'Saved': when the scapegoat drags down the executioner
On Sunday night, Saved Fernando González interviewed Salomé Pradas, Minister of Justice and the Interior of the Valencian Government during the DANA storm and, therefore, responsible for emergency response to the catastrophe. GonzoShe conducted a lengthy interview to delve chronologically into everything that happened on October 29th and to understand the management of Cecopio. The interview has great journalistic merit. Faced with Mazón's ambiguous and implausible account, Pradas is the one who has details and ample reason, at this time, to reveal them. Especially after being dismissed by Mazón. However, it is necessary to keep one circumstance in mind. Salomé Pradas is under investigation and awaiting trial, and therefore her testimony must also be understood as part of a defense strategy.
Gonzo She conducted a very thorough interview, maintaining a rigorous control over the facts. She always kept a pleasant tone, without pressuring or straining the conversation, but she was demanding of her guest. She pushed Pradas to be precise, and she was always more specific than Mazón ever was. SavedFurthermore, he retrieved images from that day at the Cecopio (Emergency Coordination Center) and asked Pradas to clarify some of the circumstances he observed. The interview yielded relevant information, such as the technical inoperability of the alert system and Mazón's disregard for specific calls during critical moments. But there are two less explicit facts that stand out. On the one hand, there is Salomé Pradas's personal demeanor, a woman who reveals a docility, an inability to be indignant, confront, or rebuke, even when she has reason to be. In the interview, it is perplexing to see how, when recalling serious incidents against her or how Mazón neglected his duty, she is not even able to express the indignation she is clearly feeling. There is an image from the Cecopio in which she herself acknowledges that she does not want to speak with one of the emergency managers and explains that it is because she is angry and does not want to express it. She doesn't even show her anger when she recalls how she found out Mazón had spent the afternoon at El Ventorro. When she finally hints that she was angry with the president, she justifies it by saying "his selfishness" came out. Now she reproaches herself for not ordering him to appear urgently at the Cecopio when it was necessary. She is clearly incapable of standing up for herself or asserting her authority, someone who doesn't feel entitled to take charge or get angry. It's infuriating. Furthermore, she talks about how "the journalists from À Punt were brought to her office" against her will and that "the press friendly to the presidency" was there. Irrefutable proof of media control.
Pradas revealed the reasons that led her to accept the interview: the conviction that the victims must know the truth and that she is tired of being singled out and having others speak for her. This second reason conceals a very important motivation, from which journalism has always benefited: the "If I fall, you fall too" principle, a mechanism that has led those who fall to decide to drag their executioners down with them.
