We are going to analyse, if you think so, the reaction of the media and the journalistic profession to the audios that directly involve The sixth Already Ferreras in the dirty campaign against Podemos. First information that I give you: in which paper newspapers the content of these audios has been published. they’ve taken it out The country, The vanguard, The Punt Avuithe ARAand the Month.
Yes. Nothing in ABCneither The worldneither The reason, nor in any other beyond those I have mentioned. And in digital, nothing in The confidentialnor in Popular Voicenor in The Spanishnor in The newspapernor in The Newspaper of Spain. The latter only plays a note of EFE which we will discuss later. Now let’s do an exercise, which is to look at the headlines that each medium has chosen to report on this. I am going to read them to you, and I ask you to pay special attention to one element: whether or not they mention the name of Ferreras.
ACNa Catalan news agency: “New audios from Villarejo implicate García Ferreras in spreading false information about Iglesias’ bank accounts”.
ARA Newspaper: “New Villarejo recordings expose Antonio García Ferreras”.
The Punt Avui: “García Ferreras, another instrument at the service of the sewers”.
The Mon: “Ferreras would have spread false information about Pablo Iglesias at the request of Villarejo”.
Rac1: “The audios of Villarejo splash Ferreras: he reported a false account of Iglesias”.
National.cat: “Ferreras and the Villarejo audios: reported the false account of Pablo Iglesias”.
The Catalan media, both the press and radio and TV, and also Basque public television, are the media ecosystems in which there is greater coverage, unanimity and expression of seriousness in relation to this news. Y FerrerasIndeed, it is mentioned in all the headlines. I am now reading other headlines from state-level media.
PUBLIC: Ferreras, to Villarejo about a false account attributed to Iglesias by Inda: “I’m going with it, but it’s too crude.”
The jump: “The latest audios from Villarejo place Ferreras at the epicenter of the sewers of the State against Podemos”.
eldiario.es: “Audios recorded by Villarejo to Ferreras uncover the origin of the news about the false account of Pablo Iglesias”.
Infofree: “New audios from Villarejo reveal how the false news of Pablo Iglesias’s account in Grenadines was created”.
The country: “Villarejo detailed the false assembly of the Iglesias account in a tax haven”.
For these 3 media outlets, as seen in the headlines that I just read to you, the news is not the role of Ferreras, which is not mentioned, but rather the audios reveal the origin of that state hoax against Iglesias and Podemos. Only eldiario.es named Ferreras in its headline, as an object -as a victim, after all- of Villarejo’s recordings. It is a headline that is not too far from the one that the own Sixth: “Ferreras opens Red Hot talking about the audios that Villarejo recorded about the Grenadines”. Villarejo recorded him, poor thing. And one last headline: The vanguard: “Pablo Iglesias denounces an intoxication against him that involves Villarejo, The Sixth and OkDiary“. The news is “something denounced by Iglesias”.
Let’s continue with the analysis. At the beginning of the program we already heard how he told this news yesterday TV3, the Catalan public TV, in a way, I think, very correct. In fact, following the explanation that we heard at the beginning, they included the fragments of the audios in which Ferreras and Villarejo are heard, and also the first reaction of Pablo Iglesias on Saturday night on that same network, TV3. Let us now listen to some excerpts from the editorial he did this morning Angels Barcelo on the BE. He talks about the earthquake that these audios that involve Ferreras in the sewers are causing within progressive journalism.
the driver of Day by day comes to say that you can not put all journalism in the same bag in which it is Ferreras. And I think he’s right; it is evident that there are journalism professionals who work according to what is expected of a communication medium. So that seems like an important message to me. But Barceló also comes to say: “don’t look at us or associate us with all that rubbish, we in the BE we have always told all this that was happening, and if we have been wrong in something we have rectified”. And it’s like, well, I don’t know. The other day here in Base we already told that the person who published this false PISA report was Ana Terradilloswhich is still employed by the BEand the false report is still hanging on the website of the BE with nothing to indicate that it is false. Also, a few weeks ago, Antonio Canothe former director of The countrythe group diary RUSHthe same as the Chain BEsaid that “4 years ago we tried to avoid The country the pact of populists with separatists because we believed that this was bad for the left and for Spain”. That is to say, he admitted the participation of RUSH in the dirty campaign to avoid the coalition government of the PSOE with UP. So, perhaps what is desirable, rather than “they don’t look at us”, would be to say that they apologize for their part (although it is not the same as Ferreras); that BE it will not continue to rely on a figure that is another Villarejo operator such as Ana Terradillos; that the publication of that false report is a stain on the path of her media; and that the current address of The country and of the BE does not share what Caño and company did when they were in charge. That would be the best IMHO. But hey, little by little and let’s not ask for pears from the elm either. And let us also recognize that what Barceló said today is still a very important step.
In a similar line, Jonathan Martínez expresses himself on Twitter: “Collaborators of ‘Red Hot’: tomorrow you have a golden opportunity to give up sharing a table with Anthony Garcia Ferreras and show everyone that you don’t want to legitimize this sewer”.
I do not want to fail to mention that there have been many journalists who have also spoken out in Twitter about this scandal, although with nuances, underlining its enormous seriousness: Xavier Lapitz, Dani Domínguez, Magda Bandera, Rosa María Artal, Olga Rodríguez, Pedro Vallín, Miguel Mora, etcetera etcetera. But as long as I start to comment on the tweets, we never finish, so I’m not going to get into it today; beyond a couple that I save for later. And I don’t want to stop referring to the editorial of Contextcrowned with an image of Ferreras coming out of a sewer that says “More journalism” and with the headline: “Coupist media”, which I think hits the nail on the head of what all this means. He says CTXT that these audios are “the final confirmation that the main Spanish communication group has conspired for years with police, judges and other self-styled journalists to try to sink the credibility and political career of Pablo Iglesiasthe leader of Podemos who managed to turn his party into a municipal, regional and state government force”. He says that “it shows the Planet Group as a dishonest, anti-coup and anti-democratic media corporation, because it tried to subvert the popular will expressed at the polls knowingly using false reports, using lies and hoaxes as weapons of mass disinformation”. He also says that “the matter also challenges the entire journalistic profession, without exception, and in particular to those progressive informants who have frequented and have benefited from their participation in the gatherings organized by Ferreras, knowing that the director of The sixth and right hand of Florentine Pérez is a fundamental part of the so-called sewers of the state”. And he adds that “the case should also make the socialist government reflect, which continues to deny the existence of these sewers and has never done anything to fight against them”. Of course, it is It is very curious that 4 foreign heads of state have denounced the scandal but the President of the Government of Spain, who also governs together with, and thanks to, United We Can, has not said a word on the subject.
So far I have spoken of several examples of quite laudable reactions to the Ferreras audios. Let’s now see some examples of the opposite. holder of the EFE AgencyHold on, curves are coming: “Iglesias and Podemos charge against Ferreras after their audios with Villarejo.”
A fact: EFE was founded in 1939 at the initiative of Ramon Serrano SunerFranco’s Interior Minister.
Let’s now go to how they told this on public television last night, the network from which Jesús Cintora was kicked out when he beat Ferreras in audience.
Ferreras is not mentioned at any time nor does his image appear. The audios of the conversations between V are not heardIllarejo and Ferreras. No reaction is included. paul churches. There is talk of “audios that question published information.” It talks about the “alleged illegal financing of Podemos”, “alleged illegal financing of Podemos”! (I’ll dwell on this for a moment: “alleged”, according to the RAE, means “that is supposed or suspected even if it is not proven”. That is, something alleged is something that is presumed to be true. Continue talking in 2022 about ” alleged illegal financing of Podemos”, knowing everything we know today, is to take people for an idiot, because it expresses that it is suspected that this is true. In any case, it should be said “the false illegal financing of Podemos”. In addition, TVE says that Podemos “denounces a persecution” (not that it has occurred but that Podemos denounces it), he says it about images of Irene Montero and Ione Belarra laughing, he says that “some media would have contributed” and that “it would have damaged” the image of Podemos (a fine use of the conditional in the verbs of the script of TVE).
Yes, yes, public television with everything to defend Ferreras. And you have already heard that arriving in 6 years from the squares to the Government with a party raised from nothing and financed with donations from ordinary people; a complete political failure Lucia Mendez. And the wear and tear suffered along the way, with 4 elections in 4 years, has nothing to do with the dirty war of characters like Ferreras. Those are just excuses.
In short, the sad thing for me is listening to people, although fortunately less and less, saying the same thing as Lucía Méndez from the left. I end this very long section today with a couple of short things. First: news of the pluralthe digital that directs Angelica Rubioassiduous collaborator of The sixth and former head of communication in the PSOE and in the Secretary of State for Communication under the PSOE government. Headline: “The sixth did not offer distorted information about Podemos.” I repeat: “The sixth did not offer distorted information about Podemos”. The digital of Angélica Rubio, in closed defense of her master Ferreras. In the text, the plural provides sources of The sixth denying that they knew the PISA report was fake at the time it was published (despite the fact that Ferreras’s audios leave no doubt about it), embeds the videos of how he reported The sixth at that time (he does not publish the audios of Villarejo and Ferreras, that for another day) and stresses that The sixth he acted well because he also included in his pieces of the PISA report the denial of Iglesias. this from the plural It’s very similar to the thread you posted yesterday. Ana Pastor, with similar excuses and also saying this that “they put the denial of Iglesias”. I read you to Olga Rodriguez in Twitter:
“Some approaches today seem to want to tell us that if in journalism we publish false news, with clear characteristics that denote falsehood, but we do so by adding statements from those affected by that news, all is well. Long live the mess and continue the show.” Nothing to add to Olga’s words.
.
