Events continue to happen as we celebrate the first anniversary of the war in Ukraine. This does not prevent some politicians from convincing themselves that they have the ability to manage and dictate a country’s agenda and calendar; what is up for debate and what should be stored under rugs or in closets. Even social networks cannot set the agenda for anything. The political class persists in an impossible struggle: to impose on the journalist what is relevant and what is irrelevant. Informational significance is public opinion, not even the exclusive power of the media.
At Podemos they spend half their lives questioning the media’s approach to the laws they promote; PP doesn’t like to remember that there is a president named Pablo Casado and tries to convince journalists that “this is a thing of the past”. The same goes for corruption. PSOE is furious at the mention of trains, ERE or extortion plans by some former public officials in the Canary Islands. Vox is annoyed by the publication of photos of his people saluting the Roman. In short, “good people get offended” according to the new terminology that Núñez Feijóo is trying to invent.
People stopped talking about mad cow disease day after day, while monkeypox or the starving cow in Argentina disappeared from the agenda. For some politicians, such as some professional opinion leaders, it is useless to insist that the news are not indefinitely lengthened or arbitrary gums. News has its own course, and that is the power of the journalistic profession, courtesy of Pablo Iglesias, for example.
With the heavy use of social networks, the political class spends the day questioning the covers, approaches and heroes of the news, as if some of them had finished the topic before the first news program of the morning. Journalists get ugly because of what they write, or ironically be surprised by issues that some media outlets ignore. Because they didn’t put a summary on a page thief or try to cheat the editing program by putting the rail and horizontal scale at arm’s length, it seems like they really know the business.
Don’t insist, “It’s over,” as we hear every day in many news outlets. I imagine politicians on the verge of closing time of any newspaper in Spain receive “remove that page and put a page down” kind of orders from the editor-in-chief; “paint a photo into a flag and add a summary”; “Repaint the subject, double put it, and make sure the groove doesn’t spoil the photo”. They require a bath of humility and some knowledge.
Unlike these great men who try to teach the blacksmith how the forge works, professionals who take their trade seriously tend to document themselves before writing down what the politician says. Among the journalists who regularly follow current events in Congress, there is not a single person who does not read the history of the bills, which have become professional commentary – each from its own editorial – before sending it to their media. a current topic. In most cases, the opposite is rarely the case, as if location exempts them from prior knowledge. And yes, the news will last as long as it needs to be, and the informative gum will have to yawn until there is not a single space left to elaborate, comment, or give an opinion. And they’ll stop talking about mad cows just as they’ll stop talking about it, that is: once it’s out of the news.
The media managed to focus on the issue. The fall of Pablo Casado a year ago, on the day of the outbreak of war in Ukraine, he wisely got out of the reins. However, it is very healthy for leaders who are dissatisfied with the public agenda to set up their own communications companies if they feel that no newspaper, radio or television channel accurately reflects today’s milestones. In a democracy, the reader, listener, or viewer are the people who ultimately decide whether they prefer what the journalist tells them or the speaker sings to them, whether to be treated by a doctor or healer, professional or amateur. assertive, authoritative voice or fair charlatan.