Docile journalism that wants to appear rebellious

I confess that at lunchtime I sometimes turn on La 1 to catch the end of the program hosted by Valencian journalist Javier Ruiz (52 years old), with his colleague and partner Sarah Santaolalla (27 years old). Ruiz's mannerisms are reminiscent of some broadcasters of yesteryear, like Alfredo Amestoy or Jesús Hermida; Santaolalla's are harder to categorize. In any case, the program makes it impossible not to recall formats from the late 1990s (everything comes back around) and content similar to that of the news programs during the Rajoy era, although the current ones, obviously, serve to construct a daily hagiography of Pedro Sánchez and his government. The younger members of the group may no longer remember that this style, where information and opinion merge in a viscous way, was introduced to Spain by the old José María Carrascal. Today it's simply part of the norm.

The journalism of the Ruiz-Santaolalla tandem rests on three axioms: a) reality emanates from government statements, while information that could question or contradict them forms part, without exception, of "the hoaxes of the far right"; b) everything that does not strictly conform to the guidelines of Pedro Sánchez's government stems from believing in "an idealized pastyc) The popular judgments expressed every half hour by the new masses on social networks are fair or unfair depending on the partisan affiliation of the person being tormented for a few hours.

In rhetorical terms, the first axiom is infallible: it starts from the premise that there exists a pristine truth, one, amidst the dark crumbs of information scattered by the forces of Evil. You, Mrs. Dolors, what do you prefer, eh? And you, Mr. Pepet, don't tell me now that you opt for the "far-right hoaxesHaving our rigorously verified truth at hand? No way! The dilemma resolves itself, and that's why it works so well even when what's being defended is rather indefensible. Those who construct an idealized past have become an effective dialectical tool. It's determined that they've been manipulated or that they don't understand the complexity of history (remember what was said about the Catalans in 2017). Neutral and objective (!?) that only others manipulate; we never do, listen! This metanarrative is simplistic and paternalistic.

Finally, scandal deserves separate comment, because it is the dysfunction that currently guides most communicative inertia. In political terms, parodic postmodernism is one—let's say— assembly by acclamation of a self-referential nature, where scandal plays not a circumstantial but a programmatic role. Through the likeOn social media, what is scandalous and what isn't is decided anonymously. The subsequent public shaming is carried out with the active complicity of many journalists. Once it becomes clear that it was all just a smokescreen—which is almost always the case—there are never any apologies commensurate with the harm caused.

I don't think Javier Ruiz or Sarah Santaolalla are bad communicators, but I'm convinced that their current positions make it impossible to resolve the dysfunctions they create daily. It happened with the PP and the PSOE, it happened with CiU and the tripartite coalitions, and with other Catalan governments. Nobody dares to ban political parties from television and radio. Nobody wants to be the first.