1. I would like to know how much, at European level, the public expense amounts to, which is the sum of the exit polls discussed on TV in each election and minor election with the intention of keeping people in front of the screen. The need for this absurd spectacle, with no real informational value, only justifiable in entertainment terms, suggests a considerable anomaly. The presence of certain "experts" adds an additional grotesque component to the ceremony. In relation to the Zapatero case, there are indications that seem solid and forceful, but for the moment nothing has been proven. And whoever says Zapatero says any other similar case, regardless of the party. Let's remember, to give just one example, the imaginary foreign accounts that brought down Xavier Trias' political career. Despite the cost, it's fine to please people with electoral speculations while they have dinner. It's another thing to entertain them with rumors about very serious matters. 2. The accusation against Zapatero appears at a time when public verification systems –journalistic, judicial, police– are immersed in a growing epistemological uncertainty. This does not mean that truth has disappeared from the map, but rather that the collective capacity to distinguish it from falsehood is more fragile than at other times. Photographs have always been altered and documents falsified; it is nothing new. The news is the extraordinary current ease and speed of doing so. I am not doubting what has been made public so far; I simply recall that I myself, who don't know a bit about computing, can generate in less than a second a realistic image where Zapatero dances a waltz with Pharaoh Amenhotep IV. 3. The logic of suspicion –to put it another way– has mutated within a media ecosystem that increasingly relies on social networks and less on professional journalism (in the long run, this will have important consequences). The accusation is already considered a fact, and circulates with the same speed and intensity as news referring to any other event. This leveling means that accusations against a relevant public figure become a real treat and are often located in the sphere of entertainment, not information. Their plausibility depends not so much on evidentiary consistency as on the emotional and ideological predisposition of the recipients. In the new logic of suspicion, the only important thing is the effect it causes and the profits it generates.
4. The real, undeniable difficulty of discriminating reasonably reliable information from adulterated information increases the power of digital intermediaries. Platforms, algorithms, and rapid dissemination channels act as amplifiers for any content that generates tension or polarization and, above all, spectacle. This means that accusations do not circulate through a neutral road network, but in an environment that rewards exaggeration and simplification, and penalizes nuance and the time needed to verify facts. For some politicians and commentators, Zapatero is a big game trophy. Nuance or clarification spoils their party, even if it were to be proven in court that he is guilty. The goal is for him to be guilty now. Now. 5. When the line between truth and falsehood is as blurred as it is today, what matters is not to prove anything concrete, but to make a pre-existing narrative more attractive: to put music to it, to perfect it, to polish it... and not just in one direction. Last weekend I heard two comments on Spanish public television that described Zapatero, above all, as the president who promoted same-sex marriage. Between this specific emphasis and the statement that those who accuse him are homophobic, for example, there is, within the ecosystem of 6. A central piece of the matter we are discussing are the sisters Laura and Alba Rodríguez Espinosa, Zapatero's daughters, owners of a key company in this supposed criminal plot. A few years ago they were the object of mockery both for their physical appearance and for the clothing they wore in a photo with the Obama couple. At that time their faces were pixelated because they were minors. What will be pixelated, now? Pixelating is a sign of the times: the new digital veil. At this point, someone says: "Well, all this fuss is very good, but do you think Zapatero is guilty or innocent, huh? Take a stand, man!". The veil of simplification, the argumentative spar...
