After several US television networks decided to interrupt, early this Friday, the transmission of an incendiary speech by the president Donald Trump a great controversy and a deep debate has been generated all over the world about whether or not it is lawful to make that decision when understanding that falsehoods are being transmitted to the world. It is time to analyze the question at a historic moment in the United States. EL PERIÓDICO joins the aforementioned debate by consulting a good handful of experts in the field. “Is it okay to cut Trump while he’s live?”. The answers:
MANUEL CAMPO VIDAL, journalist and former president of the Television Academy
“The decision of the North American television networks to cut off the statement of still President Trump is a response to his proven ability to spread false information without shame. Up to 14 per day on average, according to ‘The Washington Post’. If he accuses of fraud without any proof, his statement is useless. Trump has already run out of credit. Even with Fox, the only US network that supported him during the electoral campaign ”
JON SISTIAGA, reporter and television presenter
“There is no censorship of Trump. It is rather Trump who censors by not making statements to the media that are not favorable to him. What the networks did yesterday is what they should have done a long time ago, no matter how president of the United States. Honest journalism is based on verification, on ‘fact checking’ and on the contrasting and reliability of sources, and that is what Trump himself has exploded. They should have told him before: “You are lying “. I did not think it bad that they cut it because it was not providing any proof of what it was saying. Just as Twitter has warned him in recent days that the content spilled was not real or honest, the chains should not have folded to that Trump call them to order and play with them in a capricious way deciding which journalist to answer or not to. I think it was late. “
JUAN RAMÓN LUCAS, director and presenter of ‘La brújula’ in Onda Cero
“I have some doubts, but I think that finally I would have cut. I think it is part of our responsibility to clean the garbage channels when you know it is. It is not up to us to decide what is right and wrong when managing information, but be vigilant in the face of openly and decidedly false content. Perhaps in another time I would have had more reservations, but in this universe of global information, with the constant flow of false news that is spread without shame and often with all the intention, it is responsibility of whom we acquire the commitment to inform, to ensure as far as possible that false or erroneous content is not disseminated “.
ANTONIO GARCÍA FERRERAS, director of ‘Al Rojo vivo’ by La Sexta
“For three US media giants such as CBS, ABC or NBC to interrupt Trump’s intervention because they consider it an accumulation of falsehoods is a spectacular television moment. But if La Sexta had been part of the North American ecosystem, we would have opted for the CNN formula. , offer the intervention in its entirety and then dismantle his delusional accusations and analyze the reason for this dangerous strategy in response to his electoral defeat.We are witnessing these days, live, brutal attacks by the US president himself on his own democratic system. That moment must be seen and contemplated in its entirety, even if it is a terrifying political spectacle. ”
XAVIER SARDÁ, journalist, communicator and television presenter
“Of course I agree to cut his speech. This could be titled ‘The denounced lie’. Trump has lost ethical power before the political one. Winning is easy. The greatness is in knowing how to lose. Trump is already history with a small letter” .
PACO GONZÁLEZ, director of ‘Game Time’ at COPE and recent Ondas Award
“I believe that a chain, if it is private, can have the editorial line it deems appropriate. As a journalist, I would have waited to see if it provided any evidence in its speech, in the style of what the former Nevada attorney general said about who had voted dead. But I suppose they know Trump better and they already knew that only a flood of disqualifications would come next. Being private channels they are within their right to broadcast whatever they think is convenient, although I do not think that televisions are guarantors of the morality precisely. But it is his right. “
JUAN CARLOS ORTEGA, television, radio and press comedian
“It seems magnificent to me that Trump can be cut, I would even say that it is hygienic. What worries me is the reverse case; for example, that this Government, the one here, in Spain, tries to decide what is true and what is not. That really touches my nose. “
NEMESIO RODRÍGUEZ. President of the Federation of Associations of Journalists of Spain (FAPE)
“I think the North American TVs have been wrong. The journalists’ mission is to guarantee the right to information. If you cut the broadcast of a president’s press conference, no matter how unsympathetic it falls or many atrocities it says, you are violating The networks should have kept Trump’s speech on the air, and if he told lies, then they should have pointed them out. But silencing him is a mistake. In a country as polarized as the United States, this only serves to feed theories conspiracy of the followers of Trump, that now they will be able to say: you see how the big means censor us?
ISAAC HERNÁNDEZ. Political Marketing Expert
“The decision of the networks to stop broadcasting Trump’s press conference in the middle of the act has been a strategic error by the media and a great victory for the still president of the United States. Trump draws attention for his extravagance. He lets his same complaint about the elections be repeated continuously, in the end it ceases to be news. However, by censoring him, the stations have fallen for his game, because he can now sell that informational decision as a hostile act against him and his voters. Actually, they have done him a favor. If I were part of Trump’s advisory team, I would be happy with what happened, because this is going to allow him to fuel his victimhood. In terms of political marketing, this has been a great success for the Republican candidate. “
ANTONI GUTIÉRREZ RUBÍ. Political communication expert
“Fake news is countered with democracy, not censorship.”
“Donald Trump is not an electoral accident. He is the result of a transformation of American society. Like it or not, he is still the incumbent president, and represents tens of millions of citizens. In fact, practically 1 out of every 2 Americans. The best way to counteract false news, hoaxes and lies is not by lashing out at it, or even censoring it. The response of our societies and democracies must be precisely with more and better democracy. Work to strengthen, deepening and expanding democratic values is, with total conviction, the best vaccine that a society like the United States, or even ours, can have. “
CRISTINA MONGE. Political scientist
“I thought very well what Twitter did on election night with Trump’s tweets: it did not censor them, but put up a sign warning that it contained falsehoods. On the other hand, the decision of the networks to cut their press conference seems to me a mistake, because it allows him to sell himself as a victim. Instead of silencing him, they should have let him speak and then have given way to a journalist who would have pointed out the falsehoods of his speech, as Twitter did. But censoring him only ends up giving his followers ammunition The satisfaction that many have felt when they see that the chains stopped their feet is of little use, because the challenge of North American society is no longer Trump, but the Trumpism that has been installed in this country. And this helps them. “