Last Friday, on the Telenotícies Migdia, Xavi Coral informed us about an advertisement at Palma airport "that is causing a lot of controversy", with this rather bland introductory phrase, worthy of the most exasperating journalistic inertia. In recent years, a good part of the news in the media has begun in the same way. The presenter developed the case. A huge poster from a German bank promoting instant money transfers between users has used the following slogan: "What happens in Mallorca is paid for in Mallorca". The text is written in German. In the report by correspondent Caterina Karmany, it was explained how the Balearic Government has requested the withdrawal of the banner because it invites a tourism of excesses, parodying the famous American motto "What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas". The statements of Antoni Costa, government spokesperson, were included, criticizing Aena, because the airport operator has considered it a harmless play on words. Sunday, two days later, on Telenotícies Migdia they explained the same news to us again, even incorporating it into the program's opening headlines. Júlia López spoke to us about the airport sign as if we had never heard of it: “This sign you can see is at Palma airport and is not without controversy.” Once again this cliché formula, the autopilot's wildcard to announce significance. Joan Raventós explained the translation of the sign to us, the nuance that differentiated it from the Las Vegas phrase and the cause that has provoked unease in Mallorca. Next, they gave way to a new report by Caterina Karmany who explained the news to us again, although this time she included a group of drunken German tourists to highlight the type of tourism the advertisement is aimed at. Aena was no longer mentioned, but it included the voices of Majorcans annoyed by a linguistic issue and Germans living on the island, unhappy with the image Mallorca is given in their country. The news was the same, but it was explained in a different way.It's strange. At least, in its forms. First, because they explain the same news to us a second time as if they hadn't done it before. There is no reference to the fact that the news program already covered the case two days ago. As if between Friday and Sunday there was a kind of disconnection, as if they had nothing to do with each other. And the viewer is left with a feeling of living in the movie Groundhog Day, with a déjà-vu of events that were already explained to them days ago in the same place. It could be that it was a repurposed piece that could not be broadcast on Friday's Telenotícies Vespre (Evening News), but in any case, you can't sell the fish, two days later, as if it were fresh. It creates a greater sense of cohesion and normality if you talk about it as an expanded report. Because otherwise, it ends up seeming that not even the professionals who make the Telenotícies (News) watch their own news program during the week.