Private media outlets face competition from public media outlets financed by the state

The event once again brought together, this time at the headquarters of the Diario Madrid Foundation, two hundred established and aspiring journalists from all of Spain's autonomous communities. They gathered to discuss the usual topics: the uses and abuses of the journalism profession, the difficulties it faces and the mistakes it makes.

As Miguel Ángel Aguilar, its secretary general, points out, "at the APE we have learned that without freedoms, journalism cannot exist, as it would be forced underground or reduced to mere propaganda. But the reverse is also true: freedoms would be affected if there were no independent, critical and truthful journalism, since freedoms are not won once and for all, but are subject to a process of permanent erosion, and therefore require attention and vigilance in order to remain valid".

The debate between José Antonio Zarzalejos (chairman of the Editorial Board of El Confidencial), Julián Quirós (editor-in-chief of ABC) and Encarna Samitier (chairwoman of 20 Minutos), with Pilar Velasco (editor-in-chief of Demócrata) acting as moderator, was particularly poignant, raising the heated issue of media subsidies.

Zarzalejos took up the gauntlet with a forceful statement: ‘Money from political power is toxic,’ before launching into the main salvo of his remarks. Thus, after clarifying that he does not think it appropriate to emphasise that, in the chapter on subsidies from the government to various services - transport, construction, automotive, etc. - ‘the media cannot be compared to other services because they themselves are part of the political system’, a substantial difference and one for which the political establishment seeks all sorts of pretexts to control them.

In his view, Donald Trump and Trumpism have come to demonstrate that the media are dispensable and that political communication can be done directly, without intermediaries. "In Spain, however, in addition to the financial weaknesses of the private media due to their business model, they have a lethal adversary in the public media - national and regional television and radio stations - which are financed with public money, that is, with the taxes and money of all Spaniards, but not to fulfil an essential public service, as they claim, but to occupy spaces of spectacle and entertainment without spending limits, which always end up being covered by the governments, either national or regional, i.e. the taxpayers themselves."

Encarna Samitier pointed to the turning point in the decline of the journalism business as the economic and financial crisis of 2008, when, in order to alleviate it, so-called institutional advertising appeared. In this regard, the editor-in-chief of ABC described it as ‘a defeat for the journalism profession that we have accepted that institutional advertising is synonymous with covert subsidies in the public eye, when it is an information service of public interest for which people pay, just as they do for a multitude of advertisements and specific information aimed at certain sectors of the population.’

The phenomenon is not new, since political power has always been tempted to encourage both the docility of the suitable and the exclusion of dissidents, those lacking affinity, the less fervent, who would be discriminated against in the granting of aid or subsidies, either directly or through institutional advertising, in a new version of the carrot and stick approach.

Under the provocative generic title ‘Who defines, rules’, the conference opened with another intense debate, featuring UAM professor Diego Garrocho; the director and presenter of Las Noticias2 (Antena3), Vicente Vallés; Fernando González Urbaneja, president of the Commission for Arbitration, Complaints and Journalism Ethics; and Anabel Díez, journalist for El País and president of the Association of Parliamentary Journalists. The debate was moderated by Rafa Latorre, director of La Brújula (Onda Cero).

Fortunately for the whole of Europe, but especially for our country, the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) has now come into force. Many attempts to control the media and gather unwavering support from journalists will have to be curbed by this directive, which aims to protect the independence of the media and journalism, guaranteeing transparency of ownership and financing, as well as safeguarding journalists from interference, espionage and the unjustified removal of content by digital platforms. However, it remains to be defined who is a journalist and who is not, and who is therefore subject to regulations such as those included in the draft organic law on professional secrecy for journalists. 

‘This definition,’ says Garrocho, ‘will also include the decision-making power to define what is or is not true, and this will mean unquestionable sovereign power.’ It would therefore be absolutely pernicious for such power to fall solely to a partisan politician. Vicente Vallés spoke out in favour of this profession being recognised as open, in reference to the specific requirements and demands for qualifications. Vallés also urged that, in the exercise of the profession, ‘a journalist can be clearly distinguished from a [political] activist’.

Veteran journalist Fernando G. Urbaneja took up the gauntlet thrown down by Anabel Díez that ‘there is no longer any calm journalism’, alluding to the rush in the newsroom to be the first to publish ‘the news’. Urbaneja believes, however, that ‘today's newsrooms have lost their nerve because many editors have ceased to play their role as promoters of insurgency among writers, and therefore of disagreement and discussion, from which great ideas arise’.