Alvise video fails to shift Rubiales media narrative

Alvise’s video doesn’t topple the narrative: the media machine holds

The video changed nothing. Watching morning news reports with footage of the national team bus—players joking, asking for a second kiss, treating the incident lightly—confirms the script was written before cameras rolled. No uncomfortable headlines. No questions breaking the frame. The Rubiales case continues to be told using the same template as day one, leaving those expecting a turnaround staring at their screens.

This is the recurring interpretation: the media machinery hasn’t wavered in the slightest. It is worth understanding why.

Why doesn’t a video topple a media narrative?

Because narratives don’t rest on evidence; they rest on frames. When undeniable material emerges, the response isn’t correction but damage control. The video airs, gets minimized, and life moves on. A fact circulating from the start—which would have closed the file in any other matter—is that the player herself stated in an initial interview it was nothing, calling people overly suspicious. That didn’t deactivate anything; it was integrated into the script without noise.

The second move is classic. When the message is inconvenient, attack the messenger. TV panels repeat that those spreading the material have pending cases and lost lawsuits—never mentioning wins—which, in TV logic, amounts to admitting the content cannot be refuted. Focusing on who speaks rather than what is said summarizes another reading: it signals the debate has been lost.

From sensual assault to improper behavior

The third move is shifting the object. The kiss is no longer debated. Instead, there is discussion about whether it constitutes sensual assault, immediately jumping to accumulated gestures: waving hands in the box, arrogant attitude, lack of apologies. One commentator says live she doesn’t know if it’s assault—which practically means knowing it isn’t—but argues the player should join the complaint out of solidarity with other women. The frame shifts without anyone acknowledging the change.

Throughout the exchange, versions emerge about alleged psychological leave and the footballer’s professional plans, always attributed but never confirmed. All serve to keep alive a story whose original event, according to this reading, lacks substance.

Economic smokescreen: fuel, oil, and employment

Here enters the economy, with shopping basket data. Fuel exceeds €1.8 per liter. Extra virgin olive oil passes €11 per liter. Summer jobs end, and inflation rises sharply again. With elections on the horizon, it is argued that the media circus serves a specific function: entertaining the public while purchasing power bleeds away. The figure of the useful idiot, the character appearing to cover up what truly happens, appears repeatedly.

This isn’t an isolated hypothesis. Warnings note that falling general inflation doesn’t match checkout prices and that unemployment is the real pressure point. The shared conclusion is uncomfortable: if focus is on the studio, it isn’t on the paycheck.

Wilson, the Creel Commission, and manufacturing consensus

The precedent recalled is over a century old. Woodrow Wilson was re-elected US president in 1916 with the slogan "He kept us out of war." Shortly after, his Creel Commission turned a peaceful population into supporters of entering the conflict in six months. Propaganda doesn’t persuade with arguments: it saturates.

Hence the comparison with the pandemic, cited as a crash course in information discipline. And hence the recurring reading of the current issue: it doesn’t matter what comes out, because the goal isn’t convincing anyone of anything specific, but making clear that dissenters are excluded. Truth becomes a secondary detail, and the screen, the only judge. The same effect is attributed to coverage of other wars: repetition of images and official reports eventually anesthetizes the capacity to react.

The Rubiales case stays where it was

Closing the review leaves the feeling of having watched a familiar movie. Media reframes, studios deflect, and the economy continues its course with rising inflation and gold-priced oil. In court, with evidence and contradictions on the table, the outcome could differ; some hint at this without much faith. But while the trial remains the studio’s, everything points to the video being forgotten in days and the narrative holding, for another season, without anyone needing to give explanations.