After two years of promoting her personal story on Telecinco, Rocío Carrasco has changed television houses. Causalities of life, the move coincided with the eviction of Mediaset after the Fuencarral group, after renovating its dome, decided to turn its contents around and send certain names from the tabloids to the freezer that until now had been pillars in all its programs.
Among them, that of the fashionable woman on the network in recent years with the broadcast of two docuseries and a carousel of television actions, some of them somewhat surreal, such as the broadcast of a move of her mother’s belongings as a step prior to the issuance of his particular and poisoned tribute.
In this context, Rocío Carrasco has found her immediate lifeboat on RTVE, and in recent weeks she has already participated in two house programs. The first, Marc Giró’s Latexou, which is only broadcast for the Catalan disconnection, and the second, the one that has generated the most controversy, his visit this Wednesday to the Días de tele show led by Julia Otero and in the framework of a special for the 8-M.
The question is as obvious as it is necessary: ??What is Rocío Carrasco’s contribution to the special so that a public channel has opted for a testimony like hers? The official response is given to us from the program itself after several people have decided to complain to the Defender of the Spectator for the participation in the special due to the presence of a woman whose testimony has not been judicially endorsed since the alleged ill-treatment received by her ex, Antonio David Flores, have never been accepted by the courts and their case ended up being dismissed after years of examination by different judges. “This woman does not represent us”, is the most repeated complaint before the Ombudsman of the public entity.
“Rocío Carrasco was at the focus of the national debate after her decision to use television as a means to make details of her life as a couple unknown until then. Her presence in the program does not address her statements, nor does she go into analyzing whether her statements are more or less true. The talk focuses on the motivation to make a documentary about his life and the social and personal effects that resulted from the audience success and the subsequent controversy”, they write from the program to respond to the complaint of a viewer and to which this medium has had access.
In other words, from the program they raise their hands as to whether their statements “are more or less true”, and they acknowledge that, although their testimony was “a success with audiences”, it also generated a lot of “controversy”, although it did not deepen about them, which have to do with the business that was formed around a story that is not only questioned by justice, but also presents some contradictions and that has not convinced many people, including women who also They have been victims of abuse.
Pointing out this context is especially necessary to understand the discomfort behind certain people who do not look favorably on Rocío Carrasco being publicly presented as a battered woman – Julia Otero herself addressed her like this during the talk – when more Beyond his personal account, there is no judicial sentence – there was not even an oral hearing – that proves it, which implies pointing to another person with a heavy label turning his back on the rule of law.
Carrasco also speaks of mistreatment by the media, for everything that Antonio David Flores himself has said about her on television, although he forgets to mention that he did it at the hands of the same professionals, who are now in charge of his docuseries, presenters and collaborators included, and to whom he had some demands that they withdrew to make their televised testimony.
Curiously, the production company La fabrica de tele, has three names linked to the Marc Giró program, Latexou, which also had a visit from Carrasco a few days ago, and according to the production company itself, they are providing professional help to the program but there is no bussines vinculation.
Rocío Carrasco explained in La 1 yo that she had already told before in her other house: that the series had been a healing for her, that she did not think about women, but about herself, but that she was very happy in case she had been able to help other women – the month of March that the docuseries premiered, calls to 016 grew by more than 60% – and that her social role had always been difficult in the media because she was the daughter of Rocío Jurado. As a novelty, she announced that he was studying the possibility of reopening the case against Antonio David, although she did not explain what he was attending to, and why it had taken her two years of docuseries to make that decision.
The presence of Rocío Carrasco in the same program in which one of the guests was the daughter of Ana Orantes, murdered by her husband after denouncing the repeated and harsh violence against her, has not been liked by part of the audience that does not understand that it is being try to compare both cases. The space was also attended by the film director Leticia Dolera, the F.C.Barcelona player, Aitana Bonmatí and the actress Jedet.
As the program itself admits, Carrasco’s testimony in the two docuseries she has made has raised a lot of controversy, and there are many voices that in the last hours have criticized the decision to have her, ensuring that the testimony of the daughter of Rocío Jurado did not represent them as a woman, and that public television must take into account all sensitivities.
As has already happened on Telecinco in recent months, the audience did not follow a program that had a 6.8% audience share and was the fourth option on Wednesday night for a space that consists of 13 deliveries and that is in the eye of the hurricane of the public entity due to its high cost – more than 400,000 euros per chapter – and the scarce audience data that the first five broadcasts have garnered.
What is clear is that since Rocío Carrasco decided to take the step of explaining her testimony on television, her presence on different programs and in the media always generates controversy and heated debate, often linked to fanaticism, which is impossible to appease. . It would be convenient if the overexcitement generated by the character did not divert attention from the main issue: how the media have to flee from parallel trials and embrace seriousness and objectivity when dealing with certain issues that may have a difficult intimate reality to accredit, but that should not annul the principles of any rule of law. And less on public television.
