Minister Puente and the face-to-face with journalists

The correspondent in the United States for the newspaper Abc, David Alandete, sued Minister Óscar Puente for an exchange of messages on social networks that, in his opinion, damaged his honor. The ruling has been issued and does not favor him: it considers that the expressions used by the head of Transport are not "insulting, outrageous or vexatious", even though they may be seen as "sarcastic and, indeed, harsh criticisms". It is good to have a clear line that defines the perimeter separating one thing from another, and it is evident that there is no need to resort to insults to be able to express oneself with forcefulness and malice. But the paragraph that I find most revealing is another. In the note provided by the Supreme Court, Alandete is reminded that "he did not limit himself to the ordinary exercise of his informative activity, but voluntarily assumed a particularly visible and active position within a political controversy of evident general interest, personally contributing to the public debate generated". In other words – once you remove the profusion of adverbs ending in "ment" and unnecessary gerunds typical of abstruse judicial prose – the journalist is told that if he doesn't want trouble, he shouldn't go looking for it.

Ministers should be required to maintain an institutional tone, but it also seems fair to me that if journalists decide to get into a physical confrontation, the politician on the other side should not be limited to being a mere puppet and can respond, even with the intemperate tone that has become prevalent on social networks. That is to say, if someone goes too far – or five steps too far – but does not resort to insults, the price they pay should be political, not judicial. There is something uncomfortable about seeing a lot of journalists being overly sensitive with others on social networks while they themselves are the first to respond harshly to anyone who dares to point out their contradictions.