VOL. 2 ISSUE NR. 7
CURIOUS URIOS MAGAZINE
Politics On Demand Democracy for sale. Are the USA sold to its highest bidder?
Introduction of the 36th Board!
The Future of Journalism The Downfall of Public media in Poland
CONTENTS .................................................. Preface
The 36th Board 6 Democracy For Sale
URUMUN 2016 12 Future of Journalism
The Downfall of Public Media in Poland 18 Urios Lecture: Online Privacy
What debating skills can we learn from politicians?
Featured in Curious
ROOS BOS Editor-in-Chief
Dear members, Curious is glad to be back! After we enjoyed an amazing holiday, we are fully charged and ready to start a new year. Our team has undergone some changes since to last time you’ve read the magazine. Let me first introduce our new additions! Zuzanna Grejner is an exchange student at UU studying law with focus on European Union law and human rights. She is a Master student of law at University of Warsaw. She also graduated from Bachelor’s American Studies and participated in a semester-long exchange at the University of Florida in Gainesville, USA. Upon coming back to Poland, she finished a course on American law in the Center for American Law Studies. Zuzanna has worked for NGOs in the field of European Union integration and volunteered for an organization promoting women’s rights and gender equality. We are very grateful that Zuzanna joined the Curious team. Make sure you read her first article about public media in her country of origin! Our second recruit is Klea Vyshka. She is a student of European law at Utrecht University and as well a former editor in chief at the online magazine Out Focused. Klea has been a contributor to the magazine as a literary critic and translator since the first days of the creation of the magazine and now participating at the Urios magazine committee, as a member. Get an insight on Klea’s ideas about the future of Journalism. In just two weeks we will know who the next occupant of the White house is. Will it be Hilary and her husband Bill who pack their bags and move to the official presidency residence or will former model Melanie Trump and her husband Donald reside on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C.? If you follow the American elections closely, you might have had some early nights to tune in on the presidential debates at three o’clock in the morning, but if you prefer sleeping in you haven’t really missed much. On every television show, news item, social media post or newspaper article you are bombarded with information about the American elections. In our contemporary society we have thousands of different media outlets at our disposal to learn more about the world around us. But are we critical enough about the information that is fed to us through television and the Internet? In this issue of Curious we explore in what ways media influences politics. We take a closer look at the financial side of the media spectacle in the United States; we show you the downfall of public media in Poland and you will get some more information about our lecture on digital privacy. We live in a society dominated by media and advertising, it is difficult to get the attention of the public. An online magazine as Curious also struggles with the lethal competition from its fellow writers, bloggers and vloggers. But hopefully we succeeded to get some of your attention and time in the over crowded media display.
THE NEW BOARD
THE NEW BOARD
THE NEW BOARD
Pieter-Bas van Suylichem
He is a 23-year old tax law student at Rotterdam Erasmus University. He is not affiliated anymore with Utrecht University, but has a great spot in his heart for Urios. He has been a member of both the External Affairs committee as the Urios MUN society. For those who know him well, they will know that he will always do the very best he can for Urios. .He will always strive to continue the development of the association, through leadership, co-operation with other associations and hard work. His key goal is broadening the views of Urios.
Is a 21-years old law student, currently in her last year. She became involved with Urios last year by being a member of the Urios MUN Society and the magazine committee. While enrolled in the minor International Relations, she was determined to look for a way to combine her interest in law and politics. She started her Urios journey as a committee member of both the MUN society and Magazine Committee. She believes that Urios gives you the opportunity to meet people from all over the world, since it is the only Law association where English is the main language. All these people have different views on life, which encourages you to think out of the box. This is a very valuable asset in her opinion.
A 23-year old student who is already enrolled in her second master program (Public International Law). She obtained a bachelor in Economics and a master in Law and Economics, but found herself passionated about law. Hence, regarding her interests in economics next to law, the position of treasurer fits me perfectly! As the treasurer of Urios this year she will check the finances of Urios and ensure, in cooperation with my fellow board members, that Urios will remain financially healthy. Next to this she will organize a Short Exchange for first-year students.
Pieter-Bas is currently in his fourth and final year of the Double Degree Law Program at University College Utrecht. During his studies at this college, his fascination with and passion for law in general have increased tremendously as I received more insight in how the discipline can be identified in every aspect of society. His heart lies with the intersection between law and politics in particular and he knew Urios offers many great possibilities in this regard, so here he is!
Daan van Gestel
Maurits de Munck
She is a 22-year old student, currently in the last phase of obtaining her Bachelor of Laws. Besides her interests in the legal field, she is also passionate about international relations and conflict studies. After she went on exchange to South Africa she decided to focus her studies on international law and she became an Urios member. She has been a part of the magazine committee and the URUMUN board. Meeting people from all over the world with similar interest as myself is what she values the most in being a part of Urios.
Daan is a 20-year old interdisciplinary social sciences at Utrecht University. He became involved with Urios last year. A great thing about Urios is that it allows students who have a passion for international law join the association, even if they are not a law student, and that is exactly how Daan became involved! He encourages students to participate at Model United Nations conferences because it is a great way to work on your diplomatic skills!
He is also enrolled in the Double Degree Law Program. This 21-year old student is thankful for the fact that he will collaborate with many interesting external parties and meet students from all different backgrounds, while obtaining valuable experiences and skills. It is his aim for this year to organise more lectures with external parties, thereby creating a larger platform of students potentially interested in International and European Law. In addition, he Iwould like to organise more lectures on current issues and invite more speakers directly involved with such issues.
THE NEW BOARD
6 PAGE 10
DEMO CRACY FOR SALE
Are the United States sold to the highest bidder? By Roos Bos
Money cannot buy you the presidency, neither is it easy to bribe officeholders, but the legal flood of money does have an enormous effect on American politics. Clinton aims to invest 2,5 Millard dollar in the battle for the white house, the volume of the republican election wallet is estimated on the same amount. Since the nineties the rules on` donating in political campaigns have slowly but surely eased. In 2010 the Supreme Court tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. Corporations and unions could now spend unlimited sums of money on political ads in de media. It remains illegal to give money directly to candidates for federal office, this in order to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Most of the money circulating in American politics comes from SuperPAC’s, political action committees. SuperPAC’s are political groups that aren’t officially bound to a candidate, but often advocate one of the candidate’s opinions. After the ruling of 2010, corporations can legally donate as much money to SuperPAC’s as they desire. The verdict was reached in the name of the first amendment, the Supreme Court defined a class of private persons (corporations) as people and thus limiting their freedom of speech by a financial threshold is an infringement on the first amendment of the United States constitution. But the sad reality in contemporary American politics is that as a result of this devastating ruling about constitutional freedom only 0.0000023% of the population can
impart substantial effect to their right to freedom of expression. In 2011 the money invested by SuperPAC’s was derived from only 726 individuals. 35 Americans donated more than 1 million dollar to a PAC. Furthermore it is questionable whether money equals speech. Money is a medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a value on their markets. In politics money can help a particular politician in his or her campaigning, but money is not speech in terms of the phrase written down in the constitution by the founding fathers. Neither can we place corporations and people in the same category. The founders of the United States spoke about free men born with inalienable rights. It is they who speak; it is they who are equal amongst each other. People might be equal in relation with others but they are certainly not in relation to corporations. Equality of individual or corporate personhood doesn’t exist when a person with more corporate ties has more influence in politics than people with just a few alliances. The Supreme Court is of the opinion that corporate political speech does not give rise to corruption, but didn’t they allow corporate people to hide behind their masks in order to use their unlimited resources to influence the political discourse? The kind of money-injected freedom of speech shouldn’t weaken the voices of the people. The American constitution begins with ”We the people…” not “We the corporations…”
URUMUN 2016 Today we live in turbulent times with war, human rights violations, tensions between countries, coming up on our newsfeed everyday. This year Urios will hold its own MUN for the second time to give students who have affinity with debating, lobbying, international law and international relations, a platform to discuss these issues. The theme of this year’s edition of URUMUN is ‘peacekeeping by understanding’ and will be held from the 24th of October until the 27th of October. The delegates must find solutions to the international problems they are faced with by listening, debating and cooperating. In a model united nations you will simulate United Nations committees. URUMUN 2016 provides three different committees which will discuss a few interesting topics. The Disarment and International Security committee (DISEC) will discuss the relations between Russia and NATO and the situation in the South China Sea. In the United Nations Human Rights Council the delegates will work on resolutions regarding the rights of
unaccompanied refugee children and the role of free press in promoting good governance. The Security Council will be a special committee. It will be a crisis committee about the Syrian Civil war. The delegates will simulate the Security Council during this war starting in 2011. As a delegate you have to you have to be able to react ad hoc to situations that we will present you with in this simulation. The conference will not only revolve around serious debates, but will also provide plenty of opportunities to meet the other delegates from all over the world and have a great time! There will be three social activities: a pub-crawl through the city centre of Utrecht, a pub quiz and a formal diplomatic ball! If you are interested in participating, please check our website www.urumun.com for more information. You also can sign up for the conference here! If you have any questions for the board, you can send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
FUTURE OF JOURNALISM By Klea Vyshka
My favourite picture of the most beautiful morning I could ever imagine runs at my grandparents’ house, where a freshly made cup of coffee stands in front of me and I can easily sit on the couch, legs up, reading newspapers that my grandfather buys every morning. I was raised with a paper-like feeling on the tips of my fingers, however, recent developments in this industry, have affected not only me, but everyone that works, writes and reads daily newspapers, be it local or national. The newspaper industry today is in big trouble. Papers have
been closing and downsizing for years and that affects all of us, even if you get your news from Facebook, Google, Twitter or any other social media blogpost that continuously shares videos of cute kittens and unlucky customers that have the worst day of their life after breaking four expensive electronic outlets in a row (you know what I’m talking about). But those places are often just repackaging the work of newspapers and it is not just websites, but also TV news that often end up citing print sources.
The media is a food chain which would fall apart without local newspapers. And the problem is print ads are now less popular with advertisers that they used to be and online ads produce much less revenue. Between 2004 and 2014 newspapers gained 2 bn $ in online ad revenue. Unfortunately, in that same period they lost 30 bn $ in print revenues and that’s more or less like finding a lucky penny on the sidewalk while on the same day your bank account is drained by a 16 years old Belgian hacker. And this has led to cutbacks in newsrooms,
accompanied by almost ridiculous reforms. Take for example the Oregonian. In 2013 the paper decided to lay off some employees and the editor Peter Barnier said that this is “a strategic move to really focus everybody on what the digital future is and what our digital products and services can be”. So it’s true, they’ve become a digital first company, which meant big changes. A local weekly, the Willamette Week, got their hands on a power point presentation of the Oregonian staff, outlining the fact that reporters would be expected to meet a quota of three posts per day, and on any post of substance, they would have to post the first comment. And what better way to win your audience trust would be, than posting “First!!!” underneath your own article. These rules were indeed very much criticised and it has since then been more relaxed, but extra digital demands being placed in journalists is now common throughout the industry. Journalists aside the traditional reporting now have to participate in social media, to shoot videos, to provide services which are available 24 hours a day and if journalists are as such, required to write, edit, tweet, it’s obvious that mistakes are going to happen. Perhaps that’s how the Boston Globe ended up tweeting a shooting in Tennessee that the FBI had investigated about 70 leads already. Moreover, a study of over 200 papers found out that between 2003 and 2014 their number of full-time state house reporters declined by 35%, and that’s not good. Nowadays there are not nearly enough reporters to replace what has been lost. Just listen to David Simon who worked for years at the Baltimore Sun. He says, “The day I run into a reporter in the Baltimore board, is the day that I will be confident that we’ve actually reached some sort
of equilibrium. There is no glory in that kind of journalism but that is the voice of transmitting a transparent political process. The next 15 years of this country are going to be a heaven for state and local political corruption. It is going to be one of the greatest times to be a corrupt politician. I really envy them.” And he is definitely right because not having reporters at government meetings is like a teacher leaving her room of 7th graders to supervise themselves. Best case scenario, Britney gets gum in her hair and in the worst case scenario you no longer have a school! It is clearly smart when newspapers decide to expand online, but the danger in doing that, is the temptation to grab attention towards getting the most clicks, which is why news organisations need to have leaders who appreciate that what is popular, isn’t always the most important. Look at Sam Zell, a billionaire investor. Years ago, he took over the Tribune Company which owns newspapers like the LA times, the Orlando Sentinel, the Chicago Tribune, and after acquiring the company he spoke to the Sentinel’s nervous staff outlining his vision. Below will follow one particular exchange with a journalist. Hint: his last two words are perhaps the most illuminating: “Sam: My attitude on journalism is very simple. I want to make enough money so I can afford you. It’s really that simple. Okay? You need to, in effect, help me by being a journalist that focuses on what our readers want and therefore to generate more revenue. Journalist: But what readers want are puppy dogs, and I mean, we also need to inform the community... Sam: I’m sorry; you’re giving me the classic, what I would call journalistic arrogance of deciding that puppies don’t count. Hopefully we get to the point where our revenue is so signifi-
cant that we can do puppies and Iraq. Okay? F*ck you.” Now, the good news is that he no longer owns the Tribune Company, but the bad news is that their latest attempt to balance business pressures with journalism responsibility, has not been so inspiring. The Tribune publishing was rebranded into something much stupider: “Tronc”, which stands for Tribune Online Content. So they have chosen to call themselves Tronc, which sounds like the noise of a stack of newspapers being thrown into a dumpster. And if you’re wondering how Tronc’s business model will be different, get ready to have your minds troncked: “One of the key ways we’re going to harness the power of journalism, is to have an optimisation group. This Tronc team will work with all the local markets to exploit the power of our local journalism, fed into a funnel and then optimise it so we reach the biggest global audience as possible.” So, they’re going to basically feed journalism into a funnel, which looks like taking contents and simply pushing it down your throat like an abused goose. And the corresponding visuals make even less sense. It looks like a bunch of digital sperm impregnating a Tronc egg. It is easy to make fun of Tronc, but the truth is, publishers are desperate. No one seems to have a perfect plan to keep newspapers in the market. One opinion seems to be praying you get bought by a billionaire benefactor who could afford to swallow losses. But there are potential downsides to having a rich owner especially if there is a concern that they could meddle with a paper’s coverage. Let’s look at what happened to Las Vegas Review Journal. It was acquired by Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner. He is a big deal in
Vegas and his businesses are the centre of local stories the Review Journal covers. But while Adelson has strongly denied that this interferes with news coverage in any way, the editors have admitted that they put any articles about him or his businesses through a “special review process”, to make sure they are fair. James Wright, an ex deputy editor, describes his experience of that process: “In this review process, things are changes, things are added, things are removed, there’s no explanation why and there’s no appeal. More than once reporters asked if they could have their names taken off the story and they’ve been told no, that’s not allowed anymore. Things are done because it’s known that this is the way Sheldon Adelson wants it to be.” Additional message drawn up by the eternally mingling billionaires and businessmen: be careful who you choose America!
A big part of the blame for this industry’s constant failing is on us and our own willingness to not pay for the work that journalists produce. We’ve just grown accustomed to getting news for free and the longer we get something for free, the less willing we are to pay for it. I have been a witness of this simply human phenomenon myself, while running for almost two years and a half an online voluntary based magazine, which produced contents based on the motto “being right is more important than being first” and within the team, the question of pricing the magazine never reached in the discussion table. We knew that nobody would be eager to pay for our work, no matter how outstanding it was. It looks like I am actually criticising too much the online expansion of the newspapers, but I have been an online media contributor myself since ages now and during this process, I found out that technology
gives a lot of opportunities into transforming journalism into a more interactive approach. It is just awesome that we continue to exist, write and share our views almost globally through the Internet and even Curious magazine is entirely online. My concern is actually that “new” tronckish medias are actually killing the journalism. Digitalising the work made by people, is not always a good idea, especially in such fields. What is going to be next? Maybe a tronckish machine which uses algorithms to combine words and write novels? Are we going to give the Nobel prize to this one in the future?
THE DOWNFALL OF PUBLIC MEDIA IN POLAND By Zuzanna Grejner
“With the help of TV, one can create any image of reality one wants, because the society does not analyze what it sees, but takes it for the truth” – this quote from Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the leader of the conservative party currently in power in Poland, reflects the attitude prevalent in the government and is symptomatic of the changes in media it has been trying to implement for almost a year now. International institutions, like the Council of Europe and EU Commission, as well as NGOs and human rights watchdogs, have expressed their concerns about the political changes in Poland since the Eurosceptic, populist and catholic PiS (Law and Justice) party won the election last October and immediately started introducing numerous and far-reaching reforms in almost every part of the public life. Particularly unsettling were the attempts to discredit the Constitutional Tribunal, curb civil liberties with anti-terrorist legislation, dismantle the civil service structure, introduce radical education reform and, most recently, work on a draconian proposal to outlaw
abortion. One of the more troubling changes is the takeover of public media (TVP and Polskie Radio) and their transformation into a pro-government propaganda tube. The “new media” under Law and Justice rule are entrusted with a mission to instill patriotic feelings and orientated to deliver an “independent” view on the current social and political situation in the country and in Europe. The government plans to impose a new audiovisual tax (€3-4/ month) in order to finance the new National (previously: Public) Media – thus a Polish citizen would be forced to pay for the state television and radio regardless of whether they even had a TV set or not. A new organ, the National Media Council, was also created to select the supervisory board members and directors of state media. It is reported that most of the public media employees are now connected to either the ruling party itself, state corporations, or one of the entities of a complex web of right-wing and catholic media. As an effect of the reforms introduced by Law and Justice, almost two hundred journalists have been fired or resigned in face of the party’s radical takeover.
In practice, state media have made a considerable downside turn in the quality and objectivity of their broadcast. Polish journalists alert that TVP is currently extremely biased, dependent on the government and controlled by politicians. Every evening, the main news broadcast praises the government and the party working hard for the citizens’ welfare and criticizes quarreled opposition and corrupt European Union. The content of the programs includes a strongly partisan history discourse (Law and Justice has already tried to “rewrite” recent Polish history to their needs), denigration of the party’s political opponents (public news program infamously cut the material about anti-government civil protests to create an impression significantly less people participated) and publicist programs to which only pro-government “experts” are invited. To list just two of the most striking examples, the manipulation of President Obama’s speech during the UN summit this summer – when the state news cut out the part criticizing the state of democracy in Poland – as well as the move to air an ideological movie comparing abortion and euthanasia to eugenics right in time of the country-wide protests for women’s rights stand out.
It is a weak consolation that the main state channels and stations lost a considerable amount of audience. The Council of Europe published an opinion on the reforms in which it urged the Polish government to restore transparency and independence to the now politically influenced public media. The European Commission as well as its vice president Frans Timmermans have repeatedly appealed to ministers and other officials in Poland to reconsider their policy. The representative for media freedoms for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has also criticized the appointment procedures and political control in public media. As an effect, Poland fell 29 places during just one year in the Reporters Without Borders 2016 World Press Freedom Index, landing as the 47th out of 180 countries, a decision accompanied by a view that “media freedom and pluralism are in jeopardy” there. The current state of public media in Poland should remind us that even the necessary and obvious elements of a democratic society should not be taken for granted.
Threats to Online Privacy Urios lecture on October 5th By Klea Vyshka Wikileaks constantly publishing classified information, Edward Snowden revealing numerous global surveillance programs, many of which run by US national security agency in cooperation with European governments, Yahoo helping out FBI and NSA to access private emails, boxes of terms and conditions often accompanied by hundreds of pages written in minuscule characters... What do all these have in common? Many questions might and should arise in the minds of all Internet users, growing fast in number throughout the world. The digital revolution has indeed advanced modern society in various ways, but the Internet’s major influence is also posing threats to users’ privacy. This was the central topic of this year’s first academic lecture, organised by Urios on the 5th of October.During the event, three experts held short presentations with the common focus on the threats to online privacy. The interest of students and participants was remarkable, as many of them filled the Raadszaal, raised further issues and as well shared their opinion in the discussion panel around the end of the lecture.
The presentation started with Mrs. Vonne Laan, lawyer at Van Doorne advocaten and specialised in privacy law, who built up her short lecture around an examination of the Dutch Privacy Law, in a nutshell. But what is meant actually with the term “personal data”? According to Mrs. Laan, this concept is very broad, encompassing all information related to a living individual, be it directly or indirectly identifiable. T he Dutch Privacy Act was adopted on the means of transposing a very important Directive of the European Union, namely The Data Protection Directive (officially Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data). However, on EU level, a General Data Protection Regulation, freshly adopted in April 2016, will supersede the above mentioned Directive, starting to be enforceable by 25 May 2018. Generally, in the end of the first part, positive observations were made in regard to the new Regulation’s adoption, which includes “the right to be forgotten”, very much debated in the case of Google Spain, higher sanctions about the privacy breaching activities and a high level of personal data protection throughout the EU.
The second part of the lecture was held by Simone van der Hof, eLaw Professor and Head of the Centre for Law and Digital Technologies at Leiden University. Professor van der Hof guided the participants’ attention towards a very sensitive area in the light of threats to online privacy. What about children’s privacy in the digital world? It seems like the notion of consent, which in other terms means autonomy or even freedom of individuals to have control of their rights should be assessed with extra care in this case. Children’s capacity to give consent varies on the level of their maturity, on whether they have sufficient understanding and intelligence, therefore consent expressed online by this category of individuals should always be looked upon strictly. In a world where even adults find it difficult to keep up with reading ridiculously long terms and conditions or privacy policies written in a complicated language, what is the chance of a child to protect his own privacy? In a third part of the lecture, the charismatic and devoted Ton Siedsma, activist at Bits of Freedom, a foundation of digital rights focused on privacy and com-
munications freedom, gave his presentation about the concepts of freedom and privacy in the online setting. Freedom and privacy on the internet are under threat, with far-reaching consequences for the daily lives of millions of internet users. Their data are being collected ever more frequently and for an ever longer period. Their access to websites can be blocked. It is even being proposed to cut off users from the internet altogether. Governments are getting more and more intrusive in the citizens’ online private life, making it look like a “glass house”, entirely transparent in its contents. How many of you have noticed the little yellow box that appears in the start of every new Whatsapp conversation? I am sure everybody has, but the true question is: does everybody understand what “end to end encryption” means? We are not going to give all answers to these questions in this short report, but after examining an aftermath of the lecture, we invite all readers and internet users, to really think and be more conscious about their freedom of online privacy, seriously threatened nowadays.
What debating skills can we learn from politicians? By Alina Chakh While we contemplate about the hysterical debate that is taking place across the ocean between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the Dutch politicians have just finished debating about their parliamentary plans for the upcoming year. The third Tuesday of September is a special day in the Netherlands: it is called Prinsjesdag (Prince’s Day). The reigning monarch, which is currently King Willem-Alexander, in his capacity as Head of State, delivers the Troonrede (King’s Speech) on behalf of the Dutch Government in the Hall of Knights in the Binnenhof of The Hague. This speech contains the plans of the government for the upcoming year. Afterwards, the Minister of Finance brings his ‘Third-Tuesday-Of-September’ briefcase, which (symbolically) contains the Miljoennennota (The Budget Memorandum) and the national budget. Prinsjesdag is a very important day for Dutch politics, since it marks the beginning of the parliamentary year.
After Prinsjesdag, the House of Representatives (the Second Chamber) holds the algemene beschouwingen (the general political debate) about the Miljoenennota and the new plans. They discuss the impact of the proposals on Dutch society. The debate goes on for two days and all the leaders of the parties can speak on behalf of their party whether they agree with the plans or not. The media attention for the general political debate is big: the debate can be followed live on the television and the internet, and the politicians are invited at various talk shows. Debating experts Roderik van Grieken and Donatello Piras from the Dutch Institute for Debating hand out a prize for the best debater each year after the general political debate. The judges examine the politicians and focus on their public speaking skills and their ability to tackle difficult questions. The winner of last year was Geert Wilders, the leader of the PVV and this year the prize is for Halbe Zijlstra (VVD). He did face the most interruptions and managed to tackle them correctly and stay focused. According to Van Grieken, it is important to stay focused and calm when someone interrupts you. Give yourself some time to think about the answer instead of getting anxious. Also your first statement is almost the most important one; make sure to give the audience and your opponents the right impression of your thoughts and beliefs by delivering an excellent opening speech. But what does Van Grieken think about the presidential debate between Clinton and Trump? After the first debate, he reached the conclusion that Trump was not well prepared for the debate and Clinton outshined Trump. They discussed his tax evasions, the fact that he stated that Obama was not born in the United States and his misogynistic pronunciations. His answer on the questions about the tax evasions was: ‘Well, that is because I am smart.’ But after the second debate, Trump made a little comeback if it comes down to his debating skills.
He was obviously better prepared than the first time, but still managed to have some flaws, but Clinton was not in her utmost form as well. Van Grieken gives us three tips on debating on the occasion of the second debate: The first one is that it is very important to shake hands with your opponent. Even if your opponent is your biggest enemy. Shaking hands make you seem professional and strong, especially when your opponent refuses to shake yours. To the audience it is then very clear who is the bigger one in the debate. Clinton nor Trump did not make any efforts to shake the hand of their opponent and it made them weak from the beginning on. The second one is that you should take questions from the audience (or your opponent) very seriously. Politicians are experts in delivering political correct answers, but the one thing you can not do is to disrespect the audience by not giving them the answer they deserve. A muslim women in the audience asked Trump a question about what he would do to help people in her situation and people who are muslim. Trump did not even try to give a proper answer to that question; he just said that ‘there is indeed a problem.’ Taking questions seriously shows that you are capable. See the questions as a chance to (re)tell your general view. The last one is that it is very important to stay genuine and true to yourself. People can tell when you are faking it. When you’re debating, you are always working on gaining the trust of the audience. Showing fakeness is not going to help you. One audient asked both candidates the question, but addressed it firstly to Trump: ‘can you name one thing you admire in your opponent?’ Clinton makes a mistake by taking over Trump’s turn and she gives an ungenuine answer, by starting to talk about this kids. This was obviously not a compliment addressed to Trump himself. Trump instead compliments Clinton about the fact that she is a fighter and she will not back down for any reason. By giving her this compliment, which sounds more genuine and also applicable to himself, he gains a little bit more sympathy. The next presidential debate will take place on October 19th. We are excited to see if Trump will step up his game after all the negative media attention… But the good thing is that we can learn a lot about debating by just watching these debates.
FEATURED IN CURIOUS
FEATURED IN CURIOUS: MICHAEL KOLBRINK
I present to you Michael Kolbrink, the treasurer of the Urios Utrecht Model United Nations (URUMUN) board. He is currently in his third year of his Bachelor of Laws here in Utrecht. The Urios trip to Israel was Michael’s absolute highlight of his membership. If it wasn’t for Urios, he would have never visited Israel, but luckily his ideas about the country made a complete U-turn. The diversity of cultures in Israel made a huge impression on him. Like it befits a social and charming guy, like Michael, he indicates that he thanks his great time during the trip to the fantastic group of people that joined! Now time for some more serious talk, what are Michael’s hopes and dreams for himself and the association? Michael is responsible for the financial side of URUMUN. Making a transparent and clear budget is his task within the board. His greatest achievement within his function is constantly adjusting the budget when unforeseen changes occur. For coming academic year Michaels greatest wish for Urios is that URUMUN is going to be a brilliant event! Well Michael, so do we!! Keep up the good work and I’m sure the conference is going to be a great success!
Curious - Urios Magazine Vol. 2 Issue 7 October 2016 Editors Roos Bos, Alina Chakh, Klea Vyshka, Zuzanna Grejner Judith Bel, Sofia van Dijk Address Janskerkhof 3 3512BK Utrecht The Netherlands email@example.com Copyright The copyrights of the articles, photographs and pictures are reserved to the authors and artists. Nothing in this issue may in any way be duplicated or made public without permission from the authors. Membership Would you like to be member of Urios? Register now at www.urios.org.