No Style, One Voice: An Analysis of Dutch Blog Geenstijl.nl's Bias, Free Speech Paradox, and Societal Impact

by Gemini 2.5 Pro, Deep Research. Warning! LLMs may hallucinate!

The Geenstijl Doctrine: Provocation as Principle

The Dutch actualities website Geenstijl.nl has carved out a unique and controversial space in the national media landscape since its founding in 2003.¹ Its identity is built upon a strategic and persistent contradiction: it positions itself as an anti-establishment champion of free speech while being identified by academic, governmental, and industry observers as a key node in a right-wing, populist media ecosystem. This section deconstructs the blog's foundational identity, contrasting its self-proclaimed mission with its external perception to establish the central theme that Geenstijl's brand is built on provocation as a guiding principle.

The Official Mandate: "Tendentieus, Ongefundeerd en Nodeloos Kwetsend"

Unlike traditional media outlets that profess objectivity and adherence to journalistic ethics, Geenstijl openly embraces a contrary stance. The platform's self-description is "Tendentieus, ongefundeerd en nodeloos kwetsend" (Tendentious, unfounded, and unnecessarily offensive).² This slogan is not presented as a confession of poor journalism but rather as a badge of honor. It functions as a deliberate and defiant rejection of the perceived politeness, restraint, and "political correctness" of mainstream Dutch media.¹ This framing allows the platform to present its confrontational style not as a failing, but as a core feature of its authentic, unfiltered voice.

Central to this identity is the mission to be "de laatste verdediger van het vrije woord" (the last defender of the free word).² This self-appointed role casts the blog as a courageous outsider fighting a lonely battle against censorship and an oppressive establishment. The platform's content mix is intentionally eclectic, described as an alternation between "nieuwsfeiten, schandelijke onthullingen en journalistiek onderzoek" (news facts, scandalous revelations, and journalistic investigation) and "luchtige onderwerpen en prettig gestoorde onzin" (light-hearted topics and pleasantly disturbed nonsense).² This intentional blurring of lines between serious inquiry and provocative "nonsense" is a key element of its brand strategy, allowing it to claim the mantle of journalism when convenient while retreating into the defense of satire or entertainment when its methods are challenged. This dual branding serves a strategic purpose. The self-description as "needlessly offensive" preemptively neutralizes criticism by framing it as an expected feature, not a journalistic flaw. Simultaneously, the "defender of free speech" mission allows the platform to reframe any critique of its methods as an attack on the fundamental principle of expression itself, creating a powerful rhetorical shield that insulates it from accountability for the specific impact of its content.

The External Verdict: A "Donut Brand" in a "Hyperpartisan" Sphere

While Geenstijl cultivates an image of a fearless truth-teller, external analyses present a starkly different picture. A comprehensive 2023 "brand roast" conducted by the marketing platform Frankwatching, based on an image study of 203 Dutch respondents, concluded that Geenstijl is a "donut merk, een lege huls waarvoor de liefde ontbreekt" (a donut brand, an empty shell for which love is absent).² This assessment points to a brand that, despite its high profile and significant daily traffic, lacks a coherent and positive identity in the public consciousness.

The quantitative data from the study is revealing. When respondents were asked to spontaneously name news and opinion websites, Geenstijl was mentioned in only 1% of cases, lagging far behind mainstream outlets like NU.nl, NOS.nl, and AD.nl.² Among non-users, a staggering 42% had "no association" with the brand whatsoever, while another 41% held explicitly negative associations (22% symbolic and 19% functional).² This data indicates a deeply fragmented brand identity that fails to resonate beyond its dedicated core audience, suggesting it is more of a niche subcultural phenomenon than a major player in the broader news landscape.²

This perception is reinforced by academic and governmental reports. A study on political manipulation on social media, conducted in the context of Dutch elections, repeatedly categorizes platforms like Geenstijl and the ideologically similar The Post Online as "politiek sterk gekleurde ('hyperpartisan')" and sources of "junknieuws".³ This academic framing, which places Geenstijl within a sphere of sensationalist and tendentious content, stands in direct opposition to the platform's self-perception as an independent and critical journalistic entity.

A Brand in Decline? "Vroeger was alles beter" (“Everything was better in the old days”)

The Frankwatching analysis also unearthed a strong sense of nostalgia, a perception that the platform has changed for the worse over its two-decade history. The report notes a sentiment that "het oude GeenStijl werd zeer gewaardeerd, zelfs door links georiënteerden" (the old Geenstijl was very appreciated, even by left-wing oriented people), but that its "frisse blik en entertainende content" (fresh perspective and entertaining content) is now gone.² This suggests a historical shift in tone and content, away from a more broadly appealing irreverence and towards a more rigid, ideologically driven and polarizing stance.

Key historical markers support this narrative of transformation. The platform was formerly part of the Telegraaf Media Groep (TMG), a major Dutch media conglomerate. However, following an advertiser boycott in 2017 and TMG's acquisition by Mediahuis, Geenstijl was sold in 2018 and became an independent entity.¹ During this period, its highly popular video platform, Dumpert, which was often the subject of controversy, also separated from Geenstijl.² These structural changes coincide with the perception of a decline, suggesting that the "golden age" of Geenstijl may have been tied to its position as a provocative but tolerated part of the media establishment, a role that has since been replaced by a more isolated and embattled identity.

The "GeenStijl-sociolect": A Linguistic Analysis of Othering

The influence and identity of Geenstijl cannot be fully understood without a detailed examination of its unique linguistic style. The platform's jargon, often referred to as the "GeenStijl-sociolect," is not merely provocative slang but a sophisticated and highly effective tool for ideological framing, in-group signaling, and the systematic "othering" of political and social opponents. This language creates a shared reality for its readers, reinforcing the blog's worldview with every post and comment.

Defining the Sociolect: More Than Just Words

The Geenstijl-sociolect is a distinct linguistic system characterized by unique spelling conventions, grammatical structures, and a rich vocabulary of neologisms.¹ Spelling is often altered for stylistic effect, such as replacing 'o' with 'eau' (e.g.,heaumeau for homo) or 'k' with 'q' (e.g., neqschot for nekschot/shot to the neck). Grammatically, the verb "doen" (to do) is frequently used as an auxiliary in ways that deviate from standard Dutch, such as in the imperative doe eens ophouden (literally "do stop once") instead of the standard houd eens op.¹

These linguistic quirks serve a crucial social function. They create a high barrier to entry for outsiders and foster a strong sense of community and shared identity among the platform's core readership, known as "reaguurders" (a portmanteau of "reageren," to react, and "guur," bleak or harsh).⁶ Understanding and using the sociolect is a form of cultural capital within the Geenstijl ecosystem; it signals who belongs to the in-group and who does not. This linguistic exclusivity helps to insulate the community from external criticism, as outsiders who do not grasp the nuances of the language can be easily dismissed as not "getting it."

Language as a Political Weapon: Dehumanization and Ridicule

Beyond its community-building function, the Geenstijl-sociolect is a powerful political weapon. The platform employs a specific lexicon to describe and denigrate political and social out-groups, a practice that has been the subject of academic scrutiny. A key study by Dr. Ineke van der Valk of the University of Amsterdam analyzed 18,000 articles and 260,000 comments on Geenstijl and the related platform PowNed concerning Muslims and Islam.⁷ The research concluded that these groups are consistently framed as a "political or cultural threat" and that the overall portrayal is "vrijwel over de hele linie negatief" (almost entirely negative across the board).⁷

The study highlights specific linguistic strategies used to create what it calls a "negatieve ander presentatie" (negative other-presentation) in contrast to the "positieve zelfpresentatie" (positive self-presentation) of the in-group. Terms like "zandbakken" (sandboxes), "woestijnen" (deserts), and frequent references to the "middeleeuwen" (Middle Ages) are used to frame Muslims as "onderontwikkeld en achterlijk" (underdeveloped and backward).⁷ This vocabulary strips individuals of their complexity and reduces them to a monolithic, threatening, and primitive "other." This process of dehumanization through language is not unique to Geenstijl, but the platform has refined it into a consistent and highly effective rhetorical style.⁸ The playful, almost juvenile nature of the neologisms provides a veneer of plausible deniability, allowing the platform and its users to dismiss accusations of bigotry by claiming it is "just humor." However, beneath this surface, the consistent use of derogatory and dehumanizing terms normalizes extremist ideas and gradually shifts the boundaries of acceptable discourse for its readership, making more explicit forms of prejudice seem legitimate.

The Paradox of Free Speech: A Platform for Dialogue or a Chamber for Ridicule?

The contradiction between Geenstijl's advocacy for free speech and its practice of targeting those with opposing views is not a peripheral issue but the defining paradox of the platform. An examination of specific cases reveals a consistent pattern: Geenstijl's concept of "free speech" is not a pluralistic principle that protects a marketplace of ideas, but a unilateral weapon used to assert its own worldview and to mock, delegitimize, and at times actively silence dissenting voices.

Case Study: The Personal Vendetta (Dinand Woesthoff)

The platform's long-running campaign against Dinand Woesthoff, lead singer of the rock band Kane, serves as a prime example of how its criticism can morph from public interest commentary into a personal vendetta. The initial controversy arose from Woesthoff's promotional collaboration with Mascotte, a manufacturer of cigarette rolling papers.⁹Critics, including Geenstijl, found this partnership deeply hypocritical, as Woesthoff's late wife, the actress Guusje Nederhorst, had died of cancer, and Woesthoff himself had raised significant funds for cancer research.⁹

While the initial criticism touched upon a legitimate question of public image and authenticity, Geenstijl's coverage did not end there. The Frankwatching report highlights the platform's "niet-aflatend fanatisme" (unrelenting fanaticism) in "het bashen van Dinand" (the bashing of Dinand) over the years.² The analysis suggests that the campaign devolved to a point where "het niet meer gaat om de inhoud maar om de manier waarop" (it's no longer about the content but the manner in which it's done).²This sustained, ad hominem focus undermines Geenstijl's own claimed values of being "kritisch" (critical) and "onafhankelijk" (independent), making it appear more like a personal feud than objective scrutiny.² This case illustrates the platform's capacity for targeted, long-term harassment of an individual, a tactic that goes far beyond the bounds of conventional journalistic critique and enters the realm of personal ridicule.

Case Study: The Political Target (Sylvana Simons)

Geenstijl's treatment of politician Sylvana Simons, founder of the anti-racist political party BIJ1, demonstrates how the platform uses its influence to target individuals who embody the political and social values it opposes. Simons has been the subject of intense, often virulently racist and sexist, online harassment campaigns since she entered the political arena. While Geenstijl is not the originator of the most extreme content, such as a video that depicted her being lynched, its coverage contributes significantly to the hostile and delegitimizing environment surrounding her.¹⁰

The platform has engaged in pointed journalistic campaigns against her party. For instance, Geenstijl played a key role in scrutinizing the background of a BIJ1 candidate, Cailin Kuit, publishing information that contradicted Kuit's claims about her past and contributing to her eventual withdrawal from the party.¹¹ While this can be framed as investigative journalism, the context is crucial. By relentlessly focusing on Simons and her party, Geenstijl engages in a form of political activism. Simons, as a prominent Black woman advocating for multiculturalism and anti-racism, represents a direct ideological opponent. The platform's coverage is therefore not just reporting but a sustained effort to undermine her political project, using ridicule and scandal as its primary tools. This case shows how Geenstijl's "journalism" is often deployed in the service of a clear political agenda, targeting individuals not for specific actions but for who they are and what they represent.

Case Study: The Silencing of Research (The University Diversity Survey)

The most direct and undeniable evidence of Geenstijl's paradoxical approach to free speech occurred in October 2022. A coalition of nineteen independent university and college newspapers, with funding from the Dutch Journalism Fund (Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek), launched a large-scale journalistic survey to investigate the experiences and opinions of students and staff regarding diversity and inclusion in higher education.¹²

Geenstijl responded not by encouraging its readers to participate and voice their opinions, nor by critiquing the survey's methodology or eventual findings. Instead, it chose to destroy the project entirely. Under the headline "Non-Binaire Pollfuck!", the blog published links to the online questionnaire and explicitly called on its readers to flood it with fake and malicious responses.¹² The call was answered so "fanatically" that the research agency, Newcom, could no longer guarantee the quality or reliability of the data, forcing the entire survey to be halted prematurely.¹²

Ries Agterberg, chairman of the Circle of Editors-in-Chief of Higher Education Media, lamented that "een zorgvuldig en neutraal onderzoek" (a careful and neutral investigation) had been "torpedeert" (torpedoed) by Geenstijl's actions.¹² This incident is profoundly revealing. A genuine proponent of free speech and open inquiry would engage with research on its merits. By mobilizing its audience to sabotage the data collection process itself, Geenstijl demonstrated that its commitment is not to the free exchange of ideas. Rather, its actions indicate a desire to prevent conversations it finds disagreeable from taking place in a structured, academic manner. In this instance, the self-proclaimed "defender of the free word" acted as a direct agent of censorship, using its platform to silence the journalistic and academic inquiry of others. This action exposes the core of the paradox: for Geenstijl, "free speech" is a tool for dominance, not a principle of dialogue.

Bias in Focus: Framing Immigration, Ethnicity, and Culture

The user's sense of a bias against immigrants and people of color is strongly substantiated by an analysis of Geenstijl's content and framing on key cultural issues. The platform's coverage is not simply biased reporting; it is a consistent exercise in what academics term "moral panic" construction.³ By relentlessly focusing on negative stereotypes and existential threats related to ethnicity and migration, Geenstijl manufactures and amplifies crises. This strategy serves to keep its readership in a state of heightened emotional engagement—primarily fear, anger, and resentment—while framing the political and media "elites" who refuse to acknowledge these "crises" as dangerously out of touch, thereby reinforcing the blog's core anti-establishment narrative.

The "Zwarte Piet" Debate: A Culture War Battleground

The national debate over Zwarte Piet (Black Pete), the blackface companion to Sinterklaas in Dutch holiday tradition, has become a focal point of the country's culture wars, and Geenstijl has positioned itself as a key combatant. The platform's framing is unequivocally pro-Piet. Following a 2014 court ruling that deemed the character a negative stereotype of Black people, a writer for Geenstijl issued a call to action against the decision, framing it as an attack on tradition that required resistance.¹⁴ This positions the platform not as a neutral observer of a societal debate, but as an activist defender of what it defines as authentic Dutch culture.

This narrative aligns with and amplifies the dominant arguments of the pro-Piet movement. Academic analysis of online discourse on the topic reveals that supporters frequently frame the issue as "'onze' cultuur" (our culture) being attacked by "'vreemdelingen,' 'buitenlanders' en 'migranten'" (foreigners, outsiders, and migrants).¹⁵Geenstijl's coverage consistently reinforces this sense of cultural siege. The issue is highly polarizing, with polls showing that a large majority of the Dutch population, at times up to 80%, supports the traditional character.¹⁵ Geenstijl capitalizes on this existing public sentiment, using the debate to fuel division and solidify its bond with a base that feels its cultural identity is under threat.

Furthermore, academic reports on disinformation in the Netherlands have specifically identified the Zwarte Piet debate as a topic around which "junknieuws" and hyperpartisan content proliferate. These studies note that on social media, polarizing content from these sources often remains highly active and continues to "feed" the controversy, even when attention from mainstream media wanes.³ Geenstijl operates as a central engine in this polarization machine, ensuring the debate remains a heated and divisive issue.

Islam and Migration: A Narrative of Threat

The bias becomes even more pronounced in Geenstijl's coverage of Islam and migration. This goes beyond mere critical commentary and frequently employs the dehumanizing lexicon detailed in Section 2. The platform's content has drawn official concern; the Meldpunt Discriminatie Internet (Internet Discrimination Reporting Center) filed a formal complaint regarding a discussion on Geenstijl about Moroccans, which it concluded contained "grove discriminerende" (grossly discriminatory) content.¹⁷

The platform's use of a specific, derogatory vocabulary—including terms like Fin for Moroccans, Hakbar for extremist Muslims, and Dobbernegert for boat refugees—is irrefutable evidence of a systematic and biased framing.¹ This language is not incidental; it is a deliberate rhetorical strategy to stereotype and dehumanize.

Most significantly, Geenstijl has served as a platform for far-right conspiracy theories. The English Wikipedia entry on the "Great Replacement"—a white nationalist conspiracy theory positing that white European populations are being deliberately replaced by non-white immigrants—cites a 2015 article published on Geenstijl. In it, the late scholar Hans Jansen used explicit "Great Replacement rhetoric," claiming it was an "'undisputed' fact" that the European Union's elite believed Europeans were "no longer welcome in their own cities and countries".¹⁸ The publication and promotion of such a toxic and unfounded conspiracy theory on its platform is a clear indicator of Geenstijl's deep ideological leanings and its role in disseminating extremist narratives.

This narrative of an overwhelming threat stands in stark contrast to official data. Statistics from Dutch and EU authorities consistently show that asylum seekers constitute a relatively small fraction of total immigration to the Netherlands (around 11% on average).¹⁹ The majority of migrants arrive for work, study, or family reunification, with a large portion coming from other European countries.¹⁹ The Netherlands ranks in the middle of EU countries in terms of asylum applications, both in absolute numbers and per capita.¹⁹ The vast gap between Geenstijl's narrative of a nation under siege by asylum seekers and the statistical reality demonstrates that its coverage is not an attempt to report on migration, but an effort to construct a moral panic around it.

The Ripple Effect: Readership, Political Polarization, and Public Discourse

Geenstijl is not a fringe blog operating in a vacuum; it is a significant cultural and political actor that has had a measurable impact on its audience and the broader Dutch social and political landscape. It has both successfully tapped into and actively fueled the rise of populism in the Netherlands. Its influence extends beyond its own website, shaping the media consumption habits of its readers, contributing to political polarization, and fundamentally altering the Dutch public media system through its creation of the broadcaster PowNed.

The Geenstijl Reader: An Educated Insurgency

Contrary to the stereotype that populist media appeals primarily to a "lowly educated" base, Geenstijl's readership is surprisingly and consistently well-educated. A 2009 study noted that its visitors were "over het algemeen hoogopgeleide mensen" (generally highly educated people).²³ This finding was corroborated by the 2023 Frankwatching study, which found that current users are "largely highly educated and have high incomes".²

This demographic profile is crucial to understanding the platform's appeal. It caters to a segment of the population that possesses significant cultural and economic capital but feels politically and culturally alienated from the mainstream consensus. For this audience, Geenstijl's appeal is not based on a lack of information, but on a deep-seated distrust of established institutions and a desire for a "counter-voice" that validates their anti-establishment worldview.² As Professor Jan Blommaert observed, these educated readers are not necessarily immune to the "verruwing" (coarsening) of discourse and do not automatically "relativize" the provocative content better than other groups.²³ The political alignment of this readership is unambiguous. A poll conducted by Geenstijl itself revealed that its visitors overwhelmingly intended to vote for right-wing populist parties such as the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), the BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB), or JA21.² This confirms the platform's role as a central hub for a specific and potent political subculture.

An Engine of Polarization

Academic research confirms Geenstijl's function as a catalyst for polarization. Studies of the Dutch media landscape identify it as part of a distinct "rechtse mediasfeer" (right-wing media sphere) characterized by its "anti-establishment en anti-politieke correctheid" (anti-establishment and anti-political correctness) stance.³ These platforms are shown to be particularly effective at amplifying and sustaining outrage around specific, contentious issues. On topics like Zwarte Piet and the downing of flight MH17, content from "junknieuws" sources was found to be, at times, even more prominent on social media than content from mainstream news outlets, actively feeding polarization long after the initial news cycle had passed.³

Geenstijl's linguistic style creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop that drives this polarization. Research has shown that using "spreektaal" (colloquial language)—which mirrors Geenstijl's unique sociolect—in Google search queries leads to a higher percentage of junknieuws in the search results, especially on sensitive topics like migration.³ This indicates that Geenstijl not only provides polarizing content but also trains its audience to use language and search strategies that lead them deeper into a hyperpartisan information ecosystem, insulating them from mainstream perspectives and reinforcing their biases.

The PowNed Pipeline: Mainstreaming the "Stijlloos"

Perhaps the most significant and lasting impact of Geenstijl on Dutch society has been its successful "institutional capture" via the creation of the public broadcaster PowNed. Founded in 2009 by Geenstijl's creators, Dominique Weesie and others, PowNed successfully garnered the requisite number of members to be admitted into the Dutch public broadcasting system (NPO).¹ This strategic move allowed the Geenstijl ideology and its confrontational, "stijlloos" (style-less) journalistic approach to gain a legitimate, taxpayer-funded foothold within the very media establishment it purports to despise.

PowNed's official mission is to provide "echte, ongepolijste informatie waarbij de confrontatie niet wordt geschuwd" (real, unpolished information where confrontation is not shunned) for the "netwerkgeneratie" (network generation).²⁶ This language directly echoes Geenstijl's anti-establishment ethos. Critics have described its style as akin to that of Fox News in the United States: "selectieve riooljournalistiek om een pseudo-populistisch geluid neer te zetten" (selective sewer journalism to create a pseudo-populist sound).²⁷

Since its inception, PowNed has been embroiled in controversies that reflect its Geenstijl origins. It has faced accusations of sexism, staging misleading segments, and lacking basic journalistic context in its reporting.²⁷ In a particularly damaging incident in 2024, the ombudsman of the public broadcasters formally concluded that PowNed had violated the national journalistic code with a video in which young female fans of Taylor Swift were deceptively encouraged to perform suggestive acts.³⁰ The existence of PowNed represents a paradigm shift. It has allowed a media entity born out of anti-establishment blogging to become an internal, state-funded part of that establishment. This move has normalized its confrontational, often post-truth journalistic style and provided it with a veneer of legitimacy it could never have achieved as a standalone website. It has effectively created a permanent, publicly funded vehicle for its brand of right-wing populism, blurring the lines between alternative and mainstream media and fundamentally changing the nature of public discourse from within.

Conclusion: An Assessment of Geenstijl's Role in the Dutch Public Sphere

This comprehensive analysis, drawing upon academic research, industry reports, and journalistic accounts, demonstrate a clear and consistent pattern of behavior that contradicts the platform's self-portrayal as a simple defender of free expression. The observed contradiction between Geenstijl's stated principles and its actions is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. The platform's claim to be a bastion of free speech is fundamentally undermined by its documented history of targeting individuals with sustained ridicule, engaging in political activism against ideological opponents, and actively sabotaging the journalistic and academic work of others. The "slight sense" of bias against immigrants and people of color is substantiated by extensive evidence, including academic linguistic analysis revealing systematic negative framing of Muslims, official complaints about discriminatory content, and the platform's use of a unique, derogatory lexicon to describe ethnic minorities.

The Free Speech Defense: A Shield for Aggression

Geenstijl's invocation of "free speech" is primarily a rhetorical defense mechanism rather than a consistently applied principle. The concept is used as a shield to justify its own aggressive and "needlessly offensive" content while not being extended to protect the speech and inquiry of those it opposes. The deliberate and successful sabotage of the university diversity survey is the most stark illustration of this functional hypocrisy. This act was not one of speech but of the suppression of speech, demonstrating that the platform's true commitment is to the dominance of its own worldview, not to a pluralistic and open debate.

A Catalyst for a Coarsened Discourse

The analysis concurs with the assessment of critics who argue that Geenstijl has played a significant role in the "coarsening" of Dutch public discourse.²³ By pioneering and popularizing a journalistic style that prioritizes confrontation, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks, it has contributed to a more polarized and toxic public sphere. The creation and institutionalization of this style within the public broadcasting system through PowNed has been a particularly impactful development, normalizing a form of media engagement that is fundamentally hostile to traditional norms of journalistic ethics, nuance, and constructive dialogue. This has had a lasting effect on the Dutch media landscape, blurring the lines between journalism and activism and lowering the bar for acceptable public debate.

Final Perspective

Geenstijl.nl is more than a provocative news blog; it is a highly effective and influential political and cultural project. It has successfully identified, cultivated, and mobilized a significant segment of the Dutch population—one that is often educated and affluent yet feels deeply alienated by mainstream politics, media, and cultural trends. To this audience, Geenstijl provides a powerful sense of community, a validating worldview, a unique language of rebellion, and a daily stream of content that confirms their anti-establishment biases. While it operates under the banners of journalism and free speech, its methods are those of political activism and cultural warfare. Its ultimate impact has been to deepen societal divisions, erode trust in institutions, and champion a form of public discourse that prioritizes the catharsis of provocation over the difficult work of dialogue and understanding.

Works cited

1. GeenStijl - Wikipedia, accessed September 11, 2025, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeenStijl

2. De brand roast van GeenStijl: geen doelgroep, geen grenzen en geen... stijl - Frankwatching, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.frankwatching.com/archive/2023/07/06/brand-roast-geenstijl/

3. politiek en sociale media manipulatie the politics of social media manipulation - Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.eerstekamer.nl/bijlage/20191213/bijlage_bij_tweede_kamer_brief_7/document3/f=/vl4eiu14yzk1.pdf

4. POLITIEK EN SOCIALE MEDIA MANIPULATIE THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL MEDIA MANIPULATION - UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository), accessed September 11, 2025, https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/45335152/rapport_politiek_en_sociale_media_manipulatie.pdf

5. Politiek en sociale media manipulatie = The Politics of Social Media Manipulation - UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository), accessed September 11, 2025, https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/45335580/rapport_politiek_en_sociale_media_manipulatie.pdf

6. GeenStijl - Wikipedia, accessed September 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeenStijl

7. Moslimdiscriminatie neemt toe | NPO Radio 1, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.nporadio1.nl/nieuws/binnenland/7a672f22-5c0a-416c-9f80-9b434487532b/moslimdiscriminatie-neemt-toe

8. How to Make Politics... Bigger, Better & Simpler - UA-repository., accessed September 11, 2025, https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/818486/12223.pdf

9. Popband Kane ziedend na kritiek op internet - Marketingfacts, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/popband_kane_ziedend_na_kritiek_op_internet/

10. Mediaforum: Moeten media het racistische filmpje over Sylvana laten zien? | NPO Radio 1, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.nporadio1.nl/nieuws/achtergrond/f8a594e0-eae4-4165-b679-c0285731e57f/mediaforum-moeten-media-het-racistische-filmpje-over-sylvana-laten-zien

11. Omstreden kandidaat Cailin Kuit trekt zich terug uit partij Sylvana Simons - EW, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.ewmagazine.nl/nederland/achtergrond/2018/01/omstreden-kandidaat-cailin-kuit-trekt-zich-terug-uit-partij-sylvana-simons-575625/

12. GeenStijl torpedeert onderzoek naar diversiteit, UKrant stopt met ..., accessed September 11, 2025, https://ukrant.nl/geenstijl-torpedeert-onderzoek-naar-diversiteit-ukrant-stopt-met-enquete/

13. GeenStijl torpedeert diversiteitsenquête - Advalvas - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, accessed September 11, 2025, https://advalvas.vu.nl/student-maatschappij/geenstijl-torpedeert-diversiteitsenquete/

14. TrendingVandaag: 'Zwarte Piet is discriminerend' - EenVandaag - AVROTROS, accessed September 11, 2025, https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/artikelen/trendingvandaag-zwarte-piet-is-discriminerend-52520

15. De meerderheid van Nederland is tegen aanpassing van Zwarte Piet. Ik vond 4 verklaringen, accessed September 11, 2025, https://decorrespondent.nl/5796/de-meerderheid-van-nederland-is-tegen-aanpassing-van-zwarte-piet-ik-vond-4-verklaringen/9e4f70d6-039f-0c83-39cf-8f0170bb9d41

16. Zwarte Piet racistisch? - RTL LATE NIGHT - YouTube, accessed September 11, 2025

17. Strafrechtelijk onderzoek naar Geenstijl.nl - SOLV, accessed September 11, 2025, https://solv.nl/blog/strafrechtelijk-onderzoek-naar-geenstijl-nl/

18. Great Replacement conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, accessed September 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory

19. Is het waar dat een klein deel van de migranten asielzoeker is? - COA, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.coa.nl/nl/lijst/het-waar-dat-een-klein-deel-van-de-migranten-asielzoeker

20. Vluchtelingen en migranten - Oxfam Novib, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.oxfamnovib.nl/veilig-wij-dragen-bij-aan-een-veilige-wereld/vluchtelingen-en-migratie

21. Migratiebeleid | Migratie | Rijksoverheid.nl, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/migratie/migratiebeleid

22. Asiel en migratie in de EU: feiten en cijfers | Onderwerpen | Europees Parlement, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/nl/article/20170629STO78630/asiel-en-migratie-in-de-eu-feiten-en-cijfers

23. “Mensen van GeenStijl zijn geweldplegers” - Nieuw Wij, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.nieuwwij.nl/interview/mensen-van-geenstijl-zijn-geweldplegers/

24. PowNed - Wikipedia, accessed September 11, 2025, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowNed

25. De opportunistische zakkenvuller van PowNed - EW, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.ewmagazine.nl/opinie/opinie/2020/11/de-opportunistische-zakkenvuller-van-powned-785737/

26. Missie en identiteit PowNed, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.powned.tv/missie-en-identiteit~1/

27. PowNed. Sensatiemedia is ook een arm van de kapitalistische media, accessed September 11, 2025, https://nl.socialisme.be/99628/powned-sensatiemedia-is-ook-een-arm-van-de-kapitalistische-media

28. De missende context bij de PowNed-documentaire over transitiespijt - Joop - bnnvara, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.bnnvara.nl/joop/artikelen/de-missende-context-bij-de-powned-documentaire-over-transitiespijt

29. Ophef over PowNed-video: item over criminaliteit Stadskanaal deels in Groningen opgenomen - RTV1, accessed September 11, 2025, https://rtveen.nl/2025/02/19/ophef-over-powned-video-item-over-criminaliteit-stadskanaal-deels-in-groningen-opgenomen/

30. Ombudsman: PowNed schond journalistieke code door meisje uit haar kleren te praten met leugen over Taylor Swift - Joop - BNNVARA, accessed September 11, 2025, https://www.bnnvara.nl/joop/artikelen/ombudsman-powned-schond-journalistieke-code-door-meisje-uit-haar-kleren-met-leugen-over-taylor-swift