Author: bestmedeal

TVUnseen apotheosis in ‘Blind Married’. After Jana and Christiaan ended theirmarriage during the decision-making moment, Jana admits six weeks later thatshe still doubts that choice every day. “That ‘what if’ eats me up,” said theconfused kindergarten teacher, who previously put her husband on the gridbecause of his ‘narrow’ appearance and ‘sweet’ approach between the sheets.Her husband Christiaan wants to stick to the decision. “The fair option”, hecalls it. At the same time, ‘snails’ Jiri and Florence surprisingly chose eachother.

Jana provided a first in seven seasons of ‘Blind Married’ by bringing twoletters to the decision moment. One in case her Christian would say ‘no’, onefor ‘yes’. But it ended up being no. With a loving smile, Christiaan said thatthe couples weekend turned their otherwise happy relationship. “There were toomany differences,” he says. “The distance, the planning…” Christiaan doesn’tliterally say that Jana tripped over his ‘skinny’ build and his ‘sweet’approach in bed, but talks about “other differences that make you insecure andcause doubts.”

LOOK: Jana and Christiaan cut a difficult knot

Christiaan told it with a smile – he didn’t have a cheat sheet – but when hiswife brought out her ‘no’ letter, the emergency nurse broke down. Still with asmile, but with a trembling lower lip and tears in his eyes, Christiaanlistened to Jana say that “she thanks him for his patience” and how she wisheshim a “calm, caring girl”. His heartbreak was felt in the living room.

Still smiling, but with trembling lower lip and tears in his eyes, Christiaanlistened to Jana say that “she thanks him for his patience and a fantastictime”. © VTM

An emotional ending for the most talked-about couple of this season. At leastso it seemed. Because when Ingeborg invited the four couples again for areunion six weeks after that moment, the duo no longer sounded so determined.The two hadn’t seen each other in all that time and Jana started to doubt itin the meantime. “It hurts terribly,” she says. “I still have moments everyday when I struggle with myself. That ‘what if’ eats me up.”

Christiaan is cooler when Ingeborg asks him why he said ‘no’ then. “It was awell-considered decision that we made together,” it sounds almost stoic. “Weknew rationally that it would be difficult in the future, so we chose the fairoption.” Very remarkable, because in the past episodes Christiaan was alwaysthe one who pulled the cart and always had a sparkle in his eye when he talkedabout his Lokerse brunette. Their story of attraction and repulsion does notseem to us to end yet. Perhaps a potential relationship would benefit from aperiod without cameras.

“Fuck it, I deserve too much”

“Every day I am amazed by the similarities,” says Florence. © VTM

For Jiri and Florence, the decision-making moment was less hectic, but the twoprovided the surprise of the season. In the most romantic speech of theseries, Jiri extensively declared love to his “sincere, sweet, reliable, warm,intelligent, sensitive, spontaneous, caring, pure” wife. The well-balancedJiri shed tears after his long list of adjectives when he saw his wife do thesame. “What you do to me, I have never experienced,” he read through histears. “Is this too good to be true? Fuck it, I deserve too much. I am a toughguy, I like to take that wall to break down further.” Florence, who said fromthe start that she had “no attraction” for Jiri, thanked her husband for hispatience and said that she is “still amazed every day by the similarities.”

WATCH: How did ‘Blind Marriage’ end for Jiri and Florence?

Christiaan and Jana: Divorced

Jana: “Since the decision-making moment, I feel that things are not going wellinside yet.” © VTM

High peaks and deep troughs characterize the route of the most talked aboutcouple of this season. For a long time it seemed to be going in the rightdirection, but in the end the distance between Geel and Lokeren turned out tobe too great. Jana detested this final episode for paying attention to thefact that things didn’t click right away physically. Like her decision, itseemed. “Since the decision-making moment, I feel to myself that things aren’tquite right on the inside. Saying ‘no’ to a person you liked at a certainmoment is very painful.” Maybe their story isn’t quite over yet? That willdepend on the coming weeks.

WATCH: Jana breaks down as she revisits the decision moment with herfamily

Jiri and Florence: Married

Jiri and Florence © DPG Media

It seems to us that in the first place Jiri and Florence are very happy thatthe program is over. The two clearly participated in finding a partner forlife, the passage in a popular TV program was not necessary for them. The twoare looking forward to the future, they say at the reunion, although it alsogoes step by step. “The feelings are not ‘wow’ yet, but we are making nicememories”, says Florence, looking back with satisfaction. “In retrospect, itwent perfectly, a different way would not have been better.”

WATCH: This is how Jiri and Florence stayed under the radar

Brecht and Dziubi: Married

Dziubi and Brecht © DPG Media

Even six weeks after their decision point, Brecht and Dziubi are stillmarried. They say that things are still going as smoothly as in the beginning,but they have not yet found a solution for the distance between Ghent andAntwerp. “We still haven’t talked about it,” says Brecht. “First, the feelinghas to keep growing.”

LOOK: How are Brecht and Dziubi doing now?

Lien and Joren: Divorced

Lien & Joren © VTM

Joren and Lien have never really felt that way and that is what they say sixweeks after their joint ‘no’ in the town hall of Aarschot. It sounds like thetwo still hear each other regularly. And that they are proud, that despiteeverything they have shown a lot of respect for each other. The ultimatereason why it didn’t work out? “I think Lien had an ideal image in mind andthat I wasn’t quite,” Joren concludes.

UPDATED with punitive damages, 1:45 PM: The jury in Paul Haggis’ sexualassault civil trial today ordered him to pay $2.5 million in punitive damagesto plaintiff Haleigh Breest. Added to the $7.5 million it awarded Thursday,when he was found liable, the crash double Oscar winner now faces $10million in damages.

Read details of the case below.

More from Deadline

Outside court, Haggis vowed said: “Today the jury learned what the opposingcounsel has known for years, which is that I’ve spent all the money I have atmy disposal. I’ve gutted my pension plan. I’ve lived on loans in order to payfor this case in a very naive belief in justice. Well, now we’ll see what theappeals court will say. Because we will absolutely appeal. I can’t live withlies like this; I want that clearing my name.”

His attorney, Priya Chuadhry, said outside the courtroom: “Throughout thistrial we were not allowed to tell the jury that Mr. Haggis is basicallypenniless, and now the world knows. And we look forward to clearing his name.”

Breest’s lawyer Ilann Maazel told reporters, “The jury did the right thing,”and her other attorney Zoe Salzman said, “Justice was done.” Breest made nocomments outside court.

PREVIOUSLY, Nov 10: A New York jury today found filmmaker Paul Haggisliable on all three counts of rape and sexual abuse in his treatment ofHaleigh Breest, who left a party in Manhattan with him in 2013 and then suedthe crash Oscar winner in 2017 claiming he repeatedly forced sex on her inhis apartment that night.

The unanimous jury of four men and two women — whose makeup changed on thefirst day of deliberations — deliberated for nearly six hours in the civiltrial before awarding Breest $7.5 million in compensation. It also recommendedpunitive damages, the amount of which will be decided Monday, November 14.

Story continues

RELATED: Paul Haggis Sexual Assault Civil Trial: Deadline ‘s CompleteCoverage

Seated between his lawyers, Haggis — who faces no jail time because this wasnot a criminal proceeding — looked straight ahead as the verdicts were read.He then stood with his three adult daughters and hugged one of them, who wascrying.

Standing with his lawyer Priya Chaudhry and his family members outside thecourthouse, Haggis said: “I’m obviously very disappointed in the results. AndI’m going to continue to, with my team, fight to clear my name. We’re going tokeep our options as to what we’re going to do.”

Breest hugged her lawyers and said as she exited that she was “very grateful.”She later released a statement through her attorneys: “I am grateful that Ihad the opportunity to seek justice and accountability in court — and that thejury chose to follow the facts — and believed me. The greatest source ofcomfort through this five year legal journey has been the support I felt fromthe women who bravely shared their own stories and let me know I wasn’talone.”

Breest’s lawyers Zoe Salzman and Ilann Maazel said in a statement: “We’repleased to see justice served for our client, Haleigh Breest. After the juryheard a mountain of undeniable evidence against Mr. Haggis, they did the rightthing and held him accountable for his deplorable behavior. We commend Ms.Breest for the bravery it took to come forward. She stood up for herself andfor all women.”

Also in the hallway, Breest paused to hug her former therapist, CatherineBaker-Pitts, who treated Breest in 2017-19 and testified during the trial thatBreest was suffering from symptoms of trauma.

“Justice was served,” Baker-Pitts said of the verdict, adding that Breeststepped “out of her comfort zone” to pursue the case, “and she trusted in thesystem.”

Baker-Pitts, who was Breest’s most visible and often only supporter in thecourtroom, said she hopes the outcome will help Breest “restore a feeling ofsafety in the world,” and inspire “faith in the power of speaking up — that itwas worth it.”

Today’s verdicts were the latest judgment in a spate of cases growing out of a#MeToo movement that has called out powerful men in the entertainment industryas sexual abusers. The jury was asked to decide whether Haggis was one ofthem. Breest and her lawyers sought to prove that Haggis had forced her tosubmit to intercourse and to perform oral sex on him and pushed his fingersinside of her even as she said “no.”

She spent four days in total on the stand describing the encounter anddefending her interpretation of it against a skeptical cross-examination by alawyer for Haggis, Priya Chaudhry. In closing arguments on Wednesday, Chaudhryasked jurors to use their “fabulous New York common sense” to see throughBreest’s story.

Jurors ruled on three specific charges: first-degree rape and two third-degreecharges of sex abuse and a criminal sexual act under New York law. About onehour into their deliberations, jurors asked the judge for several pieces oftrial testimony and evidence including texts between Breest and the friend shecontacted first, and deposition testimony by Breest and Haggis discussingvaginal sex.

Breest and Haggis both had testified that they went back to his apartmentafter a movie-screening party on Jan. 31, 2013, where Haggis, then 59, was aVIP guest and Breest, then 26, was working as a freelance publicist. Bothagreed that Haggis turned an offer of a ride home for Breest in his hired carinto an invitation to his place, and that she deflected the invitation atfirst by suggesting they instead go to a bar. She then agreed to go home withhim but said she wouldn’t stay the night, both tested.

Their testimony diverged from there. Breest said she felt “pressured” to spendtime after work with Haggis, a frequent guest at events put on by her boss,who fired her after she filed the lawsuit. Haggis testified that he and Breesthad been flirting all night, were genuinely interested in each other and thatBreest was playfully letting him know she was open to sex with him even if shewasn’t planning to stay over.

Haggis testified that the sex was consensual and, to the best of his memory,confined to oral sex that Breest initiated. He said that Breest neverportrayed the encounter to him as anything else until her lawsuit almost fiveyears later at the height of the #MeToo movement, after Haggis had calledmovie producer Harvey Weinstein a “predator” as women in the film industrywere coming forward with accounts of Weinstein sexually brutalizing them.

RELATED: Harvey Weinstein LA Rape Trial: “Bulk Of Case” Could Be Finished ByThanksgiving Week, Defense Attorney Says

He has called the case a vendetta by the Church of Scientology, a secretiveand wealthy religious movement founded by a science fiction novelist. Haggisquit the church in 2009 with harsh words for its methods and spoke at lengthabout his journey through and out of Scientology for a New Yorker profileand an HBO documentary.

His defense lawyers did not produce a single witness or piece of documentationin court linking any of his accusers directly to the church, but in closingarguments on Wednesday, Haggis lawyer Chaudhry said jurors should consider the“strong circumstantial evidence” of a Scientology role in accusations thathave “utterly destroyed him.”

The jury heard from about two dozen witnesses in all, including Haggis, Breestand four Jane Does — Deadline is not naming them — who said Haggis sexuallyassaulted them, or attempted to, in separate incidents between 1996 and 2015after using different ruses to get them alone. They are not parties to thelawsuit against Haggis, but a lawyer for Breest, Ilann Maazel, said in closingarguments that they “give some insight into what his intent really was” whenit took Breest home. Maazel called Haggis a “psychopath” who planned andorchestrated his assault of Breest just as he had done with the other fourwomen.

There were dueling experts on memory, trauma and attitudes towards rapevictims — both with links to courtroom cases that accused Weinstein and theactor Kevin Spacey of sexual abuse. Two spinal surgeons offered contrastingviews on whether Haggis was even capable of initiating forcible sex againstsomeone resisting him physically, given that he was still recovering from anoperation to repair two ruptured discs in his back.

Chaudhry, in a grinding, hours-long cross-examination that left Breest intears, sought to show jurors that the rape as she claimed it happened wasequal parts “fantasy,” as Chaudhry put it in closing arguments, and “notphysically possible .” She said Breest had multiple opportunities to leaveHaggis’ apartment, and instead she spent the night.

Chaudhry depicted Breest as a troubled and emotionally immature woman whomistook “an awkward one-night stand” with a famous, accomplished Hollywoodfigure for something more, and felt humiliated when he showed no furtherinterest.

Chaudhry said Breest’s texts to friends afterward, and emails to Haggis, showher reaction evolving from excitement at having spent the night with him toconfusion at his disinterest, and then regret and humiliation that led her torecast what happened as rape.

One text from Breest read, “As they say in the first wives club don’t get madget everything,” referencing the 1996 revenge-comedy movie The First WivesClub.

“She’s not upset about what happened in Paul Haggis’ apartment that night,”Chaudhry said. “She’s upset that he never invited her back.”

Jurors also heard from a string of defense witnesses with connections to theChurch of Scientology, including the former King of Queens star Leah Remini,who also hosted the Emmy-winning documentary television series, Leah Remini:Scientology and the Aftermath.

Remini and other former Scientologists, including Haggis’ daughter Alissa,told jurors that the church never forgives its enemies and uses litigation andimpossible-to-trace covert operations to undermine them. One ex-Scientist, adocumentary film producer, said that shortly after Haggis left the church, ahigh-ranking Scientologist called her for help digging up dirt on him but sherefused.

“It’s the perfect defense,” Maazel scoffed in his closing. “There’s noevidence of it, so it must be true.”

An ex-wife of Haggis, singer and actress Deborah Rennard, testified thatHaggis was unfaithful and had more than 20 affairs during their marriage butnever was violent. Three other women said they remain friends with Haggis eventhough they rejected his passes or romantic interest.

Haggis himself said on the stand, “I’m a very flawed human being,” but deniedraping or attempting to force himself sexually on anyone.

Best of Deadline

Sign up for Deadline’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook,Twitter, and Instagram.

Click here to read the full article.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a documentary filmmaker and thewife of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, took the stand Monday at the rape trialof Harvey Weinstein.

Siebel Newsom spent 15 minutes on the stand at the downtown Los Angelescourtroom before a lunch break, becoming the fourth woman Weinstein is accusedof sexually assaulting to testify at the former movie magnate’s trial.

The 48-year-old Siebel Newsom was “a powerless actor trying to make her way inHollywood” in 2005 when Weinstein raped her during what she thought was goingto be a meeting to discuss her career at a Beverly Hills hotel, DeputyDistrict Attorney Paul Thompson said during the trial’s opening statements.

Weinstein’s lawyers say the two had consensual sex and that she sought to usethe powerful producer to advance her career.

When asked by a prosecutor if she saw the person in court that she met at aToronto film festival in 2005, she went silent then burst into tears beforemanaging to mutter “yes” into the microphone.

“He’s wearing a suit, and a blue tie, and he’s staring at me,” she said whenasked to describe him. She had only described their initial meeting before thecourt broke for lunch.

Siebel Newsom is known as Jane Doe #4 at the trial, and like the othersWeinstein is charged with raping or sexually assaulting, her name is not beingspoken in court. But both the prosecution and the defense identified haveidentified her as the governor’s wife during the trial and Siebel Newsom’sattorney confirmed to the AP and other news outlets that she is Jane Doe #4.

The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have beensexually abused unless they have come forward publicly.

Weinstein has had many famous accusers, including A-list actors, since hebecame a magnet for the #MeToo movement in 2017. But none of the women tellingtheir stories at the Los Angeles trial have had anywhere near the prominenceof Siebel Newsom, first partner to the man who last week sailed to a secondterm as governor of the nation’s most populous state and may make a run forthe White House.

Story continues

“She intends to testify at his trial in order to seek some measure of justicefor survivors, and as part of her life’s work to improve the lives of women,”her attorney Elizabeth Fegan said in a statement at the start of the trial.

Weinstein attorney Mark Werksman told jurors during opening statements thatSiebel Newsom “a very prominent citizen of California” who has made herself “aprominent victim in the #MeToo movement.”

“Otherwise,” Werksman said, “she’d be just another bimbo who slept with HarveyWeinstein to get ahead in Hollywood.”

Actor Daphne Zuniga, star of “Spaceballs” and “Melrose Place,” tested abouther friend at the trial last week.

Zuniga said she and Siebel Newsom were on a hike when she told her she’d had ameeting with Harvey Weinstein. When asked how it went, Zuniga said SiebelNewsom told her “not good, I don’t want to talk about.”

“I always had known her to be positive, upbeat, looks you in the eye, lovelyenergy,” Zuniga said, but here “she seemed upset, squirmy, agitated.”

Prosecutors said that — in a pattern described by many other Weinsteinaccusers — Siebel Newsom had expected they would be meeting in a public spacewith others in attendance, but instead found herself alone with him in hissuite.

Judge Lisa Lench is allowing the defense to use an email Siebel Newsom sent toWeinstein in 2007 asking him for help in dealing with the media surrounding ascandal involving her husband, who was mayor of San Francisco at the time.

Already serving a 23-year sentence for a conviction in New York, Weinstein haspleaded not guilty to four counts of rape and seven counts of sexual assaultinvolving five women. He has denied ever engaging in non-consensual sex.

---

Follow AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter:twitter.com/andyjamesdalton

---

For more on the Harvey Weinstein trial, visit: https://apnews.com/hub/harvey-

Workers at a World Cup stadium hustling over the weekend to move a beer tent> after an edict from Qatar hide sales points to less visible locations around> all 8 stadiums amid claims of safety fears.

La selección mexicana no viaja sola a Qatar para esta justa mundialista. Lasombra de incertidumbre, esa que acompaña a Tata Martino en los últimos añosde su gestión como entrenador de México, marcará de cerca al equipo al menosand los tres encuentros de phase de grupos. Los 26 elegidos tendrán queesclarecer in situ a ras de cancha, todas las dudas acumuladas al cabo demás de cuatro años con el técnico argentino al frente.

En su paso por el banquillo del Tri, el exentrenador del Barcelona ha podidoreeconocer muy bien las exigencias del futbol mexicano. “Nunca ni el globo, niel avión, /ni el pájaro o la flecha /partirán tan llenos de milagro … ”,dice sobre el balon el poeta Antonio Deltoro. La selección mexicana encara elMundial con el hambre de un quinto juego, clasificar a cuartos de final, algoque no consigue desde 1986.

Mexico vs Polonia

La selección mexicana comparte el grupo C con Polonia, Argentina y ArabiaSaudi. Su debut lo hará contra el equipo polaco el martes 22 de noviembre alas 10.00 de la mañana, hora de México, and el estadio 974, and Doha, capitalqatarí. México se medra por segunda vez en un Mundial con el equipo europeo.La primera ocurrió en Argentina 1978 con un marcador final en contra de losmexicanos 3-1. La última vez que el tricolor enfrentó a este rival, fue enpartido amistoso celebrado en la ciudad polaca de Gdansk en 2017, con triunfo(0-1) para los entonces dirigidos por Juan Carlos Osorio.

En la delantera, Martino tiene a sus tres centro delanteros: Rogelio FunesMori, Henry Martín y Raúl Jiménez. El primero se ha recuperado de sus lesionescon Monterrey, el segundo ha tenido una de las mejores temporadas en la Ligamexicana con el America y el tercero ha tenido un par de años llenos decalvario. Jiménez sufrió una fractura de cráneo en 2020 cuando la cabeza delbrasileño David Luiz se estrelló con la suya. Desde entonces, Raul ya no hasido Jimenez. La secuela y la baja de ritmo han sido su problema. And estosdías ha intentado superar una pubalgia. El rechazado fue Santiago Giménez, the21 años, que este año se sumó al Feyenoord. El atacante eligió jugar en laLiga holandesa, donde se especializan and formar a los mejores talentos enEuropa. Sus goles han sido crucials para que el club siga con vida en laEuropa League.

Martino convocó a Giménez en 2021 y le dio la oportunidad de debutar cuandoaún era suplente en Cruz Azul. El delantero fue decisivo para que el club delos cementeros ganara la liga tras 23 años sin conseguirlo. Así, dio el saltoa Europa. Otro de los marginados fue Lainez, aquel chico que debutó con 16años and Primera División. Todos los pronósticos le hacian parte de la listafinal, incluso una buena temporada en el Braga de Portugal, pero no fuesuficiente para su entrenador. And su lugar estará Roberto Alvarado, quientambién luce como una gran apuesta por los extremos.

As a little boy, Lando van der Schee (23) was glued to the TV when America’s Next Top Model was on TV. Due to mental problems and the focus on thetransition from boy to girl, the Enschedeër put aside the desire to become amodel for a while. *That Lando wins the thirteenth season of Holland ‘sNext Top Model years later as a beautiful woman is a dream come true. “I am proud of myself.”*

Ad is loading…

Lando still works full-time at Subway sandwich shop in the city center ofEnschede. But her life will look completely different in the near future.Today (Monday 14 November) was the denouement of the latest season ofHolland’s Next Top Model. Lando beats fellow finalists Philip and Jazz to takehome the coveted title.

Grateful and proud

“A storm of emotions.” This is how the Enschedeër describes the denouement ofthe modeling competition. “My whole body started to shake. But most of all Ifelt grateful that so many people voted for me. And I felt proud. I haveovercome so much during this program.”

“I don ‘t have to hide anymore“

Lando started the TV adventure as an insecure girl. She hid her insecuritybehind a mask of make-up. “I am a sensitive person. I really care what someonethinks of me. I always saw that as a weak quality of myself. Makeup felt likea shield I could hide behind. I now know that my sensitivity is actually agood quality. I don’t have to hide anymore.”

source of inspiration

The program has made her more confident. “And more mature. I found out that ifyou really want something, it can happen.” As a trans woman, she especiallywants to inspire people who are struggling with themselves and their genderexpression. She herself knows how that feels. “I always knew I was differentfrom other kids. Wasn’t comfortable in my own skin for years, but I didn’tunderstand where it came from.”

Ad is loading…

Ups and downs

That changed when she started her training as a beautician in 2016. “That yearI came out as transgender. Then I started discovering girl life.” Thenlaughing: “And I went very well with that.” That doesn’t mean that things wentwell for her after that. “It went through ups and downs. But now I’m doingreally well.”

Read more under the photo >

Lando with her fellow finalists. Photo: Tom Cornelissen

Role models in the media

Lando is delighted that this season of Holland’s Next Top Model is moreinclusive than ever. “Everyone is beautiful in their own way. Why should therebe only one standard model? Young people want to recognize themselves in thepeople they see on TV or in the magazines. They are looking for role models.That is why diversity is so important.”

Lando himself will soon be featured in the magazines. She has won a photoshoot and an interview in Dutch Vogue. And a contract with model agency TheMovement Models. So her boss at Subway can expect a letter of resignation?Lando laughs. “I don’t think I’ll be working there for very long, no.”

To the big city

She will also be leaving beautiful Enschede. “I want to move to the big city.I’ve always said I want to live in Amsterdam. Also in terms of modeling thatis more convenient for me. But I also think Enschede is very pleasant.Everyone is nice and sober. I like that.”

SCHIERMONNIKOOG – The successful film and documentary maker Thom Verheul vanSchiermonnikoog, who has already won several international prizes, closelyfollowed Richard Westerink and his super horse Etonnant for two years and madethe documentary ‘The Successor’.

Verheul followed Westerink (43) from Apeldoorn and traveled with himthroughout Europe. The most successful trotter trainer from the Netherlands iscausing a furore in France – the largest trotting country in the world – withhis top horses that have already won millions in prize money.

The now 8-year-old Etonnant is the biggest talent in his stable. Millions areat stake and Westerink and Etonnant are experiencing all the highs and lows onand off the track. The international rollercoaster in which Westerink islocated eventually led Verheul via Paris to Stockholm. The World SprintChampionship (Elitloppet) was waiting there in May. In Sweden, Etonnant facedthe impossible task of following in the footsteps of his illustrious father(Timoko), with whom Westerink already won the world title twice in the past.

Verheul wins prestigious prize at international film festival

The documentary, which lasts over an hour, won the prestigious award at the40th Milano International FICTS fest in the category Sport Movies & TV 2022,Great Champions. It was the final of 20 festivals around the world of the“World FICTS Challenge” World Championship of Television. During the ceremony,IOC President Thomas Bach spoke to the winners via video link: “Sport andculture are incredibly important for bringing people from all over the worldtogether. The fantastic films and documentaries about sports that receive anaward here today contribute to this in a fantastic way.”

Initiative

ZEturf, the international gaming organization supported by its Swedish partnerATG, and TROTR Media from Joure, made the documentary in which RichardWesterink is followed financially possible. Westerink was also present inMilan: “I am very proud that I was able to participate in this documentary andthus bring the international harness sport to the attention of a largeraudience.”

Olgers & Verheul films, who were able to make the film entirely at their owndiscretion, received the award together with Westerink. “It is a great honorto win this award. I was really allowed to follow Richard everywhere and I gota unique picture of the international harness sport. I didn’t know in advancewhat to expect, but the top sport that Westerink practices has fascinated meincredibly,” said Thom Verheul.

Managing director Paul Klomp of ZEturf thought the award for the ‘TheSuccessor’ in Milan was more than deserved: “Richard Westerink is a realambassador for the international harness sport. He has shown in a disarmed waywhat it takes to be able to perform at the absolute top of the world.” It isnot yet clear where the film will be shown soon, the parties are stilldiscussing this.

Anyone who wants to watch Canvas or One live via the free online platform VRTMax will now invariably see a few advertising videos first. Even if on thatlivestream at that moment just The news or another current program is inprogress. That was one of the most remarkable changes that the publicbroadcaster made when the platform shifted from VRT Nu to VRT Max this summer.

That is not allowed, says the Flemish Regulator for the Media (VRM) now. Aftera complaint from a VRT Max viewer, the media watchdog has tested thebroadcasting of those so-called prerolls – advertising messages that can startplaying before the live streams – against the Flemish media decree. The VRMhas come to the conclusion that the live streams of Canvas and One on VRT Maxare subject to the same rules as the linear channels on TV. And advertising isprohibited on the linear channels of the public broadcaster, except ‘in thecase of radio advertising and advertising aimed at self-promotion’.

Because the VRM is speaking out on this issue for the first time, the VRTreceives a warning as a sanction. It is not yet entirely clear whether thepublic broadcaster will now cancel the prerolls and when exactly. In a shortresponse to the news, VRT spokesman Jan Sulmont states that the VRT is’surprised by the verdict and is examining it further internally’. If thebroadcaster continues to broadcast the advertisement on VRT Max, it risksfines.

Even before this statement by the Flemish media watchdog, the so-called pre-rolls in live streams on VRT Max were under fire. On the online platforms ofcommercial competitors, such as VTM GO, for example, there is no advertisingfor the start-up of the live streams. The idea is that the advertising isalready included in the broadcasts. The fact that VRT Max does show prerollswas seen in the media sector as a symptom of the increasingly commercialcourse that the VRT is taking under its new CEO Frederik Delaplace and ofsavings on the VRT’s grant.

• Read | ‘VRT’s commercial course annoys media companies’

There was also several annoyances in parliament about the commercial courseand the advertising messages on VRT Max. The Flemish Minister of Media,Benjamin Dalle (CD&V), reported to the Media Committee last Thursday that hehad reprimanded the VRT for the use of these types of advertising messages onVRT Max. “That’s something that bothers people and is actually not possible,”Dalle said in the Commission. According to him, the advertising messages inlive reporting are at odds with the digital strategy of the publicbroadcaster. ‘The agreement is that digital applications should be as user-friendly as linear channels,’ said the minister. He also pointed out that thepractice conflicts with the management agreement between the VRT and theFlemish government. Dalle said he also raised the objection with the VRT.”They understand our position and there will be an extinction scenario.”

Striking: it is the second time that the CD&V minister is keen on a strategicdecision by the VRT management. When the broadcaster announced at the end ofAugust that it would close the regional morning block of Radio 2, Dalle, inhis own words, choked on his coffee. “Local news is very important to CD&V andit is also part of Radio 2’s DNA,” he said in a statement The last news.

Sander Schimmelpenninck appeared at last night College Tour and thejournalist is quite known for his strong opinions and Twitter squabbles. It isthe students in the room who really put him to the test. Schimmelpenninckapparently blocked some of the students on Twitter.

Schimmelpenninck is quite a character. he is gborn in Twente, is of noblebirth, was a member of the corps, labels himself as Casanova, does not callhimself leftist, not empathetic and through his time as editor-in-chief of_Quote_ a pretty negative view of the rich. Schimmelpenninck himself earnsaround half a million euros per year.

Sander Schimmelpenninck at College Tour

He will not continue to operate in the media world all his life, nor does hewant to be the angry arguing man on Twitter forever. Then why does he do it?”Because I think it’s necessary.”

Presenter Twan Huys also addresses the criticism that regularly sounds aboutSchimmelpenninck. Among other things, about his fight against the gap betweenrich and poor, while he himself is quite a wealthy person. Schimmelpennincksays that he eand tons in the bank and has assets of about two million. Heearns half a million euros per year. Schimmelpenninck believes that we shouldtalk more easily about money and that people are paid too much. For example,he mentions that he chats for an hour with his best friend, aka his podcast_The Self Podcast_ with Jaap Reesema, is overpaid.

Twan Huys about flying behavior Sander Schimmelpenninck

Schimmelpenninck appears to have little good to say about social media. “Whydon’t you get rid of it then?” Huys says. “Then you hand it all over to theidiots. There is still a bit of counteracting to be done,” said thejournalist. Although he is now, in his own words, regularly threatened by”extreme right-wing wappies”.

Schimmelpenninck’s statements about the climate are also discussed. Huys alsocites his frequent air travel. Schimmelpenninck hates ‘pointing to individualbehaviour’. He believes that people who fly a lot should speak out about theclimate. “If flying became much more expensive, I would go to Sweden by bikeif necessary.” Schimmelpenninck’s girlfriend is of Swedish descent and thejournalist regularly travels to Scandinavia.

Critical students

But in addition to the questions from presenter Huys, it is mainly thestudents in the room who put Schimmelpenninck to the test. This is how itstarts when student Maarten confronts him with the fact that theSchimmelpenninck family took the castle from his noble family. Something forwhich the journalist, somewhat humorously, apologizes.

Then it is the turn of another student who questions Schimmelpenninck. Headdresses the criticism that Schimmelpenninck makes towards people, especiallywomen, who work part-time. The student explains that working part-time ishealthier and more productive and that this also happens a lot in Scandinavia.The student then emphasizes that Schimmelpenninck has blocked him on Twitter.”You have undoubtedly made it to,” responds the journalist. After which Huysasks the audience who else has been blocked by Schimmelpenninck. Student Sannealso raises her hand. She was initially a fan of Schimmelpenninck, but droppedout. She calls his political statements and opinion about the poverty gap andclimate implausible, because he earns so much money himself. Schimmelpenninckcan laugh about it, although he also found the survey somewhat uncomfortable.

Incidentally, the views among viewers appear to be divided aboutSchimmelpenninck’s performance. A selection of the responses: