The voice of Vox, notes on a journalistic debate

On August 14, ARA's digital newspaper published David Miró's interview with Ignacio Garriga, secretary general and president of the Vox group in the Parliament. It was the subject of 126 comments, all critical of the content of the statements and the majority opposed to the interview being published. The Readers' Ombudsman received three emails in the same vein as the commentators. on-line. I publish that of subscriber Jordi Portavella:

"Isn't it historically accurate to call fascism? That in a democracy everyone must be given a voice? That a figure disqualifies himself? Considerations that are completely irrelevant in the face of the inexcusable fact that you have given a platform to a representative of hate speech, racism (including linguistic racism), physical leisure, and nostalgia. According to the Readers' Ombudsman Statute, this figure "Take care of and guarantee respect for human rights and the ethics of ethical and responsible journalism," and will ensure "Respect for the dignity of persons and the right not to be insulted." A sardana-dancing lamb, but we know them and their actions too well—for too many generations—to be fooled by the cheapening of their words. The subscriber who said (surely others have thought the same) water is right."

Deputy Director David Miró explains to me – and I corroborate this because I have been part of it – that the journalistic treatment of the extreme right has been profusely debated in the ARA, and he qualifies some of the debates with the adjective onIndeed, giving a voice to the far right in a democratic newspaper is controversial and doesn't come without a price (warnings to cancel subscriptions), especially in our political context, which suffered fascism in a cruel civil war and forty years of dictatorship. This is the argument Miró addresses to me:

"We would cover the far right from our own democratic, anti-racist, and human rights-respecting agenda, always trying to point out the contradictions and weaknesses in their discourse and denouncing those who were clearly opposed to democratic values.

Regarding interviews, we would only conduct them when they had parliamentary representation in Parliament, and always at our request. In this regard, it's worth noting that we requested an interview with the Vox representative during the last election campaign and were denied. Similarly, during the vote of no confidence in Ripoll City Council, we also requested an interview with Sílvia Orriols of the Catalan Alliance, but were also denied.

Following the incidents in Jumella, Murcia, we requested an interview with Ignacio Garriga, and in this case, they agreed. When planning the interview, our idea was to show the thinking of a party that is currently the third force among young Catalans, while at the same time minimizing the potential for demagogic or xenophobic arguments to be used as a platform. That's why the entire interview wasn't broadcast, but rather selected excerpts. Throughout the interview, we try to highlight the interviewee's concerns regarding Christian values, the economic need for immigration, and the situation of the Catalan language. In any case, we believe the interview is useful for ARA readers to learn firsthand, and from someone born here and who speaks Catalan, what the project for Catalonia is championed by a party that, in the not-too-distant future, could form part of the Spanish government.

I have requested the authoritative opinion of a first-class journalist like Gorka Landaburu, who in his long career of professional excellence has worked at Radio France, Le Matin and the Reuters agency, and has been director of the political weekly Change-16Furthermore, Landaburu knows politics—and Francoism!—from the first person, having been born in Paris due to the exile of his father, Vice-Lendakari of José Antonio Aguirre. He has also experienced intolerance firsthand, having been the victim of an ETA attack with serious consequences, yet he championed dialogue and has been a tireless worker for peace.

Landaburu writes:

For some time now, we've been witnessing a worrying phenomenon that's spreading beyond our borders and is characterized by the rise of far-right movements. They're using politics to spread their poisonous tentacles and fish in rough seas. We must give them a voice so their arguments can be heard. Mobilized because they say history doesn't repeat itself, but it often looks very similar.

The Readers' Ombudsman already addressed the debate in its articles of June 8 and July 20 of last year, and its position is that the journalistic criterion for publishing anything should be newsworthy, regardless of whether we like doing so little, less, or not at all. Vox clearly has newsworthy value, with more than three million votes in the general elections, nearly three hundred thousand in the Catalan elections, ahead of Comuns and the CUP, power in regional and municipal elections, and, as Miró points out, the fact that it is the third largest force among young Catalans and—I might add—the first in the entire country, ten points above the second-largest party.

Journalistic ethics are not the same as political ethics, which, if anything, correspond to the cordons sanitaires that diminish the prominence of extremism/populism and the unity of counteraction proposed by Landaburu; politics creates and journalism explains. The best journalism is filled with interviews with figures condemned by ethics, by history, and sometimes also by justice.

Following Gorka Landaburu's criteria, it is necessary to conduct these interviews, but distancing them from publicity with follow-up questions, as Miró does, which, on the other hand, are a valid practice for any interview. The newspaper has other ways of contrasting statements, and I'm sure disgruntled readers will find in the pages of ARA that they echo their criticisms. The most recent, Roger Palós' article from the 24th, entitled "Vox's Mess with Place Names," and, in a survey I conducted for the month of June—the last one that was 100% politically operational—I found six negative comments and a red light. The voice of Vox (a Latin word for Vox) has been so minimal that only five news items—out of a guaranteed average of at least 300—are referenced beyond the circumstances.

The Readers' Ombudsman pays attention to doubts, suggestions, criticisms and complaints about the contents of the newspaper in its digital and paper editions, and ensures that the treatment of information is in accordance with the codes of ethics.

By contact the Readers' Ombudsman You can send an email to eldefensor@ara.cat or record a message of no more than one minute on WhatsApp at 653784787. In all cases, identification with your name, surname, and ID number is required.