In a presidential debateJust like in any massive spectacle – such as football, a concert or a movie, to give three examples – each attendee will see, applaud and criticize what they want to see, applaud and/or criticise.
Therefore, in the end, the opinion The quality of the game, the concert or the movie will depend on different variables, such as the knowledge that each of those who give their opinion about the show has and expresses.
That is, the experts will say one thing, the moderately knowledgeable will give another opinion and the ignorant will talk nonsense.
However, there are other factors that influence the opinion of the experts”, about the quality of a game, a concert or a film.
For example, it is new to no one that big enterprises What do they do business With shows such as football, concerts or cinema, they have paid “experts” who, coincidentally, give their opinion on what their bosses order them to do.
That is why, from time to time, we see or read that “experts” praise a football game, a concert or a movie, even though “general opinion” or so-called “public opinion” says that it is a game, a concert or a trashy movie.
But what do you think about the topic?
Yes, precisely that happened in the First Presidential Debate.
Indeed, it turns out that media such as El Universal, Reforma, Televisa, Latinus, Excélsior, La Jornada, SDP and many others, organized “analysis tables” on the debate, where “the experts” from such media spoke as if there were no seen the debate.
Many of those “experts” even went to the crazy extreme of applauding “the formidable” abilities of the ruling party candidate to lie, simulate and deceive and, because of those “qualities”, they declared her the winner.
That is, “the experts” saw a debate diametrically opposed to what the majority of voters witnessed.
What happened? Why did citizens, in general, see one debate and “the experts” another? Why, in the opinion of many citizens, did candidate Xóchitl win the debate and many “experts” say she lost?
The underlying question, however, goes further. Why, on social networks, were “the experts” of the mainstream media not only beaten by citizens, but also accused of being “sellouts” and “traitors”?
To answer the previous questions, let's go step by step.
1.- Few know that the majority of the supposed “experts” of media outlets such as Televisa, Reforma, El Universal, Excélsior, La Jornada, SDP and Latinus, among others, are not “experts” in elections, nor in debates, much less in policy.
2.- In reality, the majority of those who participated in “the tables” of analysis of the First Debate They are only “professional opinionators.” That is, they are paid in their media to “give their opinion” on everything. But it must be insisted, “they are not experts” in elections, nor in debates, much less in politics.
3.- And if they are paid for and to “give an opinion” on everything and everyone, audiences have no guarantee that those opinions are exempt from the servility that in many cases large media companies have imposed.
4.- But perhaps the worst thing about the matter is that the supposed “experts” also do not know that “opinion” is a journalistic genre that is defined as the extreme opposite of the news.
5.- In short, the news is a journalistic genre that requires unrestricted attachment to the truth, as close as possible to reality.
6.- At the same time, opinion is, by definition, the most subjective expression possible and imaginable, since it is a very personal, intimate and unique appreciation of this or that event.
That is, there can be as many millions of opinions about the First Debate as millions of citizens saw it. And without a doubt each of these opinions is legitimate, but it is also true that they are unique.
7.- Therefore, we must understand that as individual, personal and intimate expressions – and by definition subjective -, none of the opinions on the debate, of the supposed “experts”, are attached to reality. They are just that, personal appreciations.
8.- For this reason, through networks, millions of citizens beat up “the experts” from Televisa, Reforma, El Universal, Latinus, La Jornada and SDP, among others, whom they called “sellouts and “traitors.” And, although citizens are not experts in politics, elections or the media, the facts confirm that they sense that an opinion is the furthest thing from reality.
9.- Also for this reason, the reality that millions of citizens saw during the debate is not only different but contrary to the opinion expressed by “the experts” who gave Claudia the winner of the debate and Xóchitl the loser.
Worse still, in their ignorance and unlimited arrogance, some “experts” went to the extreme of “bullshit” those who had a different opinion than them.
10.- Therefore, so that “the experts” understand, the final question. And then what really happened in the debate?
The answer lies in the news, the journalistic genre forced to tell the facts as closely as possible to reality.
And the news of the debate says that Claudia lied the whole time; She says she didn't answer 27 direct questions; She says that she misled about the results of her government in CDMX and that she repeated many of AMLO's campaign promises, which have not been fulfilled.
The news says that the INE was partial not only in the design of the debate format, but that its television cameras were manipulated to harm some and favor other candidates.
The news says that Claudia was favored by all the shots, while Xóchitl was shown lanky in full body pans and Mr. Máynez was shown drinking excessively water, as a result of a hangover.
The news says that Claudia never referred to the opposition candidate by name, but always as “the PRIAN candidate,” which confirms the misogynistic impulses of the official candidate.
And the news says that Claudia did not respect the format of the debate and that the moderators never reprimanded her, while Xóchitl was repeatedly corrected.
But there is more. The news also says that Universal, Reforma, Televisa, La Jornada and SDP, among other media, have been serving AMLO's presidential power for years.
And despite all of the above, the news also says that yesterday, Tuesday, April 9, 2024, a furious López Obrador scolded Claudia and the media, because during the debate they did not meaningfully defend his failed government.
Therefore, based on the news and not on opinion, let everyone draw their own conclusions about the debate.
At the time.
More from the same author:
#Details #debate
