Horizonte's lighter tone sparks debate over its credibility

Horizonte changes its tone and fuels the debate over its credibility

A show that used to be watched the next day, calmly, and that now airs daily. That change of pace —from a weekly appointment to a Monday-to-Wednesday format of just over an hour— is the starting point of a complaint running through Iker Jiménez's program: the feeling that the studio has relaxed into seeming like a bar-room chat. The most repeated criticism is not about the topics, but about the tone: near-constant goofing around, jokes that swallow the analysis, and a Carmen Porter who, for part of the audience, «jumps in on anything» and never lets anyone speak.

The underlying accusation is specific: what was once seen as an investigative show has become a space where silliness replaces the facts. And it is not just an isolated impression. The conversation brings up names and specific episodes as proof: the discussion about the flooded parking garage in the Valencia DANA (the October 2024 flooding disaster), where it is claimed that no body was found and that the host himself denied having said otherwise; the clash between Porter and Pedro Baños over whether women in Iran could not work or study, with the expert replying «lie»; or the complaint that an Iranian guest was talked over until he fell silent.

From seriousness to a living room with a drink in hand

The most repeated diagnosis has to do with complacency. «There's far too much familiarity, which I personally don't like at all», sums up the opening argument. The thesis is that that ease, which in a weekly show could pass for rapport, turns into loss of control in a daily format. Some attribute it to the season being guaranteed: «they've relaxed because their season is guaranteed». Others point to the natural wear of repeating the same panelists every day.

The contrast drawn is between two eras. That of Cuarto Milenio and its interesting guests —a show about the faces of Bélmez is cited as an example of that period— versus a present where the studio «looks like your living room at home with a drink in hand». The complaint is not that the show is entertainment, but that it has lost its balance: «The show doesn't have to be a funeral, that's clear, but I don't know, I don't like that it now looks like mamá Rosa's chat show».

The DANA parking garage and other cracks in credibility

The flooded parking garage in the 2024 Valencia DANA works as a test case. Some argue that Iker Jiménez spread the idea that there were bodies in that underground garage and that later, in an interview with Risto Mejide, he replied that he had never said such a thing. The response given in the conversation is blunt: «Does he take us for idiots?». Against that, another camp defends that he said it personally on social media, not on the show, and that he was the only one who came out to apologize.

Here the debate splits. Some consider the show was «one of the least establishment-aligned sources» on the catastrophe, and that time will tell whether it stayed silent more than it spoke. Others recall that the official death toll is «heavily trimmed compared to the real one», though without offering an alternative figure. The discussion tangles over whether rigor is measured by what is said or by what is left unsaid.

The political turn and the wear of the daily format

Another line of criticism points to the editorial drift. It is argued that the show has thrown itself into criticizing the Government —«they keep dredging up dirt on the PSOE»— and that this has turned it into something else. The reply from the other side is that a private outlet can do that and that the problem is the rest of the press, not this show. The discussion about whether the program has become politicized crosses paths with the one about tone: for some, the goofing is a sign of relaxation; for others, of having lost the antiestéticar of being uncomfortable.

The result, several voices agree, is a format that burns out. «Every day with the same thing may end up burning them out», the warning goes. And the wear is not only on the loyal audience: also on those who watched it days later online and who, at this rate, «not even that».

What is saved and what is lost

Not everything is reproach. Some defend that, with all its flaws, the show is still «far more serious than any newscast, news program or newspaper». And others recall that the silliness is not exclusive to this studio: «It's not as if the other channels don't do it too». The discussion, at bottom, is not only about Horizonte, but about the bar a show is held to when it was born with journalistic-investigation ambitions and now competes in its slot with the rest of the schedule.

The question left hanging is whether the daily format is sustainable at the level of rigor the audience demands. Ratings figures do not appear in the conversation. Nor a decision from the network. Only the acknowledgment that the show has changed and that part of its audience no longer quite recognizes it.