Download the eBook (8.25 MB) - ECREA Thematic Sections

Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedings of ECREA/CICOM Conference, Pamplona, 4-5 July 2011
a “secessionist proposal”, a “fraud”, a “challenge”, and a “trap”, hence discrediting it
within the information articles.
Indeed, the plan is condemned by relying on several resources. First, the
unconstitutional status of the plan is stressed inasmuch as it opposes to the existence
of the “single” Spanish nation proposed in article 2 of the Spanish Constitution.
Besides, it foresees a “final dissociation from the State”, which is considered
unacceptable because the parliament of an autonomous region cannot take a
“unilateral” decision over the ties that bind it to Spain.
Another common strategy is to justify criticism of the plan by using the words of political
actors: PP, PSOE, and to some extent IU. PP claims that the plan is “backed up by
terrorists” and it “ignores and despises the opinions and feelings of non-nationalist
Basque people”. Patxi Lopez, from PSOE, states that “PNV has embarked the country
in a ship which has lost the sense of direction and which moves towards the breach of
consensus” and “the coexistence framework” built after the Transition period. El Mundo
also reproduces the disqualifying description of Ibarretxe made by the Basque socialist
leader, with the former behaving as a “visionary” (a word that is reproduced in a front
page and an editorial) and the representative of an “authoritarian regime”. Figures are
likewise quoted to persuade the reader of the plan’s lack of legitimacy. In February-1 st
front page, it is stated that 22 millions of citizens oppose – through their parliamentary
representatives – the Ibarretxe plan in contrast with the supporting 826,223. These
figures being used together is somehow misleading, as those who vote PSOE, PP and
IU do not necessarily reject a reform of the Statute of Gernika.
There is no objectivity in the representation of actors, and discursive attacks to the
Basque government and its president are quite obvious, while his office in power is
negatively characterized. By claiming that he “spent four years in preparing this plan”, it
is argued that the Basque government forgot to manage the problems of this
autonomous region and they incorrectly employed public money: “most Basques have
admitted they ignore the Plan’s content, in spite of the intense mailing campaigns
financed by the Basque government” (31.01.2005).
Zapatero and Rajoy also have an active role. Although El Mundo praises the
president’s firm and dialogue-prone attitude at the debate, it seriously doubts about the
effectiveness of his state policy in relation to the demands of peripheral nationalism. By
avoiding a direct confrontation with PNV - “Zapatero did not want to hurt, irritate or
promote a victim mentality within nationalism”- and leaving an open door to a
modification of the Statute of Gernika, Zapatero is presented as coming out of the
debate with flying colours. Notwithstanding, Rajoy is presented as having defended
better constitutional values with a “hard and brilliant” discourse that denounced the
Basque President’s attempt to “over-extend his powers” “dressed up as a constitutional
reform”.
As a conservative opposition newspaper, El Mundo follows a biased trend which is
characterised by a lack of objectivity when presenting actors and their opinion. While
Ibarretxe and his plan are continuously discredited and the socialist government is
accused of making some concessions to “separatists”, Rajoy and PP appear as
adopting the most feasible positions.
275