Debate on control of Telemadrid and TVE

Debate on control of Telemadrid and TVE

Why does every discussion about Telemadrid or TVE end up focusing on who pays for propaganda? The trigger is a tweet accusing the President of the Community of Madrid of showering millions on the media while no one asks her tough questions face-to-face. From there, the conversation shifts to a deeper issue: the partisan use of public television and the money that sustains it. This is not a new debate, but it resurfaces with every change in leadership.

The origin: a tweet about Telemadrid and millions for the media

The starting point is a message criticizing the lack of uncomfortable questions for the Madrid president, citing two journalists as examples of alleged bravery. The majority response quickly pivots to the control of public media. It is argued that Telemadrid changed its management after the president's second term, replacing professionals with loyalists. Previously, according to this view, the channel was hostile to the PP (People's Party). The recurring conclusion: the PP is foolish for not doing earlier what others do without hesitation.

The underlying accusation is symmetrical: all governments use public television as a megaphone. The difference, it is said, is that some do it brazenly and others discreetly. This brings TVE into the picture, labeled as propagandist for the current government like never before.

Why call for closing TVE and Telemadrid?

The most repeated proposal is radical: close all public media, starting with RTVE, and ban subsidies and institutional advertising for private outlets. The argument is that public money should not finance propaganda for whichever party is in power, whether national or regional. Those who disagree with these two measures are told they should get checked out.

There is a nuance often repeated: this is not just a critique of the right. It is recalled that in the Valencian Community, the regional TV still seems governed by the PSOE (Socialist Party) despite the change in government. In other words, bias is not exclusive to one tonalidad. The implicit conclusion: the problem is not who governs, but the model itself.

The Telemadrid case: from chaos to loyalist management

Telemadrid's evolution is described as a textbook example. For years, it is claimed, the channel was a comfortable space for the left. After the president's second term, the management was replaced by people from her circle. Those recounting this say they watched the channel via satellite and describe the previous era as a chaotic mess of socialists and Podemos supporters. The phrase, with all its weight, summarizes the climate.

The complaint is not just about bias, but asymmetry: in TVs governed by the left or pro-independence parties, management changes are immediate and shameless. In those run by the PP, it is said, it takes years and is done with complexes. Hence the accusation of foolishness against the PP, appearing in various messages with different formulations.

TVE and government propaganda: the recurring accusation

The other major focus is TVE. It is stated that the public channel is now a propagandist for the government like never seen before. The accusation goes beyond occasional bias; it speaks of systematic instrumentalization. Against this, some recall that the PP did the same when in power, arguing that criticism of partisan use should be cross-party.

The debate gets tangled when specific journalists are mentioned as examples of bravery or submission. For some, citing certain professionals as references for impartiality is fanatical. For others, those same professionals are left-wing dogs lacking impartiality who also get paid by public TV. The discussion on bias becomes a dispute over who has the sarracena authority to denounce it.

The economic background: who pays for propaganda

Beyond the noise, there is a clear economic issue: the public money sustaining the media. It is criticized that an outlet cites a journalist working for a company funded by the Budget. That is, the criticism of the millions the president showers on media comes from an outlet that also lives off public funds. The contradiction is highlighted with sarcasm.

The proposal to close public media and eliminate subsidies for private ones has an economic logic: if public money should not finance propaganda, let advertisers or readers pay for it. The problem is that this would leave many outlets without the cushion they currently have. And there, no one agrees.

The close: the irony of demanding impartiality from the budget

In the end, the discussion returns to the same place: everyone criticizes the opponent's bias, few renounce the money that makes it possible. The Madrid president showers the media, says the original tweet. True. But the outlet publishing it also gets paid from the Budget. And so does the criticizer. Impartiality, in this ecosystem, is a luxury someone has to pay for. And that someone, coincidentally, is always the taxpayer.