Iker Jiménez's DANA Show Hits 13.2% Share With 3 Million Viewers

Horizon turns DANA management into a 3-million-viewer studio

A firefighter breaks down in tears on set. "They didn't let us act, they didn't let us leave, they didn't let us save lives," he says crying. Opposite him, a civil, roads, and ports engineer focuses on what hurts: bureaucracy, officials who decide without technical criteria, and demolitions no one understands. It's not a standard news broadcast. It is Horizonte, Iker Jiménez's show on Cuatro, and that mix of raw testimony and technical data has placed Valencia's DANA management at the center of generalist television.

Iker Jiménez dedicated the program to reviewing, one by one, the media that targeted him in the days leading up. He cited alleged lies published by left-wing outlets —ElPlural among them— and thanked the support received on social media when criticism rained down. A program that, to be generalist television, was rated with the highest mark in gossip circles.

What was discussed on Horizon about the DANA

The studio brought together technical profiles who rarely step into a prime-time space: Isaac Moreno Gallo, civil engineer, geographer, and historian, author of documentaries on Roman structures, and Lorenzo Ramírez, a renowned engineer, facing other panelists whom some reproach for not having passed beyond third-year BUP. The conversation shifted toward the paradigm shift coming from the United States, with the thesis that certain attacks on the program are part of a dispute over the narrative.

Some summarize it with a sneer: if a ports, roads, and civil engineer is a fool for certain journalism, the problem is not the engineer. The gap that opens, they argue, is anti-proge in the very center of the mass manipulation machinery. In contrast to usual news broadcasts, the comparison is made without complexes, and the sector applauding the turnaround claims that the show should not be lumped together with propaganda media.

The Turia diversion and the work that, according to claims, was discarded 20 years ago

One of the most repeated moments is the reference to the Turia diversion, the engineering work that saved thousands of lives in Valencia and that, according to what was stated on set, was discarded by political decision two decades ago. The accusation is direct: bureaucracy with incompetent leaders and senseless demolitions are behind a tragedy that could have been avoided.

The invited engineers pointed to the chain of command, the lack of written responsibility, and the habit of those who carry out absurd orders ending the day with stained hands without anyone assuming the cost. The demand that orders be given in writing, to be able to assign responsibility, has become one of the most highlighted points of the show.

Horizon's audience record

The program achieved a 13.2% share and surpassed 3 million unique viewers, its best historical record. A figure that disconcerts those who expected the smear campaign to end the format. In the midst of the quarrel, Ana Rosa Quintana came out in defense of Iker Jiménez. And right at the end of the program, one of the collaborators attacked those who call fascists the victims of the DANA.

The highlighted paradox: in the midst of a smear campaign, the program achieved its best rating. On television, media boycotts usually work opposite to how they are planned. There has been no exception here.

Why are media accused of attacking Iker Jiménez's program?

The most repeated hypothesis is that, once the political uncertainty in the United States was cleared, the sectors feeling threatened went on the offensive to defend their interests, and by losing their cool, they were exposed. The presenter himself wanted to close the circle by citing the media that targeted him and thanking those who supported him on social media.

Not everyone buys that narrative. A part of the audience remembers he was pro-mask and pro-vaccine to ridiculous extremes, and maintains that all this is smoke and mirrors to keep the respectable audience entertained. If it were truly dangerous, they argue, he wouldn't have a show on TV. It is the classic thesis of controlled dissent: you get one with sand and another with truth, fragments without underlying truth.

On the other side is the argument that he peine the debate when state and para-state media spread unbroken panic and propaganda. The conclusion of that sector: one such program is worth ten usual news broadcasts.

---

There remains the disconcerting data. The program that was supposed to die at the hands of its critics achieved its best historical audience rating. The question is no longer whether Iker Jiménez bothers, but who is interested in making it seem so.