Eurovision camerawoman’s story differs from disqualified Joost Klein’s version
https://nltimes.nl/2024/05/12/eurovision-camerawomans-story-differs-disqualified-joost-kleins-version
by pigeon888
Eurovision camerawoman’s story differs from disqualified Joost Klein’s version
https://nltimes.nl/2024/05/12/eurovision-camerawomans-story-differs-disqualified-joost-kleins-version
by pigeon888
37 comments
At the end of this circus show we’ll know there were no “threats” be it vocal or physical but just a wrong look at that woman from the production team. It’s more and more starting to look like Depp-Heard case.
EBU was so quick to act on this without all the facts. But you know, propaganda for genocidal regimes is perfectly fine.
Well I can’t wait to hear what comes from this in the end
Well I can’t wait to hear what comes from this in the end
There was no physical contact whatsoever which was confirmed by the police. The media should apologise to him for painting him as a woman beater. In the initial reports they specifically pointed out he attacked a female journalist and we know that immediately makes people jump to the worst conclusions.
It was not Joost Klein’s story. It is the story of the entire Dutch delegation. Joost was not alone, he was with a team that confirmed the story. So either the entire Dutch delegation is lying, or an individual crew member.
Given that EBU is a farce of an organization, it is by far most likely that EBU is lying on everything in this case.
If the video leaks, I have a feeling all you’ll see is a frustrated singer waving his arms around and trying to get away from people. Very common and idiotic for people to report that to the police.
If he is innocent, his delegation should sue the EBU. The national broadcaster spent such a big budget (which is of course funded by public money) just to get disqualified at the last minute.
> The police in Sweden would not respond to questions about whether they received camera footage of the incident from Thursday evening, a spokesperson said on Sunday. “That question is part of the investigation,” said a spokesperson.
The severe lack of transparency is getting very annoying.
Who would have expected that they do not agree on what happened?
>[“Taco Zimmerman, director of the Dutch broadcaster insists the delegation suggested a public apology from Klein, but all attempts at mitigation were rejected by the EBU. The member of the Eurovision media team involved rejected any further contact with the performer and also refused to speak with anyone from the Dutch delegation.”](https://oneurope.co.uk/eurovision/avrotros-issues-eurovision-statement/)
I… hope she gets all the help she needs.
He probably did a cutting motion across his throat or formed his hand into a gun pointing at her.
So if you want a competitor out of the competition, you just have to accuse that person of something, whether a real crime or not, EBU won’t care?
And I guess you have to be a woman as the accuser? Since it seems really important for EBU to tell everyone that it was a woman that was the supposed victim.
EBU when someone is investigated by police because of alleged vocal attack-disqualification!
EBU when country of broadcaster is investigated for genocide in front of ICC-lets use anti boo technology!
Tell the story then.
I mean, you have to be dumb not to see it was a set-up just to get him disqualified from the show, lol. Every source says and confirms there was no physical altercation or move. Disqualifying someone from the biggest music competition because they had a threatening “motion” is just comical, lmao. What move could he have done to scare the journalist that badly? Be fr.
And if he did do something truly awful (somehow?), sure, suspension is valid, but they can’t even say what he did lol.
So basically;
– They had an agreement not to film him after his performance when he legs it to the green room or whatever.
– The camera woman was described as “unrelenting” and kept at him, which broke that agreement.
– He was upset when this happened, didn’t touch the camera woman at all but was described as “threatening”.
– Camera woman reports him to police and he is disqualified.
From the performers standpoint; no matter how you twist it, when boundaries are crossed just after a nerve racking moment on stage its only human to tell the person crossing those boundaries to fuck off right? Especially if this may be exactly the alone time needed to gather yourself again.
From the camera operators standpoint; logically, by continuing to film in an unrelenting manner despite prior agreement not to, this would be upsetting the talent, something someone in the role of support staff is acutely aware of, while also opening the possibility of putting your own employment at risk of reprisal for breaking that agreement. That all goes away if you report it to an outside authority like the police.
From the Eurovision organization standpoint; the involvement of police draws too much attention to an already heated show and the outcome of the investigation can not be certain, as it is now out of their hands, so they lost control of the situation. Their first legal responsibility is to ensure their employee is protected pending the outcome. However if they did not instruct or inform the camera operator then it adds another layer and blame could lie further within the organization. This would motivate a decision to remove the problem by banning the performer, as the employee and the police can not be removed from the equation due to legal obstacles but the performer they have control over and can easily just cut (as we saw).
Overall this shows that the organization itself has a leadership problem, as this could have been avoided if there was clear communication with the operator and if the camera operator felt comfortable going to their leadership first instead of the police (assuming she had no bad intent).
Hell with the right “peace and love” attitude they could have used the time to turn it around through mediation and a surprise reveal as last act or something, makes good TV!
(Edit: such controversy with the immediate down votes lol, I don’t think I said anything that strange in this discussion but would love to know what others actually think instead of the kneejerk voiceless push/pull..)
There is a lot missing from this story.
Where did it actually take place (not roughly. but where exactly)
Was the camera person a broadcast/production camera? Was it shoulder carry or steady cam? Were they directed by a Camera Director to get the shot?
or
Was the camera person some external journalist?
Was the camera actually a phone?
You don’t say. The storys of two opposing partys differ? Color me shocked
>”The testimony from the victim who made the complaint differs from what is in that testimony,” Curran told Swedish broadcaster Sveriges Radio on Saturday evening.
Sus. How do they know she is the victim? And if both disagree on what happened, what is her version? And how will the EBU react if they find out, that he did nothing wrong? He could have won Eurovision (he got more points than the winning song in the semi-finals).
Why is the EBU so unclear on what actually happened?
EBU, either you state what your version is, or just keep your mouth shut! This “no, it is wrong, but you have to guess what is right” is not acceptable.
>”The testimony from the victim who made the complaint differs from what is in that testimony,” Curran told Swedish broadcaster Sveriges Radio on Saturday evening.
Sus. How do they know she is the victim? And if both disagree on what happened, what is her version? And how will the EBU react if they find out, that he did nothing wrong? He could have won Eurovision (he got more points than the winning song in the semi-finals).
Why is the EBU so unclear on what actually happened?
>The police in Sweden would not respond to questions about whether they received camera footage of the incident from Thursday evening, a spokesperson said on Sunday. “That question is part of the investigation,” said a spokesperson.
Why can’t they answer that? Normally police do say if they have video evidence, that is at least normal in my country. Sentences like “security cameras captured these three suspsects according to police officials” are common in newspapers. Should this go to court, the defendant will get all evidence the prosecution has anyways, so there is no good reason to not tell the public.
Camera people are used to this as part of their job. Their job is to be in the way.
Either way, I’m smelling something fishy about the motives of this camera woman and frankly, the swiftness that Eurovision DQd him.
Was it not, like…… filmed?
Some European will think of themselves as the most progressive and free-thinkers in the world, until it comes to their admirable egomaniac, then everyone trying to undermine him
Somehow, someone is going to blame it on Israel.
It’s somehow interesting that the only contestant who openly acted against Israel got disqualified.
Swiss won, but the NL gets all the buzz for free. Well played
Either way, police already confirmed that there was notphysical assault. And it is aligned with Dutch side of story. So what different story EBU wants to talk about here? another Lies?
EBU might have higher ground only if Joost said something regarded as hate speech. If that was the case, EBU would have already revealed the story million years ago.
The title claims their accounts differ but the only difference in the article is that one party said “threatening motion” while the other said “threats”.
They both agree there wasn’t physical contact and the police isn’t even considering the possibility of it being classified as assault.
Can some Swede explain what words would be illegal? I’m guessing death threats and general threats of bodily harm would be included but is there anything else?
“HEY LOOK you actually don’t know what happened, click this article and we won’t tell you!”
Luckily, in my observations, culture is slowly shifting to the reasonable middle again, and the EBU is lagging behind. People have to realize filing a formal complaint itself may also be a (passive) agressive act. In my opinion, Joost should have been allowed to participate, and only be disqualified in retrospect AFTER investigation had completed.
Here’s my takeaway. Quite quickly after the disqualification the AVROTROS, the dutch broadcaster, backup up and defended Joost. In the assumption that the story DIDN’T happen as Joost claimed and he did assault her in any way, a publicly funded broadcast channel would NEVER immediately jump in his defense and first would wait for evidence. Because they DID quickly defend him, it would mean that they know more about the situation (factually) but can’t say anything because of the running investigation. I hope the victim pays the price, even if that does happen to be Joost, but I doubt it…
Another day, another false allegation.
In what way? The only difference seems to be that Joost said something to her. It’s not clear what he said to her, but I can’t imagine it would have been something so egregious that it would warrant his disqualification, considering she was seemingly in the wrong for filming him.
Anyways, Eurovision is slowly becoming worse and worse. I get that it would have been impossible to make it completely apolitical, but lately, it’s just insane. No wonder some countries have decided not to participate.
Also, the double standard on this rule is flabbergasting. The Ukraine flag had been plastered everywhere last time (not even during their performance), incentivizing everyone (even the judges) to vote for them because: politics. Now, at the slightest mention of Palestine, people get threatened to get kicked out? The Irish singer had ceasefire on her face in some language that probably 1k people in the whole of Europe know, and she gets threatened to be kicked? I’m not even pro-Palestine, but I’m more and more tempted to become because of how much the governments try to force feed us pro-Israel propaganda and deprive us of our right to have an informed opinion.
They should ban clickbait from this sub, the only thing in the article was that it differs but know what and why
https://i.imgur.com/IeHQfMS.png
Here’s some free media training for artists;
Do not engage with overly pushy journalists or camera operators. Ignore them, walk away and remove yourself from the situation.