By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Theater producer Joop van den Ende urges Dutch politicians to safeguard domestic media from the manipulative influence of American tech giants like Meta, Amazon, and X, citing their alleged exploitation of data and spread of misinformation. He advocates increased investment in public broadcasting, arguing that the current system, despite its popularity, faces undue criticism and underfunding. Van den Ende supports DPG’s acquisition of RTL, believing it will strengthen Dutch media against American dominance, despite concerns from the ACM regarding monopolization. This plea, appearing in major newspapers, emphasizes the critical role of a robust media landscape in upholding democratic values.
Read the original article here
Dutch producer Joop van den Ende is sounding the alarm about the growing influence of American tech giants on Dutch media. He’s not just any producer; his involvement in founding Endemol, the powerhouse behind shows like *Big Brother* and *The Voice*, lends considerable weight to his concerns. He’s urging politicians to act decisively, arguing that the current situation represents a serious threat to Dutch media independence.
He believes that the current revenue models for Dutch television and newspapers are under immense pressure, primarily due to the competitive landscape created by these American tech companies. Van den Ende sees this as a critical situation, labeling it “alarm phase one,” and he’s directing his criticism squarely at the leaders of Meta, Amazon, and X, accusing them of manipulating elections, exploiting user data, and deliberately spreading misinformation.
This isn’t just about financial strain; he argues it’s a direct attack on democratic values. The producer contends that the Dutch government is failing to adequately protect citizens from this insidious influence, dismissing what he perceives as complacent complaints from The Hague. He feels that the belief that public broadcasting is expensive and outdated is a dangerous delusion, particularly given that a significant portion of the Dutch population relies on public broadcasters for news.
Van den Ende emphasizes the importance of protecting this well-functioning system to safeguard journalistic integrity and ensure the continued production of high-quality programming that resonates with a large audience. He’s not simply advocating for the status quo; he sees it as a vital element of Dutch society, integral to its democratic functioning.
Adding another layer to the complexity, Van den Ende is a vocal supporter of the proposed takeover of RTL Nederland by DPG Media, a move he sees as a necessary step to counter American dominance. However, this stance is at odds with the Dutch Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM), which expresses concerns about the potential creation of a media monopoly. Van den Ende dismisses the ACM’s concerns as outdated, arguing that DPG’s increased power is essential to compete with the American giants.
This disagreement highlights the inherent tension between protecting competition and countering foreign influence. While the ACM focuses on preventing monopolies, Van den Ende prioritizes the broader threat he perceives from American tech companies. This tension underlines the difficulty in navigating the complexities of the current media landscape.
The significant portion of the Dutch population that receives news solely through social media is alarming. This dependence on algorithms controlled by American companies creates a potential for unprecedented control over information flow, capable of suppressing certain narratives or manipulating public opinion. Such control can be even more insidious when these tech giants work in conjunction with foreign governments.
While some might criticize Van den Ende’s past involvement in producing reality TV, which has been accused of prioritizing sensationalism over substance, his current stance on protecting Dutch media should not be entirely dismissed. His career shift towards theater and his philanthropic efforts in promoting the arts suggest a genuine commitment to cultural preservation and, potentially, a more nuanced understanding of the importance of diverse and independent media. The concerns raised extend far beyond his personal history or industry background.
The implications are far-reaching. The potential for foreign influence over the Dutch media landscape is a legitimate concern. A healthy and independent media is essential for a functioning democracy, and the arguments presented by Van den Ende should not be summarily discarded, especially given his unique perspective within the Dutch media industry. The dialogue surrounding the appropriate response to this complex challenge is crucial. It requires careful consideration of balancing competing concerns like preventing monopolies while countering the undue influence of foreign actors on domestic media. The debate about the future of Dutch media is far from settled.