A few days ago, a journalist of renowned trajectory and integrity commented on Sergio Martin's interview with Pablo Iglesias last December 5 on Channel 24h. He said that, although he had not seen it live, everything he had read and the cuts he had seen had been a great disappointment. He knew well the journalistic trajectory of the interviewer and regretted that he had thrown it away for an interview, in his opinion, more belligerent than intelligent.

I did not know Sergio Martín until he himself became news for his interview with the leader of Podemos. I was surprised by the unanimous disappointment of his critics with whom until then they had considered a good professional, friendly and goal who had become unjustifiably hostile to Pablo Iglesias.

I decided to watch the interview from beginning to end: it did not seem as aggressive as I expected. A few days before I had seen the interview that Ana Pastor made to the same Pablo Iglesias and, with differences, in general the tone of both was similar. What most caught my attention were not the questions but the answers. The journalist was correct, I would even say that he was too patient with an evasive interviewee, who knows he is a TV star and behaved as such. And Pablo Iglesias did not give the stature expected from a political manager (let's not forget that Pablo Iglesias is an MEP). On some occasions he was not even able to stick to the "yes" or "no" answers that the interviewer asked to specific questions. If we complain (rightly) about politicians who call "press conferences" without questions, we should also complain when a politician agrees to be interviewed on a news program but does not answer questions but "places" his pre-cooked messages, as if he were at a rally or in an advertising space.

In the interview on La Sexta a few days earlier, practically the same thing happened as in the Canal 24 interview: Pablo Iglesias did not respond to Ana Pastor's questions. And the journalist, with tables and class, threw it in his face: she complained repeatedly about his evasions, she told him that he still did not clarify what he thought about certain issues or what specific measures Podemos would take when coming to power. Iglesias came out of the interview with Ana Pastor "touched": the "re-questions" of the journalist in the face of the evasions, the pre-cooked slogans and the "non-answers" of Iglesias left the leader of Podemos in evidence and the media reported on this in the following days.

It can be seen that Pablo Iglesias learned his lesson and prepared well for the one on Channel 24h. This time there was no hesitation or stammering: when faced with a "re-question" he brought out another slogan from the Podemos factory, and when faced with an uncomfortable question, he attacked the journalist, reversing the roles between the interviewer and the interviewee, between the politician and the journalist.

Iglesias behaved like a divo, like a television star, who uses some media (those who let him, because we must recognize the pull of audience generated by the politician with the ponytail). Bad those media, therefore, and not the real journalists: Ana Pastor, Sergio Martín and many others. But also wrong is the politician Pablo Iglesias, who acts in a way unbecoming of someone who claims to be the whip of a "caste" which he accuses of using for their own benefit the access to money and public space provided by position. The attitude of Iglesias in the interview with Sergio Martin was that of a politician of "the caste". The leader of Podemos "manages", in a bad sense, the media and public opinion. From the point of view of communication, of communication that seeks to generate community, his attitude is not very honest. He is not honest with journalists, who, when asked, fulfill a basic political role; nor with the public of the news programs, whom he treats as a showman treats the clac of his show.

The problem of the interview was not Sergio Martín but a toxic concept of politics from which we could not escape. Politicians feel liberated from having to account for their actions. Because of it, citizens lack the necessary critical sense to demand honesty from politicians, not only in the use of money but, especially, in their own work as representatives of popular sovereignty: they cannot become agitators of popular emotions to win elections. And this concept affects journalists, from whom citizens expect them to value their profession. Without good journalists, the health of democracy is ruined and politics becomes a perfect habitat for poisonous characters, who sprout up all over the political spectrum. Out of respect for democracy and professional dignity, a journalist cannot accept that his work be turned by a politician into a advertisement or a rally.

As a politician, Pablo Iglesias is no stranger to such toxic politics. There is no doubt that Podemos and its leaders are not the problem but a symptom of the weak state of our political culture.

If anyone was shocked by Sergio Martín's interview with Pablo Iglesias, they should watch the one that Jeremy Paxman did in 1997 on the BBC with Michael Howard, then Home Secretary of England. Faced with the politician's repeated evasions, Paxman was able to repeat the same question eleven times in a row. Some considered the journalist "infamous". Others, however, held him up as an example of the dignity with which a politician should be held accountable for his work.