Horizonte loses credibility with daily format and banter

Horizon loses credibility with daily format and banter

A viewer who trinc the program online the next day opens the first message of the thread with a specific complaint: since the show airs daily, the journalist block has shifted from seriousness to almost constant banter. The complaint targets Carmen Porter mainly, describing her as an interruption-prone presence who swears and inserts herself into any topic. The diagnosis is simple yet debatable: more airtime, less filtering. From there, the issue drifts into much more uncomfortable territory.

What is debated when Horizon’s seriousness is questioned

The first reply to the initial message is a low blow with sarcasm: since Bélmez faces, Iker Jiménez has been in freefall, and that was true seriousness. The irony summarizes the dominant view: the show was never a temple of rigor, so losing seriousness is a chimera. Some argue the relaxation stems from a locked contract and a guaranteed season. Others point to a more prosaic change in register: daily broadcasting forces filling hours, turning the discussion into Mama Rosa, with opinionators and laughter instead of investigation.

The author of the initial message tries to steer the conversation back. He isn’t talking about Cuarto Milenio, he insists, but about the shift perceived in Horizon since it occupies several nights a week. Here enters the nuance that gives substance to the issue: it’s not that they were respectable before and aren’t now; it’s that the joking tone makes them less credible to the audience.

From discussion panel to parliamentary pointing finger

The issue gets tangled when politics appears. One message links a publication criticizing the journalism profession for not issuing a statement against the public shaming of a colleague in parliament. The response is that the Prime Minister gave them free promotion in Congress. The conversation then shifts to the DANA (severe storm) in Valencia and the Bonaire parking lot, where an Iker Jiménez post implied many bodies were found there. According to the exchange, no bodies were found in that parking lot, and in a later interview Jiménez himself denied saying there were dead people there. The contradiction remains on the table unresolved.

[MEDIA=twitter]yBL5TKLTD7[/MEDIA]

Some defend that the official death toll from the DANA is cut short compared to reality and that Jiménez was one of the least establishment informers of that event, bound by contractual obligations. The answer is blunt: you can’t jump into the pool without checking if there’s water.

Code 10, the audience, and the saber

Another front opens with Código 10. It is said that a right-wing voter heckled a collaborator on set, who called her a fascist for her vote, leading to viewer complaints and his removal from the show. The conclusion of the narrator is that the program is more serious than other news spaces. The counterpoint arrives with irony about Porter’s cleavage and Eduardo Inda’s presence, along with an unkind description of the atmosphere among the commentators.

The most repeated criticism concerns information. It is claimed that Porter validated debunked fake news and contradicted a local journalist who was a direct witness to the matter. A young guest of Iranian origin is mentioned, whom the other commentators stepped on when presenting their analysis, and it is noted that certain commentators are never challenged. The lingering question is simple: if basic facts aren’t verified, what seriousness are we talking about?

The political axis and suspicion of bias

The conversation turns toward alignment. Part of the messages claim the show has come to serve external interests and dropped its mask. Another part replies that they only denounce the Government, which is legitimate in private media, and that the real problem is the Prime Minister targeting journalists. The most repeated defense is comparative: however much seriousness it has lost, it remains more serious than any TV newscast.

The closure of the issue comes from someone who recalls that to lose something, you must have had it first. And an archival anecdote: an old program where Rajoy’s departure was sustained as an excuse to justify mass immigration and prepare right-wing policies. The conclusion of those bringing it up is that time has exposed that nonsense.

The last message returns to the beginning: the banter continues, and the blonde still inserts herself senselessly. It could be an interesting program. Sometimes it is. But some things don’t change.