From the opinions of celebrities to the danger of populism

Some time ago, coinciding with the pandemic, a journalist at a press conference asked Jürgen Klopp, Liverpool coach, what he thought of the measures that had been taken in football due to the coronavirus.

The coach did not hesitate: “My opinion about the coronavirus is not important.”

He was not one to question medical decisions.

I remembered this response and the German's caution when the other day I read a

tweet

from former minister Irene Montero.

She wrote it regarding a response from the Minister of Equality, Ana Redondo, regarding the trial of Dani Alves, in which she asked for respect for judicial decisions.

Irene was quick to tweet: “I ask the Government not to take steps back in the fight against sexist violence.

To say, in a case of sexual violence, that it will be assessed when there is a sentence is to make the credibility of the victim depend on the result of the judicial process.”

It goes without saying that in a legal conflict, it is the judicial process that decides who is telling the truth and who is not.

In short, who has credibility.

If credibility did not depend on this judicial process, as the former minister suggests, and we already assumed that it is the property of one of the two parties, not only the judicial process would cease to make sense, but also our judicial system.

In addition to what the disappearance of the presumption of innocence means.

It is true that, today, Irene Montero is only Podemos's candidate for the European elections, but we cannot deny that she still enjoys a certain popular projection, that is, her statements are read—even believed—by many people.

Penélope Cruz took this same line, that of questioning professionals, at the last Goya gala.

When asked by a journalist about the victims of sexist violence, the well-known actress first points out that “Journalism cannot take on the role of justice,” in clear reference to the EL PAÍS investigations, and adds: “what The judicial system is failing us the most,” questioning the help to the victims.

Here we have an actress explaining to us, with her expert analysis, the degree of functioning and effectiveness of our judicial system.

These are just three examples, I know, but I could give many more, especially those who, from guilds that are basically characterized by fame, question authority.

This is not about limiting anyone's right to opinion, but rather pointing out the danger that the famous person's opinion has more impact than that of the expert.

It is clear that authority has changed hands and something is wrong when, in the 21st century, it is celebrities,

influencers

, popular people—let's call them whatever we want—who establish what is right or what is wrong.

That and one would say that everyone knows everything, especially jurisprudence, I have not seen them give their opinion on open heart surgeries, or building plans.

I don't mean to avoid passing judgment, we can all do it, I mean to have a little sense of responsibility and be aware that humility would be appreciated when talking about certain topics.

The problem is aggravated because, today, the discredit of public powers is so enormous that, depending on what information, only a disaffection is achieved that has the opposite effect: that nothing changes.

Because this disaffection, in the long run, ends up being reflected at the polls and we end up achieving results like, for example, what we saw a few weeks ago in Argentina.

The systematic attack on the institutions of the State, instead of the attempt for them to modify and improve their ways of acting, with our vote at the polls, only achieves an erosion of the democratic system itself.

But don't think that this is only a thing for "famous people", sometimes even personalities belonging to traditional parties (I don't even know what to call them, but I think you get the idea), end up falling into the trap of questioning our institutions, and contribute even more discredit to the very institutions that lead or aspire to lead.

Social networks, celebrities, opinion makers... the society of "misinformation", in short, ends up giving credibility to those who have the most followers or whoever says things in prime time, and whoever listens to them does not stop to check what was said. , to look for data about what is criticized, or to question whether or not you have the knowledge.

Even sometimes, knowing that the person who tells us this lacks the knowledge to make a rational judgment, we simply accept his opinion as good.

It seems as if the famous person is always right, even on the most specialized topics.

Don't get me wrong, political activism is great, but the opinion should be based on knowledge.

How do we get here?

Easy, the discredit of many of our representatives has created widespread discontent.

A discontent that, instead of making us pay attention to the experts, leads us to have as references those who awaken the most negative, most passionate, most simplistic emotions in us.

That is, the most dangerous populisms.

Give it a spin, elections are coming.

Carmen Domingo

is a writer.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_