

(12)

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: 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).

(13)

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

(14)

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

(15)

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

(16)

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

(17)

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

(18)

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

(19)

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.

(20)

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?

(21)

 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.

(22)

 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?

(23)

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

(24)

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

(25)

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 2: Nemr depicted in an ‘unsafe’ Iraq Image 1: Nemr is showing the website of the government about

(26)

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.

Image 3: Hofman explaining the contradictions of the

government in the Children’s Pardon Image 4: Hofman explaining the contradictions of the government in the Children’s Pardon

Image 5: Hofmans respons to the controversial statements of the Prime Minister

(27)

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

(28)

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.

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). The role play in the documentary shows the

Image 9: Hofman is explaining the cooperation criterion through a role play with several children. He is holding a contract which says: “I don’t want a lollipop”.

(29)

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

(30)

Image 13: Secretary of State Mark Harbers is being blamed for giving away residence permits to only a few children.

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 12 : Prime minister Mark Rutte is literally kicking Nemr and his family out of the country.

Image 10: The Immigration and Naturalization Service personified as a middle-aged white man in a suit who sues Kingsley

Image 11: The Immigration and Naturalization Service personified as a middle-aged white man who sends back Nemr and his family

(31)

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.”