On Monday night, RTVE's 24h channel held the debate of candidates for the Andalusian elections to be held on May 17. Juanma Moreno Bonilla (PP), María Jesús Montero (PSOE), Manuel Gavira (Vox), Antonio Maíllo (Por Andalucía), and José Ignacio García Sánchez (Adelante Andalucía) occupied the usual podiums of public television. Xabier Fortes and Laura Clavero moderated the spectacle. It was striking how four out of the five political leaders (the only exception being Maíllo) wore some green element in their attire, as a symbolic representation of the color of the Andalusian flag. A blazer, two ties, a pin, and a green armband became symbolic elements. A way to appropriate Andalusian identity and visualize that idea of belonging and feeling for the territory. Instead, what should have been a subtle reference turned into a forced scenic artifice.

On Monday, in En boca de todos, they insisted that the stabbing in Esplugues was a jihadist attack despite official information ruling it out. Nacho Abad, the king of sensationalism and disinformation, summarized the case to his audience with cruel flippancy: “A North African immigrant stabbed a 16-year-old girl and caused a fuss”. He not only got the victim's age wrong. He also didn't care about the name of the neighborhood where the events took place, and he called FinestrellesFinisterre instead. And then he added: “Or I don't remember what it's called”. It is the arrogance of a lack of scruples, which even allows him to display ignorance. When a neighbor corrected him on the age of the murdered woman and told him she was 41 years old, Abad, instead of correcting himself and apologizing, asked the interviewee to justify her mistake: “You, like me, will also have read in all the media that the victim was 16 years old”.The program kept repeating the recordings of the neighbors in a loop and the photograph of the aggressor. The video had a sensationalist narration typical of those videos from Aqui hay tomate. But a very serious and symptomatic event occurred. When Nacho Abad handed over to the reporter who was in Esplugues, pointing out the nationality of the aggressor, in the brief silence of the connection, a voice was heard filtering from a microphone in the studio, whispering: "The word is "moro"". It is worth paying attention to, but it can be heard perfectly. Exactly, at 11 hours, 12 minutes and 32 seconds in the midday, according to the time label of the program itself on screen. The racist comment betrays the ideological perspective of the program. Nacho Abad focused the information emphasizing the terrorist attack as the main hypothesis. The reporter interviewed one neighbor and two female neighbors, one of whom insisted that the attacker shouted "Allah" at the moment of attacking the victim. The presenter questioned the woman, making her repeat if she believed it was a jihadist act. "Total jihadist attack", was the response. To vary, the spokesperson for a Mossos union confirmed that the cry of "Allahu Akbar" was usually indicative of this type of terrorism. "Do you think it is a jihadist attack?", Abad asked the panelists, and some of them answered yes with conviction, based more on their gut feeling than on journalistic rigor.Abad pressured the neighbors to explain the cause of the neighborhood insecurity they perceived, and asked if they related it to the increase in immigration in the neighborhood. Once he obtained an affirmative answer, he asked for confirmation from the spokesperson for Mossos, who ratified it. “You are linking insecurity in Barcelona with the amount of immigration in Barcelona,” he repeated to him, so that he would make it very clear. The motivation for all the information was purely xenophobic. The proof of how crime news is becoming ideological ammunition.

Saturday, on Telenotícies vespre, Joan Reventós reported very briefly on the murder of a woman in Esplugues that same morning. He explained that the Mossos had already arrested the aggressor who had stabbed her, the call to 112, and that the emergency services had not been able to save the woman. To close the news, he reported: “The alleged perpetrator has been arrested and the Mossos confirm that the aggressor and victim had no romantic relationship. The case is under seal of investigation.” Given the seriousness of the events, the absence of images and further context was strange, especially given TV3's proximity to the crime scene. It contrasted with the approach of Telecinco, Antena3, and La Sexta, which sent a reporter to the street where the murder had occurred, explained some circumstances of the assault, and showed images of the emergency services' actions from a safe distance. Telecinco, moreover, had a video recorded on a mobile phone showing the aggressor's confrontation with the street's residents shortly before the murder. Informativos Telecinco committed the imprudence of not pixelating the man's face in a photograph where he was seen with a knife in his hand, especially since the nature of the assault was not yet known.

The Wall Street Journal, one of the main economic newspapers in the United States, has had a monthly column reserved for three years to talk about retirement. The section Retirement rookies (which could be translated as Retirement for beginners) is written by two people. It is signed by Stephen Kreider Yoder, one of the former editors of the newspaper, and his wife, Karen Kreider Yoder, both retired from professional activity and motivated to reflect on this new stage of life. The couple, who have not yet reached seventy years of age, live in San Francisco and are presumed to have a privileged and quiet retirement. They address everything from the most typical dilemmas such as the opportunity to travel, move to a quieter town or buy a motorhome, to some fears such as health, widowhood or staying in good shape. They delve into psychological and emotional aspects related to personal identity when you stop working. They also deal with economic issues, such as the anxiety of running short of savings, the need to reduce expenses or the consequences of inflation for retirees. However, from the first columns they wrote, a recurring concern of the Kreider Yoders about time management becomes evident and, above all, a certain demand to invest it wisely. In these three years, they have insisted on the complexity of finding a balance between doing a lot of activities and learning to disconnect, changing old routines for new ones, making lists of realistic plans without getting stressed or correctly distributing attention to the rest of the family. Time is a background headache that always appears.

3Cat celebrated Language Week to promote the use of Catalan, this year focusing mainly on new speakers. On television, this work of awareness and promotion of the language has been noticeable, for example, in the pieces from Telenotícies that delved into testimonies and circumstances related to the use and normalization of Catalan. The sports section has conducted interviews with relevant personalities who have learned Catalan as another tool to integrate into the dynamics of their respective clubs. Míchel at Girona, Diego Ocampo at Baxi Manresa, Moncho Fernández at Bàsquet Girona or Fermín López, Kika Nazareth and Ludovic Fàbregas at Barça. Some regular programs on the grid have tried to incorporate content related to the normalization of Catalan, and Català fàcil has premiered, a space with pedagogical intent for beginners. But it has remained a superficial program with more good intentions than television appeal.

This Thursday, all news programs echoed the video by Vito Quiles, the far-right stalker who pursues and attacks people to turn it into propaganda. Public and private channels followed suit. This time, the images had gained relevance because the victim was Begoña Gómez, President Pedro Sánchez's wife. The premeditated violence of the sequence, recorded on mobile and edited by the agitator, provided the spectacularity that television often uses as a criterion for including events in its agenda.

On Wednesday, Quanta guerra! returned to TV3, arguably the best program currently available on public television. This time, Eloi Vila accompanied actor Roger Casamajor to retrace the steps of his grandfather Alejandro through the lands of Aragon, where he was sent with the Republican troops to halt the advance of the Francoists.

On this Sunday's 30 minuts, Power and Glory, kept you glued to the sofa. The investigation into the rise of evangelical churches in Catalonia might initially seem like a matter rather tangential to the country's reality, especially in less religious environments. Perhaps for this reason, they began with three testimonies from Catalans who have become involved. A carpenter from Bellcaire d'Empordà and a couple from Girona served as bait to introduce us to a story that, little by little, took on an unexpected dimension. The 30 minuts sought the viewer's perplexity at scenes of religious fervor and spiritual ecstasy, amidst chants and the pastor's shouts. The difference between the Catalan temperament, more reserved, and the Latin American one, more passionate, was highlighted, with an imprecise use of 'us' and 'them'. us and them.The subsequent examples of neo-Pentecostal Churches in Catalonia made one impatiently await some turn that went beyond that incomprehensible showcase. The overacted pushes to the heads of the faithful to make them fall backward as if fainting, the promises to "dry up cancer," and the cries to heaven to ask for "a new womb" for a woman caused consternation. It took courage to record it without hidden cameras and with the testimony of the very pastors who lead these spectacles. Fortunately, the turning point arrived: the manipulation of people and economic interests. However, the indulgence and fear with which experts in religious matters evaluated that panorama were disappointing. After these images of healing rituals with shouts, roars, and fits of hysteria, Guillem Correa, general secretary of the Evangelical Council of Catalonia – and director of the program Néixer de nou on 3Cat –, remained mute and immobile. He did not want to comment on what we had just seen. We heard the journalist ask him if that was manipulation, but he did not even blink and remained silent. Silence implies consent. It is obvious that talking about religion and its tentacles, not always honest, still generates fear, especially when the line between a Church and a sect becomes more blurred.

The CBS program 60 Minutes had the opportunity to interview Donald Trump the morning after the attack during the correspondents' dinner. The program's journalist, Norah O'Donnell, who was also present at the event, limited herself to asking him about the facts and delving into the actions of the security forces. The interview was broadcast on Sunday in a reduced format, only twelve minutes long, and covered the most essential informative aspects of Trump's responses. However, the network has posted the full forty-minute interview on YouTube. It is increasingly important to access Trump's complete statements to verify the evolution of his discourse. When O'Donnell asks him if he believes what happened the previous night will change his relationship with the press, Trump goes off on a tangent, recalling disagreements with Democrats on immigration policies. He also says that in sports, he wants women to compete with women and for men not to be part of women's competitions. O'Donnell, with extreme seriousness and discretion, reminds Trump that she is asking him about journalists and not about the opposition, but he seems to have confused them. In such a traumatic context as a shooting, all these remarks are superfluous. When the journalist points out security deficiencies, Trump praises the physical strength and great attractiveness of the officers. He also jokes about the speed of Cole Allen, the assailant, saying that the National Football League should sign him. These are details that may not have a direct bearing on the strictly informative facts, but they are essential for portraying the president in a grave context.There is a very impactful moment in the interview. O’Donnell reads to Trump part of the statement the assailant sent to his family: “I am not willing to allow a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to stain my hands with his crimes”. Trump gets serious and scolds O’Donnell: “I knew you would read it because you are a horrible person. I am not a rapist. I have not raped anyone”. O’Donnell, without flinching and with the same coldness she had shown until that moment, without changing her tone of voice, replies: “Oh! Do you think he was referring to you?” Trump, without answering her, continues to say that he is neither a pedophile nor is he exonerated from any relationship with Epstein. He tells the journalist that she should be ashamed to reproduce those statements, that she should not have read them. “You are a disgrace”, he tells her more than once. “These are the assailant’s words”, replies O’Donnell, who, nevertheless, manages to steer the conversation back and the interview continues for twenty more minutes.At the end of the interview, Trump commits to reconvening the correspondents' dinner within thirty days. It is a meeting of the government and the press that celebrates the First Amendment of the constitution and freedom of the press. It is, in fact, a recognition of the respective roles in democracy. What causes perplexity is that the press continues to want to participate in this type of farce with Trump in the White House.

On Friday evening, Antena3 Noticias echoed an unusual case: “United States is investigating the mysterious murder or disappearance of eleven scientists. All of them were working with sensitive information and several were investigating life in space. Until now there was no official connection between them, but the United States press is starting to connect the dots”. The headline does not lie: indeed, the White House spokesperson has communicated the will to investigate these events and Trump himself has assured that in a week and a half they would report the conclusions. However, the uncritical way in which the news report explained the facts betrays more commercial intent than journalistic.The case is, without a doubt, very juicy: dead scientists, classified information and UFOs. A winning cocktail. But the most rigorous media are distancing themselves from it. It all began with the disappearance of retired General William McCasland at the end of February. He left home equipped with only a weapon and nothing more has been heard of him. Podcasters and content creators on social networks began to collect other old cases, forcing the common points between them and fabricated a pattern retrospectively, without it having existed previously. They built a conspiratorial narrative based on stereotypes: scientists who knew too much, discoveries about extraterrestrial life, and elimination of witnesses. The story goes viral and, following the 'roll it up' method, narrative layers are added: China, state secrets and UFOs. A conspiracy theory is created so perfect that certain right-wing American media could not resist it. And now we have a more powerful media and social ecosystem that has transformed isolated cases into a very attractive conspiratorial narrative. The story works even though the eleven cases are from different years and from very diverse professionals, intentionally unified under the generic label of "they had access to classified information." The noise, therefore, is amplified with a click. And, lo and behold, both the White House and Donald Trump end up talking about it publicly, committing to investigate it and provide an answer. A political communication strategy that allows connecting with audiences who normally distrust institutions. They thus project a sense of absolute control, showing themselves as a relentless government that acts in the face of highly strange and apparently dangerous events. Incidentally, this alleged mystery of the eleven dead scientists allows them to divert attention from much more important and uncomfortable issues that we already know about. It is very possible that, in the coming weeks, the media will talk about this case of the eleven dead scientists, but a critical look that dissects the details and miseries is essential: how the theory passes from internet forums to right-wing media and, from there, to institutional politics. Because instead of journalism there is a great desire to pull the wool over people's eyes.

The very next day after the most allergic Saint George's Day, when even pharmacies made a fortune thanks to the sale of antihistamines and throat lozenges, Com si fos ahir offered us a surprising sequence. A kind of prophecy like Nostradamus's, which enshrines the series' screenwriters in the Olympus of the most opportune predictors and seers. It's about a scene in which Ivan (Roger Coma) walks through a park with Kilian (Albert Prat), an expert gardener with whom he is starting a relationship. They are getting to know each other, and Kilian is illustrating him on arboriculture in this phase of seducing each other and sharing their passions. He explains: “The quintessential Barcelona tree is the plane tree. In the sixties, they didn't know how to plant anything else. The grace is that they grow very quickly and provide a lot of shade, but they also make a lot of mess. The leaves, those little balls that people quite dislike... In fact, in some cities they are already starting to replace them because they cause a lot of allergies.” We can attest to that. Months before this Saint George's Day so saturated with particles, the screenwriters anticipated the news. And fate has made a filler dialogue, which only served to slightly prolong the conflict, has ended up grabbing our attention due to its link with the most immediate current events. Barcelona's plane trees were one of the protagonists of the day and were being talked about in news programs and magazines. Perhaps what some experts dared not say for fear of angering environmentalists was warned to us in the midday series: that in other cities around the world they have already been replaced by less irritating species. It's good to know.And in this context of prophecies amidst books and legends, it is appropriate to recommend the documentary The War of the Worlds: A Prophetic Novel, which you can find on Movistar+. It makes sense that, at a time of disillusionment and great international conflict, the novel that disturbed the world and revolutionized literature should emerge. The documentary analyzes it through multiple expert voices: writers, biographers, historians, essayists, researchers, NASA professors, and science experts, who demonstrate how the story of the Martian invasion has connected with the fears of different generations. It takes a look at the past to understand the social context that motivated H.G. Wells to write the novel between 1895 and 1897, but it uses images from the present to connect with current events. “No one would have believed in the advancement of that uneasy human world that, for all its progress in physical science, remained so preposterously ignorant of the possibility of the invasion of the earth by intelligences from Mars. [...] With the same placidity the human race went about its terrestrial occupations, cherishing its delusions of dominion over matter.” The documentary lists the enemies that have been symbolically intuited behind these invading Martians and how art, cinema, illustration, comics, and literature have adapted The War of the Worlds to speak to us of the dangers of each era. Without a doubt, a good time to delve deeper into it.

In the magnificent novel Instructions for living without her, by Empar Moliner, the narrator explaining Claudia Pruna's story contrasts her husband's low energy with Pruna's productivity: “Perhaps this is the real difference between men and women. Women, past fifty, want to do a lot of things. They have energy, they laugh, they wet themselves laughing. Men lose it all and some never laugh again. It's like a transfer.”

This Tuesday, the program Más vale tarde on La Sexta lived up to the program's title. Suspiciously, they collected, a week late, the statements by Eduardo Mendoza disowning Sant Jordi and calling for 'Dia del Llibre' as the name for the day. Two days before the celebration, they thought it more opportune to revive the controversy. They haven't been the only ones. Other Spanish media outlets waited until the eve of Sant Jordi to turn it into news that had ruined the celebration. Saying it “makes Sant Jordi rare”, or it “stirs up” Sant Jordi, as if in Catalonia we were throwing plates at each other in the middle of the celebration.A Better late than never, after commenting on the health status of the bullfighter Morante de la Puebla, who was gored, Iñaki López made a simile with the writer: “A very hard tumble too, but much less bloody, is the one Eduardo Mendoza has taken...”. They turned Mendoza into the victim of the Catalans' anger. “Things got complicated”, “You don't know what a mess it's become”, “He must have really had it coming”, the presenters pointed out before continuing to explain the news. The program's editor explained how the writer had tried to rectify by tweeting on social media that it was a joke, a comment that the editor interpreted and defined as “an apology”. The program regretted that, even so, the writer had received criticism, and focused on a tweet by Carles Puigdemont. They turned the events into a political issue. To demonstrate it, they conducted the classic useless street survey to show that in Catalonia there are opinions for everything when it comes to choosing between Saint George's Day and Book Day: “¿What do they think in Barcelona?”. They interviewed four people. Three ladies and one gentleman. The man declared himself against Mendoza's statements and the first woman dismissed it by arguing that it was the writer's typical sense of humor. The second suspected if the author's comment hid an interest in selling more books and the last one claimed Saint George's Day and Book Day from a perfect equidistance. To collect the survey, the presenter Cristina Pardo added with a certain tone of arrogance: “¡And it is that free opinions, always, yes!”There are four aspects of this television treatment that should be highlighted. The first, postponing the controversy for a week to move it to the eve of Saint George's Day. The second, turning Eduardo Mendoza into a victim. The third, showing four responses from people on the street, very varied, as representatives of a very undefined and disparate popular positioning. The fourth is very subtle: the presenter, with a certain arrogance, claimed free opinions as if at some point someone had lost their freedom to opine. Mendoza had it to express himself and whoever wanted it had it to react. It is curious this use of the word freedom as if it only belonged to a few. And, above all, to reproach the popular or identity-based outcry as an example of coercion to freedom.

On the back of a majestic white horse. Marc Giró appears like this in the opening credits of his new La Sexta program. And like this he also entered the studio to start the show. Like a conqueror or a knight. A contemporary Saint George to fight against the dragons of our time: fascism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and whatever else is convenient, but always with a sense of showmanship. Giró recalled that everyone had insisted he not change when he moved to work for the private channel. Even Pedro Sánchez. Therefore, the start of the program was focused on demonstrating that he has not softened his combative and sharp spirit. So much so that perhaps he prolonged the opening monologue too much so that it wouldn't seem like he was backing down. But, sometimes, less is more. The speech led, luckily, to a cabaret number. To the rhythm of Tamara's "No cambié", Giró sang, danced, an orchestra appeared, a whole choir and a dance troupe lifted him as if he were a showgirl from the old days. Leonardo Dantés even appeared fleetingly to give a more delirious air to the opening party. All of this, a kind of pocket "Berghain" with the evident stamp of Santi Villas, co-director of the program. Beyond changing the color of the curtains, now the channel's corporate green, Cara al show maintains the characteristics and essence of the Late show" from public television. The big difference are the cruel commercial breaks of the private channel, which interrupt the content abruptly and hit us with ads five at a time. With a program that starts so late, these breaks are killers. Of course, when they mentioned the Thermomix, they pixelated the robot's photo and covered the word with a whistle, lest the ad not go through the cash register. Censorship, sometimes, comes in the most unheard-of ways. In the program, an improvement in the budget was also sensed: between the horse, the string orchestra, the dancers, the choir, and the opera singer, the premiere's expenditure was noticeable. Giró turned Estopa into the godparents of the program. The Muñoz brothers always work due to their spontaneity and friendliness. Next, we again suffered a new promotional dose of the things of the omnipresent Jordi Évole. These are those exchanges of "I interview you and you interview me" to feed the business. The journalist was accompanied by the actor Eduardo Casanova to announce the documentary Sidosa, which combats the stigma of HIV. The performer stated during the interview that one in a hundred people in Spain was infected with the virus. But the data was incorrect. The prevalence in Spain is 0.3% and not 1%, as he stated. No one corrected him. The problem is that this is the second time Eduardo Casanova has given erroneous information about HIV on a television program. With this capacity for dissemination, with every wash, we lose a sheet.

On Monday evening, during the break of Telenotícies, TV3 announced the premiere of La gran cita on the 3Cat platform for Tuesday. But Toni Cruanyes reminded us, on two occasions, that we could already watch the program that same Monday. A lack of coordination within the channel that caused confusion for the viewer.Dulceida, “an expert at organizing parties”, joins the cast ofinfluencers who create content in Spanish but have been awarded a program on public Catalan television. To conceal their fragilities in front of the camera, they have opted for the walk and talk formula, walking and talking at the same time, to reinforce their authority.The big date is a dating show with elements of reality. The one hundred participants who want to hook up have previously been paired through artificial intelligence. They know there is someone highly compatible and will look for them based on the relational dynamics proposed by the show. “It’s an experiment that will change their lives,” assures Dulceida. The format is much more powerful than last season's stale Love Cost. It seems more like a logical evolution of that Thirty Years' Love at First Sight with all the influences of private television and technology.The program has a tacky sheen typical of a graduation party with glamorous pretensions, but it makes up for it with an excellent cast, good direction, and impeccable sound design. It has merit, considering the complexities of the format. The big event is inclusive: it incorporates sexual options and gender diversity without establishing categories, with the virtue of not objectifying or sexualizing the participants. So far, three episodes have been released corresponding to the first stage of the game: the construction of the finalist couples, who will be tested in the following episodes to check their evolution.The big event hooks thanks to the confluence of different factors. On the one hand, the contestants' temperament. Absolutely normal young people, who convey authenticity and are part of our most everyday reality. They thus distance themselves from the artificial and histrionic stereotypes typical of this television genre. On the other hand, the game stimulates the audience, who, from home, becomes a predictor and a judge. It is impossible not to comment or value the contestants' decisions and choices. Any program that provokes a smile from the viewer while watching it has a lot won. The idea of a mirror is also key: seduction exposes the protagonists to a vulnerability and fragility in which, more or less, everyone feels reflected. Excitement, ridicule, shame, disappointment... are emotions that provoke easy identification. And that is why the program becomes appetizing. However, as the program progresses, interest wanes, because the ensemble game is diluted. The conflict becomes individualized, the drama becomes personalized, and the elements of reality are accentuated. It will be interesting to see how it evolves and how it all fits into public television. The most obvious proof is the fear of premiering it on TV3 and limiting it, for now, to the digital platform.

On Monday at noon, Spanish news outlets prioritized the statement of Luis Bárcenas in the trial for the Kitchen case.In La 1's Telediario, the news reported that the former treasurer of the PP had ordered the destruction of the recordings about the party's slush fund and that when he wrote "M.R." on his papers, he was referring to Mariano Rajoy. The trial chronicle concluded that from Bárcenas's statements it could be inferred that the PP leadership was aware of the slush fund accounting and that, therefore, "the spotlight is starting to turn towards Mariano Rajoy". Subsequently, the public television's news program incorporated the PSOE's reaction to the trial developments and those of the current PP.In Informativos Telecinco the approach was quite similar. They spoke of the deleted documentation as "compromised recordings" and highlighted that according to Bárcenas, Rajoy himself knew of the existence of the slush fund. They also included a response from the former treasurer in which he specified that the initials "M.R." in the treasurer's papers referred to Mariano Rajoy.On the other hand, on Antena 3 noticias Sandra Golpe's report incorporated a tone laden with skepticism and a touch of sarcasm that gave the news a blatant bias. To refer to the stolen or missing documentation, Golpe said “sensitive information”, but each time she pronounced “sensitive” she lowered her tone of voice and with surprise, attributing an imaginary or unreal dimension to the concept, as if what she was talking about was unheard of. Furthermore, when the presenter repeated what Bárcenas had said, she emphasized with a forced emphasis that it was he who said it, attributing a component of suspicion to his statements: “Luis Bárcenas says –he says today– that he recorded Rajoy talking about the PP's slush fund”. This affected "says today” added a circumstantial element to the statement, the fragility of a last-minute occurrence. “The recordings included –he says– audios of Mariano Rajoy”. The "he says" was again pronounced with a certain disdain, reducing it to the category of an unconvincing version. To top it all off, Antena 3's report did not at any point echo one of the aspects that the rest of the news programs highlighted even in their headlines. It was the statement where Bárcenas specified that the initials "M.R." that he had written in the papers of the parallel accounting corresponded to the initials of Mariano Rajoy.Sandra Golpe's theatrical ability to craft a double reading, a subtext, in the news from her tone of voice and facial expressions would be worthy of a Goya. While on paper the information may have a relative appearance of journalistic neutrality, the singsong, the intensity, the micro-expressions, and the slight shoulder movements would be worthy of a doctoral thesis on subliminal communication.

An omnipresent element in Rosalía's concert is a large white canvas that serves as the backdrop for the stage, as if it were stretched over a wooden frame. It is the reverse of an immense cloth, as if you were seeing the back of an imposing painting. With a Palau Sant Jordi still with its lights on and the audience filling the stands in a hurry, the back of this canvas patiently awaits the start of the show until, when everything goes dark, it opens in half, as if we were entering the interior of the work of art. It is a way of telling us that what we are seeing is not just a musical performance, but also an artistic process that will unfold before us. It is much more than a concert, it is a total work of art, in motion, full of life, of references, and in constant evolution and transformation. Rosalía is the artist who completes her work during the two hours of the show.

The second season of The Pitt, the HBO Max series that has recaptured the spirit of great medical dramas, especially regarding its commitment to realism, has ended. Not a veracity as a mere production flourish, but for the dramatic demand to connect with social problems that engage the viewer beyond mere entertainment. In this new stage, the dramatic tone has been intensified and the psychological dimension of the characters has been increased.

Film fans and die-hard Alfred Hitchcock admirers will find on Movistar+ a documentary that connects with the universe of Hollywood and one of the great films by the king of suspense: Vertigo. Alexandre Philippe, the director of the documentary, defines it as a session of cinematic spiritualism over which Hitchcock's spirit hovers. The protagonist is the actress Kim Novak. At ninety-three years old, she feels she is in the final stretch of her life. As soon as it begins, the camera moves gently through a garden where the last ray of sun of the day arrives. We hear her with a thin voice and difficulty breathing. Novak explains: “I doubt if I'm doing the right thing by recording this, because I don't know what will come out of what I say, of what I want to say. What do I want to say exactly? Is it about this? About what I want to say? About what I think? About what I feel? I don't know what I'm expected to feel or think. [...] I have suffered a lot. Recently I had a bad fall and I'm short of breath. It's hard for me to keep breathing. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'll live to be a hundred! Who knows! But right now I feel like I'm very close to the end”. The camera moves closer to the door of a house and penetrates inside. The image stops on the wooden volute of an armchair that reminds us of Novak's bun in Vertigo. Then, finally, we see her, painting a picture.

One of the most comical situations this week has been the meeting of two presenters who are the paradigm of manipulation and entanglement: Pablo Motos invited Sonsoles Ónega to present her new book on El hormiguero. During the conversation, Motos asked her about the VAT on books and she complained that it was 21%, considering that if it were lower she would sell more books and people would read more. Both presenters criticized that the VAT on books was the same as that on cigarette packs. “The VAT on books should not exist if you want a cultured country”, said Motos, and they hinted at the possibility of campaigning for the government to reduce it, pointing to Pedro Sánchez as responsible. “What happens is that the president of the government is in China, but well, he will get there eventually...”, said the ant tamer.Neither Motos nor Ónega knew that, in reality, the VAT on books is 4%, and the next day both had to correct themselves on their programs. Motos corrected himself hastily, blaming the guest: “Sonsoles Ónega proposed to the team that we talk about the VAT on books. We said yes and nobody checked the data”. That this slip-up with the VAT on books happened in the context of Atresmedia is very significant, considering that the group has Grupo Planeta as its main shareholder, one of the major players in the publishing industry. It must have caused internal tensions that, within the same business ecosystem, such a basic error about the sector has been spread. It highlights the lack of knowledge of the cultural industry within the same conglomerate. Ónega, affected, was undergoing therapy with psychologist Rafael Santandreu, taking advantage of having him as a guest: “I beat myself up. I’ve been anxious all day, Dr. Santandreu, for not having confirmed the data. I apologize. I did it without any intention of misinforming or manipulating”, she assured. And she asked the “doc” for advice on how to overcome the ordeal. Santandreu consoled her with the argument that he had sold more than a million books and also did not know the percentage of the tax. He reassured her with his usual fallacies: that to not worry, he only had to want to do so and that one mistake cannot overshadow all the good you can do. Using his simplistic explanations, he appealed to the “virus of terribilitis” as a mechanism to overstate concerns. Ónega thanked him for the good advice and moved on to more consultations for the “doc”.The chain of blunders is fascinating. They are wrong about the VAT on books in a company mostly owned by one of the major publishing groups. Ónega, to get over the upset, was having therapy, calling "doctor" a guest who is neither a doctor nor has a doctorate in anything. And the psychologist, instead of denying it, legitimized his authority by appealing to the sale of more than a million books. Luckily, the presenters called for "a more cultured country."