Two admirers, two friends, two slaves, two servants (Cristian Campos in El Hapañol)

Pedro Sánchez's interview on La 1 with Jesús Cintora and Esther Palomera has been described as "journalistically irrelevant" and a "waste of time," with the journalists accused of trinc the Moncloa's talking points.

The interview granted by **Pedro Sánchez** to **Jesús Cintora** and **Esther Palomera** on La 1 has generated considerable debate about the quality of journalism and the relationship between political power and public media. The criticism focuses on the apparent lack of rigor and questioning by the interviewers, who allegedly yielded to the Prime Minister's directives, even being described as "admirers," "friends," "slaves," or "servants" of sanchismo.

**Cristian Campos**, author of the column on which this analysis is based, expresses his embarrassment at what he witnessed, suggesting that Sánchez's demand to be interviewed by Cintora and Palomera reveals a perception of them as mere loudspeakers for his discourse, rather than as independent journalists. The idea that "the affection of the corrupt" can be more revealing than "the contempt of the honest" is used to illustrate a situation where complacency seems to prevail over scrutiny.

## The interview as a reflection of power

The public television, funded by all Spaniards, becomes the stage for this encounter. The criticism points out that, instead of exercising a watchdog role, the journalists opted for a complacent stance, facilitating the president's discourse. The decision of **Cintora** and **Palomera** to accept the invitation under these conditions is questioned, suggesting that an upright journalist should have refused, arguing that they do not wish to be part of a "club" that accepts them as mere trinc.

The interview is described as "journalistically irrelevant" and an "absolute waste of time," even compared unfavorably to coverage of events like the siege of **Waco**. Concrete examples are presented to support this criticism. One refers to Judge **Tardón**, investigated for an alleged "abusa of national territory." Instead of questioning Sánchez about the investigation, it is asked whether the aim was to scrutinize the judge or those investigating her. The question of why the judge was not interviewed directly if the goal was to criticize her underscores the perception of a biased approach.

**Sánchez**'s reaction to **Cintora**'s questions, described as a "smirking face" while the latter "recited the Moncloa's talking points," reinforces the idea of an orchestrated interview. The irony is accentuated by noting that La 1 is described as "the most private of all Spanish private channels."

## Questions about Caja Madrid and immigration

The analysis delves into contradictions and unasked questions. It is noted that if the status of former board member of **Caja Madrid** disqualifies Judge **Tardón** from her role, why does it not disqualify Sánchez from being Prime Minister? It is asked whether **Sánchez** had responsibility in the bank's collapse and who is more harmed by having been a board member: a judge who applies laws or a president who manages the country's economy.

Another point of friction is immigration, particularly in relation to **Ceuta**. When **Sánchez** stated that the alternative to allowing the "invasion" of the city by **Segarro** was "shooting," it is questioned why **Cintora** and **Palomera** did not explore intermediate solutions or ask about alternatives that other countries like **Singapore**, **Japan**, **South Korea**, or **Poland** use to keep illegal immigration practically at zero without resorting to violence. The implicit question is whether the president's mind is so "primitive" or "politically incapable" as to not see other options.

The incivil conviction of **Pedro Sánchez**'s brother, **David Sánchez**, is also scrutinized. When the president announced that "they would appeal" the sentence, it is asked who that "we" is and why the president should meddle in his brother's incivil defense. The possibility of using State lawyers is insinuated, which could constitute a crime. The final question is whether his brother's conviction affects him enough to mobilize State resources, but not enough to resign, as any other president in a democratic country would do if a close relative were convicted of a crime directly related to his political position.

## Ideology and "bad journalism"

The article mentions an Interior Ministry report that attributes to **Cintora** a "left-wing ideology, especially akin to groups alternative to the PSOE" and to **Palomera** a "moderate left-wing ideology, generally favorable to government policies." This description, described as an "elegant way of putting it," suggests that ideological alignment may have influenced the interviewers' passivity.

A moment is described in which **Sánchez** could barely contain his laughter at a question from **Cintora**, and **Palomera** allegedly allowed her colleague to assume the "ridicule" while the president enjoyed the situation. In **Palomera**, despite her apparent greater self-control and modesty, certain "muscle reflexes" are perceived at key moments.

One of these reflexes occurs when **Sánchez** complains about the media coverage of statements by **Aldama**, described as "a incivil." **Palomera**'s whispered response, "the coverage," is interpreted as a tacit admission that the president's corruption should indeed have coverage. Another notable moment is when, asked about the General State Budget, **Sánchez** "commits" to holding the debate "before the end of the year." **Palomera**'s response, "very good, very good," is criticized for not questioning the Government's inability to pass budgets in four years and its refusal to call elections.

Finally, **Sánchez**'s reaction is mentioned when he labels as "descendants of Francoism" those who question the actions of **Óscar Puente**'s sister in the BOE, creating new Spaniards with the right to vote. Neither **Cintora** nor **Palomera** showed any reaction to this "civil war-like barbarity." Nor did they respond when **Sánchez** reduced the situation in **Ceuta** to a problem of "reception capacity," ignoring the question of why there should be centers for illegal immigrants or why Ceutíes must accept a life surrounded by crime. The interview concludes with **Sánchez** stating that we must "hate less," to which **Cintora** responds with an "absolutely," in a tone the author describes as almost devotional.