Forum debate: Mediaset and the TV circus

Mediaset and the TV circus: the coverage that never comes

Last Sunday afternoon, all the major Spanish channels devoted their live broadcasts to Sol square in Madrid. A deployment that, according to complaints in the thread, had no equivalent when the protests in Ceuta broke out. The question hangs in the air: why do some demonstrations deserve hours of coverage while others, involving alleged serious crimes, vanish from the schedule?

The double standard of the TV schedule

The complaint is specific: the channels spent the entire afternoon on Sol square, but when 'terrible things, rapes and such' were being reported in Ceuta, the program Horizonte never left the topic. The reproach is no small matter. Mediaset is accused of trinc an agenda detached from news value, driven by political slogans. And a pattern is pointed out: what suits the Government gets amplified; what is uncomfortable gets silenced.

The rebuttal was not long in coming. Some argue that all the channels belong to the PSOE (Spain's Socialist Party), no exceptions. A claim that, through sheer repetition, loses its edge. Because if everything is the same, nothing matters. And there lies the problem: viewers end up assuming they are being taken for fools.

The business of selective outrage

The most cynical analysis points to the money. The highest-rated programs on these topics rake in advertising revenue. The attention-seeking crank fills the right-wing spectrum with lunatics, it is said, while other outlets survive on altruistic donations. The conclusion is bitter: the left has money to spare; the rest, mere survival.

But there is a nuance that throws things off. If the goal is to make money, why is the treatment so sloppy? Critics argue that sensationalism and ideological weather-vaning end up wrecking the product. Viewers of any stripe detect the manipulation. And when that happens, the business suffers.

Conviction as a double-edged weapon

Against the sloppiness, conviction. TVE and La Sens go 'with malice' and 'all out against the PP and Vox from dawn to dusk'. They do it with a certainty their voters applaud. The others, by contrast, get furious and bolt. The difference, the argument goes, is not in the facts but in the style. A lie repeated with apparent rigor becomes truth. A truth repeated with a foolish face ends up as fodder for cranks.

The prognosis is pessimistic: Sánchez is going to win. Because his voters have full conviction in the lies fed to them on TV, while on the right only the lunatics have conviction. The solution? Fall in line: have conservative media grab just like the others so they can manipulate just the same. Or stand by and watch.

The problem of media pluralism

The complaint extends to the lack of alternative outlets. 13tv, El Toro, Distrito TV barely have any resources. Critics argue that true media dissent never reaches the general public. And a paradox is pointed out: the Government sees fit to give airtime to the ghost-hunting crank to simulate pluralism, while real dissent is left gasping for oxygen.

The closing is an unanswered question: are all the channels really the same? If so, why do some rake in 1.2 billion while others live on scraps? The analysis stalls right there.