Xataka Criticizes Iker Jiménez: Tech Media Becomes Political Battleground

Xataka Criticizes Iker Jiménez: Tech Media Becomes Political Battleground

A technology blog posted a tweet against Iker Jiménez after losing an advertiser trinc the DANA disaster. The issue isn't the tweet itself, but that a gadget and software outlet has become another ideological trench. News from Xataka states the presenter lost his first major sponsor, ING, due to comments on the catastrophe. The ensuing debate accuses the media outlet rather than defending the host: the suspicion that Xataka is no longer what it claims to be.

From tech blog to pamphlet: recurring accusations

The most repeated criticism targets the editorial line, not Iker Jiménez. Several messages claim Xataka stopped being a tech blog long ago, becoming a clickbait site with agenda-driven content. Topics like climate change, electric cars, or the Ukraine war are cited as examples of drift responding to interests unrelated to tech journalism. Accusations that they are bought off hang over many responses, though no concrete proof of payment exists.

One recurring detail is comment censorship. A participant claims nearly 4,000 accumulated messages were deleted over five years after defending Iker Jiménez, attributed by the outlet to a technical glitch. Another asserts critical comments vanish while supportive ones remain. The perception of selective censorship generates the most outrage.

Why does a tech outlet discuss Iker Jiménez?

The question titling the debate has an implicit answer in the messages: because the outlet belongs to a broader structure. Xataka's parent group is mentioned, accused of aligning with the Government. The idea that three-quarters of the press is fed with public money explains why a supposedly technical outlet covers a mystery and crime show host. No verification exists for this figure, but there is a shared sense that Spain's media ecosystem operates via party lines.

The ING case adds another layer. It is argued the Dutch bank channels aid to Valencia through the Red Cross, explaining its interest in distancing itself from a presenter critical of DANA management. This is a hypothesis, not proven fact, but fits the narrative that advertising decisions are not neutral.

Call-to-action effect: from complaint to boycott

The debate shifts toward boycotting ING. Several messages urge closing accounts and moving salaries and pension plans. The hashtag #AdiosING appears linked to the withdrawal of advertising from Iker Jiménez's program. This is the logical step in a discussion starting with a tweet and ending by questioning the relationship between banking, media, and political power.

Comparisons with Broncano arise as a counterpoint. Some wonder how a mystery host has more influence than a public TV star; the answer given is that Iker's audience is younger and has higher purchasing power than other formats. This is a hypothesis without supporting audience data, but reflects a widespread intuition: TV consumption no longer measures real impact.

The unchallenged argument: the silent majority

Against the idea that Iker Jiménez is a marginal phenomenon, several messages argue the opposite: his audience is the silent majority absent from conventional media. They claim audience data is manipulated and that this public's true weight will be seen at the polls. This is a political assertion, not verifiable data, but explains why the debate has become a thermometer of discontent with the official narrative.

The debate ends without conclusions. Only one observation: a tech outlet managed to make people talk more about its editorial line than about the lost advertiser. Was that the goal?