The A-3 TV channel drew the strongest headlines for Andalusia’s ERE case when the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction. The news broadcasts at 3 PM and 9 PM opened with this story, delivered with a broad, intense, and sharp treatment that set the tone for the day.
A parallel coverage existed within the other major strand of the Atresmedia group, La Sexta. Here the topic was addressed with less force, integrated naturally into the day’s lineup and not pushed to extraordinary heights. What makes this media empire notable is its two networks, each offering a distinct perspective on events and shaping perception through its own lens.
One moment on A-3 TV stands out as particularly meaningful. After a thorough review of the sentence, the network kept the case in focus and projected the faces of fourteen key figures on the studio’s large screen. Among them was José Antonio Griñan, a former head of the Junta de Andalucía and a former minister who had been a leader within the PSOE and later received a six year prison sentence.
Using archived footage, the channel amplified that pivotal moment from a March 21 interview on Onda Cero, later captured by cameras to reinforce the television narrative. In that exchange, Carlos asked what Grinán would do if the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Grinán, with a mixed smile and sorrowful expression, replied that he would accept the sentence and that his life would be over. A tense pause followed, a radio silence that felt almost palpable on screen.
The portrayal on television now feels even more unsettling. The retransmission of those grim words, shown again after four months, seems to raise questions about the fairness of revisiting a resolved outcome. There is discomfort in using television to dwell on the misfortune of a person already in a fallen state, rather than to provide measured, contextual reporting.
In reflecting on media history, Tom Wolfe once described a human condition in his nonfiction work. He suggested that we are all destined to watch the movie of our life. The discussion of whether television should curate that film, and to what end, remains a provocative topic. The current narrative invites readers to consider the responsibilities of broadcasters when handling sensitive legal cases and the ethical lines between reporting and sensationalism. [Citation: media studies sources] The debate continues, inviting readers to weigh how different networks frame the same events and what this means for public understanding of justice and accountability.