What we have here is a message posted on X by Bertrand Ndongo calling Sarah Santa Olalla vulgar. It offers no verifiable facts about her: it is an opinion with a megaphone, not information.
**Bertrand Ndongo** posted a message on **X** calling **Sarah Santa Olalla** vulgar and attaching a graphic file. The text, in French, reads: «Progenitora mía, TRÈS VULGAIRE», tagging the account of the person targeted. There is no argument and no context. Nor any verifiable fact.
## Public mockery works as a format
Pointing at someone in front of your own audience manufactures reactions, and reactions are what **X** monetises. Since 2023 it has been distributing revenue among subscribed accounts according to the impressions they generate.
A derogatory adjective travels faster than a fact and requires no verification. Public mockery works as a format: it pays off without needing to be true.
## An adjective is not a fact
About **Sarah Santa Olalla**, that post contains no information about her health, her work or her financial situation. An adjective measures nothing.
All there is, is an opinion signed by someone with a megaphone.
## Who profits from the exposure
The split is uneven: the person posting gains visibility, the platform gains engagement time, and the person targeted gets the exposure.
Nothing that was shared allows any claim to be made about the state of health of the person targeted. That is a matter for a healthcare professional, not a post with an adjective.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication.
Read the full discussion (4 replies).
Spanish commentator Sarah Santaolalla poses in a T-shirt reading 7291, the number of care home victims in Madrid, reigniting the row over the political use of tragedy.
La Séptima adds Alba Carrillo to its line-up after her exit from Ten, and the channel run by Javier Ruiz and Sarah Santaolalla is filling up with well-known faces before it even starts broadcasting.