The President of the Generalitat, Salvador Illa, has scolded Ramon Pellicer for giving a voice to anti-vaxxers on his program Vertex. It is the usual dilemma. Do you give a voice to someone who clearly has a harmful position (from the point of view of coherence)? Do you create a cordon sanitaire for those who demonstrate or are suspected of having anti-democratic or dangerous behaviors or thoughts, or who violate human rights?

On Monday, Salvador Illa posted a tweet on the X network to protest against the approach of the program Vèrtex for having given a voice to anti-vaxxers and demanding responsibility for not putting public health at risk. The day before, Ramon Pellicer had introduced the debate on vaccination with a very fragile premise: “This week the flu and COVID vaccination campaign has begun, and we wanted to focus on the other side of this reality: that of the people who distrust vaccines.” The program turns a minority position into a counterpart to the vaccination campaign, endorsed by the journalistic cliché of “the other side of reality.” This other side perhaps does not justify so much attention. In any case, the video of the anti-vax couple they interviewed did not last more than three minutes, and they used very vague arguments. The man said that for him, smiles and hugs were more important for maintaining good health. They were not presented as experts, nor did they use a falsely scientific discourse. The program then dedicated four times as much time, twelve minutes, to refuting the anti-vaxxers' arguments with two expert professionals: Gemma Moncunill, lead researcher of the Caixa Research Institute group, and Judit Vall, professor of applied economics at the UB, to clarify aspects linked to the interests of pharmaceutical companies. Both insisted on the benefits of vaccines, and Moncunill stressed that it was advisable to get “all the vaccines recommended by the Generalitat.” A reporter provided statistical data that consolidated their explanations, including figures on the lives that vaccines save.

On Sunday night TV3 premiered Vèrtex. It is a success that the channel is betting on current affairs and the desire for analysis, because the shortcomings in the schedule in this regard have been obvious for a long time. It is also appreciated that the program has not incorporated the talk show, a genre that has been so abused that it has lost its capacity for influence. Vèrtex hinted at a desire for informative transcendence, especially in the choice of guests, although it became evident that the program still needs experience and determination. The desire to delve deeper is an excellent approach. With such a format, however, the persistent background music is not necessary. There is a disconcerting aspect of Vèrtex . The young writers who delved into the different topics, Enric Botella and Júlia Peguera, showed more confidence and expository firmness than Pellicer himself, who was painful to watch. We found a stiff, insecure presenter, making memory efforts and hesitating. It is surprising that, not being a live program, they did not even fix the blunder of showing him running across the set in front of the camera. Pellicer's strong point has never been interviews, in which he seems cold and so focused on the script that he forgets to listen and ask follow-up questions. His elegant prudence keeps him in a discursive lightness that falls very short when it comes to delving deeper. He conducted the first interview with the top official of the country's police, the Chief Commissioner of the Mossos, Sílvia Catà, and the Telenotícies the next day could not include any of her statements. The script had no journalistic ambition. A program like this must have a desire for impact, at least within the Corpo. The Andic case was used as a draw, and an influential personality and close friend of the deceased businessman was invited: the president of Grupo Planeta and Atresmedia, José Crehueras. Pellicer called him "Pepe" with a confidence that drew attention; the screen caption specified "José"; Andic called him "Pepín", and Crehueras himself referred to himself as "Josep". The secret to success must be this. The internal pact to only gloss over Andic's personal figure without entering into the investigation of the case became too evident. If they had agreed not to touch the subject, even worse. But Pellicer didn't even know how to play with cunning. The euphemism "with everything that has happened" was used to avoid talking about Jonathan Andic's homicide accusation. When Crehueras explained that he went on excursions with Isak Andic, he did not ask him if the Mango businessman was in shape after the case's defense had circulated videos to sell the thesis that he suffered from leg weakness. Pellicer evidenced a disappointing cowardice. Many other questions could be asked of the president of Atresmedia and Grupo Planeta, but dealing with current affairs, he didn't even ask him about the Setmana del Llibre en Català, which had closed that same Sunday with record figures. If one wants to analyze current events from different angles, it is necessary to demonstrate a broader view, more firmness, and more journalistic vigor than Pellicer demonstrated. More than a veteran, he seemed like a beginner.