Spanish journalists sign manifesto against 'mud machine'

Spanish journalists sign manifesto against 'mud machine'

A manifesto signed by thousands of journalists demanding an end to the "mud machine" and "coupism" has triggered intense debate regarding media independence and the relationship between the press and political power. The initiative, circulated via social networks, was backed by professionals such as Iñaki Gabilondo, while other prominent figures in Spanish journalism did not sign. The text, which its promoters say aims to defend democracy against coordinated attacks, was met with skepticism by those who believe the signatories are part of a media ecosystem aligned with the Government.

The manifesto and its signatories

Promoted by a group of journalists, the manifesto demands an end to the "mud machine" and "coupism," terms used by its proponents to describe what they consider a disinformation campaign against the Executive. The list of signatories includes Iñaki Gabilondo, as reported on social media, along with professionals from outlets such as Cadena SER, Público, and RTVE (Radio Televisión Española). However, the absence of names like Ferreras, Angels Barceló, Pepa Bueno, or Nachete Preescolar has been cited as evidence that certain journalistic sectors prefer to stay on the sidelines.

Presented as a civic and professional movement, the initiative quickly drew criticism. Various voices argue that the signatories form part of what they call the "grateful stomachs of the Regime," an expression suggesting dependency on power. Others claim the manifesto is an attempt to shield the president from judicial investigations affecting his inner circle.

What are the "mud machine" and "coupism"?

The "mud machine" is the term used by signatories to refer to an alleged strategy of disinformation and coordinated attacks against the Government and its allies. "Coupism" refers to attempts at political destabilization through non-democratic means. Both concepts appear in the manifesto as threats justifying journalist mobilization.

Critics of the initiative view these terms as smokescreens to divert attention from corruption cases involving members of the Executive. For instance, it is noted that the manifesto emerged amid judicial investigations into Begoña Gómez and Pedro Sánchez's brother, although the text does not directly address these issues. The discussion shifted to the quality of the signatories and the alleged ideological uniformity of the media they represent.

Reactions and division in the sector

The publication of the manifesto highlighted a fracture within Spanish journalism. On one side, supporters argue it is necessary to defend the profession against attacks from the "regime" and "fascists"; on the other, critics point out that the signatories are part of the media establishment and that their defense of democracy is selective.

Among critical voices, it has been noted that the signatory list includes professionals from public media like RTVE, which they argue compromises the corporation's impartiality. The absence of journalists from outlets considered critical of the Government has also been questioned, reinforcing the thesis that this is a partisan manifesto. The debate has devolved into accusations about who serves whom.

The role of public media

The participation of RTVE journalists in the manifesto sparked specific debate over the impartiality of public broadcasting. It is argued that professionals working for publicly funded media should maintain political neutrality and avoid endorsing initiatives of this nature. The signature of Silvia Intxaurrondo, a TVE presenter, was particularly criticized by those who believe her support compromises her objectivity.

Defenders of the manifesto argue that impartiality does not imply neutrality when facing what they perceive as attacks on democracy. This discussion reflects a broader tension regarding the role of public media in a polarized environment, where every gesture is interpreted as taking sides.

Consequences and current status

The manifesto remains open to new signatures and has generated intense debate on social media. No official reaction has come from the Government or opposition parties. The initiative served to expose alliances and frictions within the journalistic sector, highlighting the difficulty of reaching consensus on what it means to defend democracy from the media.

According to reports, the list of signatories, initially published openly, was switched to private mode after some names were leaked. This fueled suspicions that some professionals prefer not to appear publicly due to antiestéticar of retaliation or losing credibility with certain audience segments. The episode leaves an open question: Can a journalists' manifesto be an act of professional defense, or is it inevitably a political stance?