The row between the Spanish and Italian governments is leaving the right-wing press in an uncomfortable position. Newspapers of exacerbated patriotism, which defend the unequivocal Spanishness of Ceuta, Melilla, Gibraltar, Perejil – and Rosemary, Thyme, and Oregano if they existed – now find themselves in the position of not being able to puff out their chests at Giorgia Meloni to demand respect, as this would somehow help Pedro Sánchez. I have no doubt that if Feijóo and Abascal were in government, and this same situation of a standoff with travelers occurred, these media outlets would talk about the Spanish government's just response to the Italian president's provocation/threat/offensive. Instead, we find headlines like “Sánchez consummates his threat to Meloni and imposes border controls on travelers from Italy” (Ok Diario)) or “Sánchez goes to war with Meloni” (La Razón). In fact, El País also has a collision headline, but with an important nuance: “Sánchez and Meloni go to war over border controls”. In the first headline, there is only one aggressor. In the other, two. It is not a coincidence, obviously.

Interviewing dictators (and the like) is always a dilemma: to what extent are we providing a platform for their anti-democratic ideas and repressive regimes? But, despite everything, there is room for good interviews, especially thanks to the kryptonite of ego: if the leader succumbs to it, in search of validation, there can be room for a good journalistic exchange. One example is the interview Jorge Ramos, from Univisión, conducted with Nicolás Maduro. There was no way to get out of the trivialities that humanize autocrats until the presenter presented him with an iPad showing him images of starving Venezuelans eating from dumpsters. Maduro stood up, declared the interview over, and had the journalist and his team arrested, in addition to confiscating the images. Of course, a few months later they ended up appearing: someone from the Venezuelan government environment leaked them. Needless to say, Maduro has since only agreed to be interviewed by journalists he considered allies.

I was reading a very good report from the Columbia Journalism Review about the dilemma of interviewing dictators or not, and they recalled a legendary episode: that of Oriana Fallaci in 1979, when she interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini. She had agreed to wear the chador to be able to speak with him, but at one point when the Iranian leader told her that if she didn't like the Islamic dress "she was not obliged to wear it," she theatrically removed it and threw it on the floor, saying it was a "stupid and medieval rag." Khomeini interrupted the interview and left, but later reconsidered and finished the conversation. The Spanish journalist Ana Pastor also agreed to cover her hair to interview Mahmud Ahmadinejad. In this case, the scarf kept slipping until her entire head was visible. She stated that it was an accident. There was some controversy, but little else. Christiane Amanpour, on the other hand, had a scheduled interview in 2022 with the Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, who demanded that she wear the veil "out of respect," alleging that they were in a holy month. She refused, arguing that they were in New York, where no law requires it, and she ended up without an interview. However, she made her protest clear by filming herself in a room with the empty chair that the leader was supposed to occupy. A few days earlier, Lesley Stahl had indeed agreed to cover herself to interview Raisi, which earned her criticism from activists like Masih Alinejad, as that submissive gesture legitimized the mandatory veil law.

These are some weekend front-page headlines: “Europe cries out against Sánchez” (Abc), “The EU considers Sánchez a failure and demands migratory control” (El Mundo) and “Europe revolts against Sánchez for endangering its borders” (El Mundo). One might infer that there is great concern about what the European Union has to say about the migratory crisis experienced in Ceuta. But that would be a wrong conclusion. Because this Wednesday was the day to report on the summit on this matter. And once again, the survivor Sánchez has come out with minimal scratches. “The EU supports Spain and avoids a clash over regularization,” headlined on the front page of La Vanguardia. “The EU rallies behind Spain for the management of the Ceuta crisis,” seconded El País, which in its subtitle highlighted: “The partners show their ‘total solidarity’, praise the government’s ‘quick and effective’ response and admit that there is no direct relationship between the massive influx and the regularization of immigrants.” Admittedly, these are the two newspapers that apply the most Sanytol to the Spanish president. ARA, for example, headlines saying that “The EU backs Sánchez’s reaction but is wary of regularization” and El Periódico says: “The EU demands more vigilance upon learning that the CNI did not alert,” with a sub-headline that also emphasizes that “The Ministers of the Interior support Spain.”

Everyone with two fingers of forehead has a sufficiently formed hypothesis about who instigated the massive displacement of Moroccans to the Spanish enclave in Africa of Ceuta and, suddenly, their sudden return home. But expressing it out loud are figs from another basket and that is why this Tuesday a good part of the front pages try to say without saying, or focus on who says and, also, on who is silent. For example, El Mundo is the most direct: “The EU points to Morocco but considers giving more aid to Rabat”. Others, like La Razón, cling to Robles – the only socialist minister they treat with kid gloves for her military aspect – to say that “She breaks the position of exculpating Morocco”. The trick is that there is another character in this series who has also taken great care not to anger the Alawite regime: Alberto Núñez Feijóo. And, of course, the most Sanchista newspapers are furious about it: “Feijóo avoids pointing to Morocco” (La Vanguardia) or “The PP rejects pointing to Rabat” (El Periódico). The gray popular leader knows that angering Mohammed VI is not convenient for him, if in a few months he has to be president in Spain. He must remember the news/reminder that Abc dedicated to him last December: “Rabat will punish Feijóo with more immigration if he corrects Sánchez's turn regarding the Sahara”. The archives, always a vaccine against hypocritical gestures.

The head of Opinion at the Washington Post, Adam O’Neil, has resigned after just one year in charge of such a sensitive section. He took the helm, moreover, after his predecessor, David Shipley, had quit, disagreeing with owner Jeff Bezos's plans to shift the editorial stance to much more liberal positions, demanding minimal state intervention in markets. Still under the influence of Christopher Nolan's notable adaptation – it must be stressed for the purists: adaptation – of the Odyssey, it occurs to me that the newspaper finds itself caught between Scylla and Charybdis. And, like Ulysses, it has chosen the certain risk of losing feathers rather than risking sacrificing the whole chicken. Of course, here the body count is not limited to six, as with the mythological beast sung by Homer, since alongside the resignations we must add the successive layoffs that have halved the newsroom. What was once a proud galley now presents a much more battered state, but still capable of producing good journalism. Only that, on the other side of the strait, Charybdis awaits, with its formidable whirlpools that swallow everything and which, without enough rowers, could end up swallowing the ship into the abyss of irrelevance.

Scheduling messages on social media has risks and at the community manager from Pedro Sánchez will probably get a slap on the wrist for not withdrawing the publication of a video in which the Spanish president shares his playlist of songs. The strategy is clear: to try to graft oneself onto the aura of Barack Obama, who popularized this summer practice, and to mark territory in a field where Feijóo would move with the ease of a sea bass in the middle of Plaça Catalunya. But sharing this lighthearted video while bodies are still being recovered near Ceuta and when the death toll, which may exceed a hundred victims, has not yet been finalized, is very uncomfortable to watch. We must consider that it was an accident.

Thirty-eight hours after some newspapers proclaimed from their front pages the “invasion” of Spain through the Ceuta border, it would be good to have access to a webcam that captured their astonished reactions when the vast majority of people who crossed the territorial limit returned home. Number of shots fired to guarantee territorial integrity: zero. Obviously, the case highlights the State's weakness in anticipating and managing such a phenomenon, but before loading the verbal Cetme with bombastic words, perhaps it is worth applying the principle of caution and looking at it with a bit of geopolitical perspective.

“The «invasion» of Ceuta”, headlines the The Reason, with a new use of cowardly quotes. “Ceuta, invaded”, seconds theAbc. And The World completes the trio of newspapers that narrate the migratory crisis with sharp and dire words that belong to the lexicon of war: “Morocco displays its power with the largest border assault”. These are editorial choices that highlight to what extent the far-right has imposed and normalized its mental framework. Using the same verb as when Russian troops entered Ukrainian territory reduces the issue to the old emotional resource of us-against-them. It is obvious that the Moroccan government uses migrant flows to strain relations with Spain, especially after Sánchez's approach to arch-enemy Algeria. And that the consequences of immigration deserve a deep, calm, and brave debate. But what public discussion can be had if it is all reduced to a dehumanizing caricature in which they are treated as mere pawns turned into invading soldiers of King Mohammed? The rest of the newspapers avoid speaking in terms of "assault or invasion, with the warlike connotation that is brought to the forefront: “collapse,” “massive entry,” or “avalanche” are some of the formulas chosen. The latter also causes me a bit of unease, because equating it to a natural disaster can also be dehumanizing and stigmatizing. But, despite everything, the treatments in the rest of the headlines are balanced and respect personal dignity.

The Spanish Data Protection Agency has opened proceedings against Directa and proposes a fine of 7,000 euros for having published information about police officers who infiltrated social movements. They did so without a judicial order, ex officio and prospectively, one might say, and that changes everything, as in the tug-of-war between the right to information and the right to privacy, the former must prevail. European, and also Spanish, legislation determines that public servants, to ensure their accountability, have their privacy subordinated to the public interest of the news that affects them. And the public interest that a case like this arouses is evident.

Besides winning yesterday's self-bet – no newspaper from either Spain places climate change at the center of the debate, for better or worse – Wednesday's front pages remain completely stuck on sterile political bickering. And this is not only noticeable in the grand narratives and arguments being promoted, but also in small miseries. For example, El País says: “Tens of thousands of evacuees return as the fire is contained”. And also, in 20 minutos: “Firefighters contain the fire in Madrid and 30,000 residents from 10 municipalities return home”. On the other hand, on the front page of La Razón we find: “Hundreds of evacuees in Ávila, Madrid and Castellón return to their homes”. Between “hundreds” and “tens of thousands” the proportion is one hundred to one. And it doesn't seem coincidental to me that it is the newspaper directed by Francisco Marhuenda who, precisely, where others see 100 returnees, he only registers 1. Who ate the other 99? I'll tell you: the desire to minimize any good news. If it were Ayuso managing the fires, not tens of thousands, but tens of millions, even trillions, would have returned, coming from all corners of the galaxy and beyond.

Madrid, Bordeaux, La Vall d’Uixó, Portugal... The European press front pages are these days tinged with the orange of flames, but in Spain, Madrid’s newspapers continue with the same old song. That Ayuso declares herself incapable of managing the fires, but doesn't miss a photo opportunity, some denounce. That Sánchez doesn't expose himself to contact with neighbours for fear of receiving a dose of reality and discontent, others reply. It has been a dismal week and Madrid's front pages have also managed to scorch the political debate while there was a great absentee on the front pages: climate change. With the Adamuz train accident, we immediately wanted to know if the track was well welded and who had to check every inch of rail. The Salomes of the day had several platters ready to serve the political heads that could be beheaded. Since the climate emergency is not associated with a possible resignation, the trench press ignores this factor.

La Sincronitzada is the Olympic derogatory name with which the right on social media has christened the alleged team of opinion makers who, in the manner of Fuenteovejuna, defend the Sanchista talking points en masse every day. These days, with the fires in Madrid, some pointed out how the same message, with minimal variations, was spreading on X. "Ayuso's management is lowering taxes for the rich" they all began, some of which were obvious bots. The accusation goes so far as to insinuate that the allied opinion makers, who have obtained a seat in the august television talk shows thanks to their affiliation, had received the day's creed from Moncloa and had not bothered much to make it their own: copy, paste, and down. Surely the PSOE has these mechanisms to influence the published opinion in an organized manner, just as the rest of the parties do. It does not mean that all opinion makers have their backside rented: but there are many who, without detriment to their virtues, have reached it thanks to being a quota. And this entails a personal toll. From here, the ingenious nickname La Sincronitzada is just an attempt to point out in others the same blemish that they themselves carry.

Yesterday I was explaining on a Media page how TV3 stole the rights to Dallas from TVE and there were those who recalled the mythical phrase “Sue Ellen, you're a slacker" which was never said. In reality, what was said was: “Your husband is dying and you're being a slacker, who knows where!", only that popular imagination has fixed this shortened form in the collective memory. This is called the Mandela effect, because a study determined that many people remembered the death in prison of the anti-Apartheid South African fighter even though he died many years after being released. Another classic case is “Luke, I am your father”, even though Constantino Romero said “No, I am your father”. In Spain there is a famous case involving Ricky Martin, a greedy dog, the program Sorpresa sorpresa and a girl with a jar of jam about which I will give no further details without the presence of my lawyers. Or the 23-F: many people remember having seen that night the shocking images of Tejero and his gang shooting in Congress, even though only the radio broadcast it live. Since it has been broadcast a thousand times since then, this false shared memory has ended up being created.

The United States Department of Justice has waived its attempt to subpoena journalists from The New York Times to reveal the sources that provided them with details about the replacement Air Force One that Qatar gifted to President Trump. Some are given jewelry, others planes worth $400 million. In this retraction, one should not see the American president's return to the paths of common sense, which in fact he has never trod, but rather surely the fear of putting someone in the White House in an uncomfortable position with the capacity to lift carpets and point out piles of dirt, or the remains of some cadaver. In fact, Trump has initiated a multitude of lawsuits against journalists and media outlets, but most have fallen by the wayside because he himself has withdrawn them or had them withdrawn. The objective has never been to seek justice, but rather to instill fear in professionals. Not only those who see themselves facing the threat of having the entire State machinery—and what a state!—against them, but also the press as a whole, so that the oppressive climate favors self-censorship. In this specific case, FBI agents showed up at the reporters' homes with great fanfare. In other cases, the request for information also affected their immediate family members, which constitutes blatant blackmail. 

Any politician knows that one goes to an interview with two or three strong ideas that, well articulated, should be the subsequent headlines remembered from that conversation. After sixty-five days, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero gave his first interview after being seriously indicted and chose a friendly playing field: a TVE turned into a socialist trench and Javier Ruiz as a referee who was correct and professional, but without making him sweat. Of course, I am not capable of offering a convincing thesis on what effect the former Spanish president intended: to act as a firewall for Sánchez, as a penultimate service to the cause? Because not even The Country dedicated a not-so-kind headline to him: “Zapatero defends his innocence without revealing the origin of the jewels”. As he detailed, he considered that he had to explain it first to the judge. But, if that is the premise, then what was he doing in front of a journalist and a few hundred thousand viewers? The interview has had prominent spaces on all the front pages of Barcelona and Madrid, but none of the headlines contribute anything to the case, because nothing, zero, zilch, is what the interested party clarified. Which forces the media to consider whether it is worth giving so much hype to a big bubble empty of content.

This is a tweet from El Español: “Ferran Torres’ success outside of football: an empire of twenty properties and more than six million euros in real estate assets”. And this is another tweet from El Español: “He neither has twenty flats nor does he manage a vulture fund. The spin from the Sumar deputy against Ferran Torres for accusing him of being a speculator”. The first message included a link to a scandalized news story that they have already deleted, while the second leads to an article in which they act dignified and dismantle the perfidious accusation to which they themselves subscribed hours before. With the small detail that in this second article they do not offer an apology or, at least, admit the error. In fact, Pedro J. Ramírez's media outlet already published the fake news for the first time on June 13, but since the player was the scorer of the goal that won the World Cup, they decided to update the text with this detail and cast the hook again with the rotten bait, fishing for clicks, to see who would swallow it.

An opinion piece by Arcadi Espada in El Mundo is being ridiculed by some. It states that “the magnitude of Spanish disappointment in the World Cup requires more than tactical analysis”, that “serious teams do not smile while the anthem plays, but when they collect the cup”, that “the outcome cannot surprise those who observe the moral climate of the country” and that “the elimination leaves urgent lessons for 2030”. It might seem, of course, that the columnist prepared the text days in advance, awaiting the Spanish defeat, and that a lack of filters and misfortune caused it to be published to the great ridicule of the journalist and the media. Some illustrious journalists and people from the profession are taking advantage of this.

I am not a football follower at all, but this World Cup has been a goldmine in terms of communication and a blessing for this section. Some gems from the final that made me happy: “Another of the footballers who drew attention was Dani Olmo, who appeared with a flag of Gibraltar, another of the autonomous communities represented during the celebrations”. It was from Terrassa, but down it goes and Spanish Gibraltar. I was also moved by the article from the editor of Clarín, when she said that the Argentine team had been “well-behaved and respectful” and that “it displayed, on and off the field, a range of values that are not abundant nowadays”. The day they stop being ill-behaved and disrespectful, it would be better to cross the street, then. The Argentine front pages tended to applaud their team, saying they had given their all. I suppose that didn't include the superfluous and trivial detail of shooting at the goal. In any case, the option from El Gráfico was nice, in which Messi was seen crying and the headline “Heroes nonetheless”, because it was a copy of a front page they themselves made in 1990, when the albiceleste lost the final against Germany. Identical headline and composition, only that the one shedding tears then was Maradona. Meanwhile, of course, in the United Kingdom they saw it quite differently and felt little pity for the Argentine defeat: the final report in The Telegraph began with the phrase “Football 1 - Criminals 0”.

Today I propose a game, but you have to reach the end of the article and for some it will be difficult. "Spain comes out of the closet". This is the title of an opinion piece in Abc this Monday, which states that "young Spaniards have thrown overboard the complexes that stifled their elders to show their faith or cheer on their country without caring what others say about them". The gears of banal nationalism begin to turn and La Gran Turra attacks those of us who already like to see half of Barça on the field playing good football, but we cannot forget that Scotland has a national team and Catalonia, no. Some articles along these lines: "When the World Cup is involved, patriotic sentiment seems to transform and Spaniards show their national flag without complexes" (El Confidencial), "Colours displayed without complexes and with pride, as a citizen of Wisconsin might do with those of the United States" (El Mundo), "It has banished for a few weeks the usual shyness of people in displaying the national flag" (Abc), "The day Spain shed its complexes in front of the world" (El Español), "I am Spanish, not a fascist" (Granada Hoy), "A generation of Spaniards without complexes" (Periodista Digital).