On the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, PROA welcomes the illustrious journalist Pilar Urbano (Valencia,1940), author of several books about the monarchy, such as The Queen up close or The Price of the Throneand other political issues, such as 9/11: The secret of the White House, The great forgetfulness o I joined the Cesid. After studying Philosophy and Letters, she embarked on the world of journalism, working in several newspapers such as ABC, El Mundo and Ya, and in radio stations such as COPE and Onda Cero. With more than 50 years of experience, Pilar was present during the 23-F in the Congress of Deputies. She was one of the people who remained standing. There she was aware "in a definitive way that freedom is worth more than life".
-Elon Musk has bought Twitter for $45 billion, in the name of free speech. Can Twitter be more influential on public opinion than the media?
-Musk has not bought it in the name of freedom of expression; its goal is profit, it plays to its ambition. Twitter influences young people in particular, but culturally adult people with a reasonable critical sense do not generally use Twitter to inform themselves, or to build their judgement or their opinion about an important reality on social networks. These platforms are for those who do not have the time or the inclination to read a book or an in-depth article or an investigative report. Twitter, Facebook... or the barrage of comments from anonymous readers do not provide information, but rather are spaces for venting and outburst. And all too often they misinform. We have to be very careful with this, because, whether it comes from a government, a university chair or a mass mediaDisinformation is the worst tyranny.
-It is clear that the media are not as profitable as they were twenty years ago. Has their economic fragility made them more dependent on political and business interests?
-Absolutely, yes. Today, freedom of the press is in the hands of the owners and shareholders. Even the editor is in their hands. The other day, I was talking to an acquaintance from La Vanguardia and told me that it was very difficult to be a neutral and aseptic newspaper reporting on both the government and the opposition, addressing readers with a national or nationalist sensibility. But newspapers are not there to please their readers, nor to please the choir, but to transmit current affairs as they are, without abdicating their role as carcinogens of political, economic or social activity.
Digital media are born with the pretence of being independent. They boast about their independence, but when compromising news arrives, they are unable to publish it. There is uncomfortable news, which goes to the trash, because they are afraid of it.
Yes. Fear. All newspapers depend on money; and money is always fearful. The ideal would be to have corporatist newspapers, owned by the journalists themselves.
- Is it not idealism?
- Yes, so what? Utopias are not, but ideals must be realised. It is good to dream high and boldly. If you risk your money, your time and your work, and you put all your heart and soul into it, you are sure to make good journalism, because you will make a free, brave, truthful newspaper, and you will sell it well, because it will be a reliable and attractive newspaper...
- Spain has good journalists, but society does not perceive them as such. What do you think of the quality of journalism today?
- Hmmm. With a few exceptions, the quality is zero, 'zero point zero'. First, journalists write worse and worse. Second, they are very copied, photocopies of each other. Once I was called by three different radio stations in one week to ask me about the same subject: the King Emeritus; and the three journalists asked me the same questions. Before, there was an effort to differentiate, to surprise by offering novelty and different approaches. Today the front pages are the same and deal with the same issues and even have the same headlines. A depressing informative mimicry. Something is going wrong. I can't explain such a lack of originality and ingenuity.
- Do you really not believe that there are good journalists in Spain?
- Yes, there are, but... they are retiring. Or they are devoting themselves to their weekly column and their books.
- Are we abusing a journalism of statements and labels?
- The problem is that nowadays, contradictorily enough, there is less freedom. Journalists publish what politicians 'dictate', they repeat. Since when did we become the labellers? If a politician wants to do it, fine, but we have to be the counter-power and the reply. Journalists should be braver, have more guts to denounce what is going wrong in the public arena. It is not just a matter of reporting the news, it is necessary to analyse it, and often to criticise it. Today in the newsrooms, for fear of unemployment, there is a lot of obedient timorousness. There is a lack of breed, a lack of critical impulse. Or is it a problem of youth, which will improve with the passage of time. It is a service to the reader, not to the owner of the newspaper, and much less to the ruler.
- Governments without newspapers or newspapers without governments?
- That phrase of Jefferson's is nice but simplistic, because newspapers are there precisely to keep an eye on the ruler. They are, as I said, the cancerberos of power, the 'keepers of the hay'. The essence of democracy is not so much whether or not newspapers exist, but whether or not the government manages the res publica from the people, for the people and with the people.
In Spain, if a government lies or fails to comply, and if - even before it is a government - it derives and perverts the meaning of the citizens' vote to amalgamate a spurious, falsified majority, of obscure compromises, of concessions and unwanted support, that government is failing in political ethics and democratic purity.
The problem today and here is that the content is taken care of - to be 'politically correct' - but not the forms: the baby is breastfed from the congressional seat, the deputies wear T-shirts, a foul-mouthed style is imposed, and so on. In Parliament, there is hardly any reasoned discourse; instead, there is an abundance of insults, sniping and bickering, not debate or controversy. And the journalists who have to report it cannot tell the public what the government is going to do on this or that matter of general interest. I understand the disagreement on the substance of the issues, of course, but speaking clearly does not preclude respect for the forms. For example, I accept your right to defend abortion and euthanasia, even though for me they are abject practices that trample on two human rights.
- There are governments that want to be a newspaper at the same time...
- Yes, and they finance newspapers or radio and television stations, which become propaganda pamphlets for the government's interests. This has a name: usurpation of the right to free, independent and truthful information. It is a covert form of dictatorship.
Another formula is, for example, that of President Biden, a 'Democrat', elected to fight Trump's demagogies. Since when has it been up to the government to determine what is true and what is false? And to make matters worse, this Ministry is integrated into the Department of Homeland Security. No comment.
- Finally, I wanted to ask you about the Monarchy. During the Transition, there was a pact of silence regarding the media's treatment of the Royal Family. In recent years, we have seen the opposite. What do you think of this evolution?
- The 'pact of silence' never existed; only a joint editorial by newspaper editors, to defend democracy after 23-F. What there really was was a deep respect for King Juan Carlos and the parliamentary monarchy; a respect that was shattered by the photo of Botswana... Many of us journalists had known for a long time about a lot of the King's non-exemplary affairs and love affairs; but we had no concrete and documented data about his business dealings. And out of prudence we kept quiet. But after that photo, and the troupe who accompanied the monarch on that hunt, everything began to be revealed in public: in columns, reports and books, the dark side of the King's life was revealed in detail. But censuring a bad part of a monarch's life cannot lead to an amendment to the Monarchy in its entirety. Like the deplorable management of a head of government, it does not authorise the pillorying of democracy.