Jorge Javier Vázquez and the double measuring stick: censorship and attacks Paloma García Pelayo for a question to Pepe Navarro

• LOC Pepe Navarro: "With all certainty, Ivonne Reyes' son is not mine"

Saturday Deluxe

, well into the morning, the interview with

is about to end, everything seems to have gone as expected, but ... But suddenly

does her job, that is, ask the guest, and It comes out of the script established by the program with

. The journalist asks about a case of gender violence, with a final judgment, and the interview and the program exploded. The question was not planned, the question should not be part of the interview, the question did not have a ready answer, the question caused not only the incomprehensible anger of

but also

was censored and vilified in a matter of seconds.

It is the double yardstick.

A lot of defense of women, a lot of denunciation of gender violence, but it depends on with whom.

It is true that the tension between

and

could be cut with a knife throughout the interview.

The journalist cross-examined and questioned all of

arguments

to show that Ivonne's son, and also his, according to the Justice, was not hers.

He had the definitive proof, the definitive story and the definitive data to close a story that is already more hackneyed than the tale of Peter and the Wolf.

The work of

was the bad cop, while the other colleagues and the presenter was smoothen the interview, the interviewee not find uncomfortable, no one escaleta, all follow the order to skip the achievement of the facts. Understandably, the case has such a curly curl that being able to understand it is a fantasy. While the rest of the collaborators asked about

story

, questioned some data, put on a surprised face with certain answers,

drew sentences, judgments, opinions and pulled the newspaper archive to dismantle

arguments

.

"Belligerent," she called herself.

And it was, but when has Paloma García Pelayo not been in front of interviewees such as

?

With the education that she always shows in her interviews, but without giving the interviewee a break, and more, when she believes that what she is telling does not fit with reality.

The tense interview between Paloma García Pelayo and Pepe Navarro

There was a lot of tension that both, both

and

, knew how to contain so that no one would lose their roles.

They succeeded, the one who did not succeed was

.

I don't know if the tension between

and

had already overflowed the presenter's glass or if there were other reasons that escape our understanding.

But when

asked about

case

,

who filed a lawsuit against

for injuries,

who won,

had a too unexpected tantrum, so unexpected that not even

could understand what was happening, why

reacted like this

, why he questioned his work as a journalist, why he censored her, why he vilified her and why he said that he did not want to be on set with her for a long time.

We have lost our minds or what the hell is this! We are going to try to understand it, although it is very difficult. It must be understood that when an interviewee sits on a set like the one on

, where he is going to talk about something he has never talked about, where he is going to reveal something that he has never told and where he is going to face for the first time in a lot of time to the questions of the journalists, it is usually reached some previous agreements so that the interview actually takes place. Do not believe that this happens with all the guests, only with those that the program is interested in feeling protected so that they can sit down and do not reject the interview.

That behind this move there will be an intrahistory that escapes the common viewers, that there is no doubt about it. Surely, they talked about the questions that could be asked and which ones could not, surely

was warned before

, surely it was believed that she would not get to throw the stone. That it bothers, of course, that she is censored, that she is crucified, that they try to leave her as a bad professional, well, look, no.

From what

released last night to

, with

the agreement was that he was only going to talk about

and the case of her paternity. Getting out of there could suppose, and other times it has been seen, that the interviewee got up and left them hanging, that he did not want to continue with the interview or that he directly mounted a chicken that never suits the viewer. Not to mention if said agreement had been signed by contract, which can also be.

The fact is that at the end of the interview, and practically all of it,

boasted of the good relationship he maintains with women. In fact, at one point during the interview, the messages and emails that he had with

even after the paternity sentence were shown, and in them a

conciliatory, polite, friendly

was visible

... It was

who put the spoon in when asked if, in general, he had had good relations with women. The intention of

was more than obvious, he sought to put the question and then finish off with the case of

.

Pepe Navarro

tensed because

, who also knows about TV for a while, was aware with that question of what was going to fall on him. He questioned her, always with a lot of politeness, that she did not understand what that question was about and that what the journalist's intentions were. I follow your intentions, do your job as a journalist and ask freely. It was then that

asked about the sentence against him for a crime of injury to

. And here it must be said that

did not refuse to respond, nor did he make any fuss, nor pointed out to the management of

or to the presenter that this was not in the agreement. He simply indicated to

that that was not the subject of

, that here they had not come to talk about it, but that if they wanted it to be talked about, then they talked.

"You take it out for some reason,"

told him

, to which

replied that she took it out because "it is the first time I have interviewed you and it is the first time that people have seen you on television in a long time."

Jorge Javier Vázquez, for Paloma García Pelayo

Pepe Navarro

replied that that sentence did indeed exist, but that "justice is also wrong" and that on that occasion an erroneous reading of the evidence presented during the trial had been made and that he could perfectly dismantle that complaint and everything

said

in that trial.

, which is not the first time that she has defended a case of gender violence on television tooth and nail, raised the tone of counter-reply and that is when there was no way out.

"We are in a very delicate moment and if you really do not have that and you do not believe in it, fine, but you have a sentence for injuries to a partner, or girlfriend or woman who was with you at that time. Now that you tell me that in They were also wrong, well, very well, but there is a sentence, "

reproached him

. The abruptness of

, tired of Pepe Navarro's "this is wrong" and of leaving during the entire interview on the tangent and the cosine, made the interview very nervous, which then did point out to the director of the program that for There, no, that this was not what I was going to talk about, that this was not related to

and that what

was looking for

it was crushing him. "How you are not right in what you are telling you want to go around in whatever it is. Things do not go that way," continued

, while the journalist indicated again that they could talk about whatever he wanted, but "that this also exists ".

At that moment, in that "this also exists", the give and take of

and

was swallowed by a

who incredibly came out in defense of the interviewee completely losing his forms and taking the already famous and much criticized double yardstick of Telecinco. Can you imagine if the one who sat in the

last night

had been

? It is not necessary to imagine it because the 180 degree turn that the chain made with the case of

. A 180 degree turn that lost the beat again last night when

censored

and his question because it was not what was agreed upon, because it bothered the interviewee.

Do not forget, a question about a final judgment.

Either with everything or with nothing.

"

, I think that at this moment what you are doing leaves us all in a very bad place. If you had it so clear you would not have sat with this man and you would have said 'I do not want to be sitting with an abuser. It seems to me precisely that As things are, and it is not hiding reality, of course it seems fundamentally irresponsible and very advantageous on your part, to bring up this issue at one in the morning. If you had so much trouble with conscience, having talked to Patricia - director of the

- and told him you weren't sitting here tonight. I am deeply disappointed as a presenter with you. Very sorry. And of course I tell you one thing, for me I think that for now I would not like to coincide with you in several programs because we are in a very delicate moment for you to come with such a delicate situation. This man has come to talk about Ivonne Reyes, we have all accepted that he came to talk about

What I do not understand is that a matter is raised that has nothing to do with the case. You have contributed to putting us in a very delicate situation. You knew it from the beginning. If you wanted to stay as a journalist ... I met you in the corridors and you were coming with your situation that you wanted to provoke and you caused it at one in the morning. It has offended us as a program. We have brought this man to talk about

and honestly ... "

Paloma García Pelayo

tried to defend herself, she tried to explain why she had asked about

case of gender violence

, she tried to reason with

, it was impossible. All the voices of

, companions, interviewee, presenter threw themselves against her. Some because they thought that

had left them at the feet of the horses when she asked a question and stood up as the defender of women. Others, because of the situation in which he put them. And others because they already had to come warm from home. "I have always felt in a free program. I do not think that you have to hide something that is news," insisted the journalist. What was missing is the word hide.

"There is no talk of hiding, but I think that today the issue was not this. That it caused you a pain of conscience, as you told me before the program, the most responsible thing is not to have sat on the program.

, that we all talk about zero tolerance against gender violence, and since the rest of us have not raised the subject, that I was unaware of it, you are the brave because you have raised it and the others not because we have not raised it " , argued

. It is that now denouncing gender violence is an ideological flag. I think Jorge Javier Vázquez got out of hand, a lot.

I highly doubt that

asked this question to establish herself as a champion against gender violence, but what the reaction of

and

was to turn her into what bothered them so much, into the brave one. If they hadn't put on such an embarrassing show, who would speak about the question today? Nobody.

Let's see that it clarifies me, it is not because of the question to

, it is not because of leaving the script, but the anger is that since it was she who asked the question and not another, it is she who is going to be applauded for it and not the others. The same serves as a lesson, if there is a question do not censor. Was the question lawful? Man, let's see,

had gone to the

to talk about his relationship with a woman and his problems with a woman,

, can't you ask him about other women, about a case of gender violence, about a sentence? What was missing.

But

fell apart. Thanks to the support of

, and even María Patiño, the presenter went very, very, very high: "You are irresponsible and demagogue. If you were going to ask me that question, you would have told me so I could defend myself. You said I am lying. I get along well with all my exes. I had a little problem with a lady, who I can prove that what she told was a lie, there are documents that show that everything was an invention, but you can't do this because I can't defend myself. " What a cloth ... It turns out that, according to

, if

wanted to ask him about this, she should have sent him the questions, he would have consulted with the director of the

, decide if he was going to answer and if that was the case, bring it all prepared so that he would not be caught with the ice cream cart.

Pure journalism, the good ... Come on!

Who can imagine that a journalist is going to pass on the questions to the interviewee before the interview takes place?

Well, not for

: "Demagoguery doesn't help feminism. The first thing you have to do is call me, tell me and I say to Patricia, 'Are we going to talk about this?'

And I come with the documentation to defend myself (...) What you have done is improper for an honest professional ".

Perhaps it was not

who did something inappropriate for an honest professional.

Perhaps what is not honest is not to allow certain questions, perhaps it is to censor because you ask about something that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps it is improper to be ridiculed, vilified, rejected and reproached for doing your job.

The double measuring stick.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

• Jorge Javier Vazquez

• Telecinco

Halloween Gala Jorge Javier Vázquez 'stirs' Ana Rosa Quintana in Secret Story on a tremendous night

Josué, Zoe and Diriany, first trio Sandra Barneda knocks out The Island of Temptations 4

Andrea and Roberto breakThe last temptation |

Sandra Barneda, the image of suffering and disbelief

See links of interest

• Last News

• 2022 business calendar

• Home THE WORLD TODAY

• Check Christmas Lottery

• Holidays 2021

• How to do

• Alavés - Celta de Vigo

• Empoli - Fiorentina

• Sampdoria - Verona

• 1. FC Cologne - Borussia Mönchengladbach

• Hertha BSC - FC Augsburg