It was written by Ramón de Campoamor in his poem Las dos linternas and it has become such a popular saying in Spanish that it is already another proverb: “Y es que en el mundo traidor / nada hay verdad ni mentira: / todo es according to the color / of the cone crystal you are looking at”. The poem was an undisguised criticism of the pessimists embodied in the figure of Diogenes and his lantern or lamppost, but the color of the glass with which it is viewed has ended up defining the relativity and blindness of everyone’s opinions, which in these times run have been boosted and ratified by the network of networks.

Right now we don’t stop harping about artificial intelligence and its sudden revolution, but for years now the fate of the algorithm has led us to only read and listen to what the machine and its technological masters believe is part of the our interest group. The diversity of opinions and judgments, in the internet universe, is terribly limited by our own prejudices and biases, so we all end up hearing what, even unconsciously, we are longing to hear.

Is this serious or worrisome? Certainly! Because one of the obvious forms of the evolution of criteria and thinking is to attend to the arguments of others, even if it is to reject them. But that supposed diverse and inclusive society that we are creating is nothing more than well-intentioned chatter at the very moment it enters the domains of the network. Inside, each sheep is looking for its flock and the shepherd will know what to do with his algorithms up there on the mountain.

You will tell me, and rightly so, that this had always happened. And that the newspapers are an obvious example of this: each one had its editorial line and columnists of reference and saw the current situation through the color of its glass. It is undeniable, although there continue to be exceptions who opt for an informative line not governed by militancy in any political creed. Readers of this newspaper already know that, with the nuances they want, they can find published opinions for and against the same ideas. And that’s a good thing, in my opinion, of course.

But let’s not get carried away by complacency and take a look at the current media landscape: most of them don’t have a clear editorial line, it’s that they militate on some side. And they do it, it has already been written many times, with the same subtlety and complete abuse with which the sports press has used mockery and even insults to refer to the rival team. These are times, yes, not only of confrontation, but of polarization, the new buzzword.

Let’s imagine this scene for a moment: Pedro Sánchez is holding a campaign rally in Retiro Park, in Madrid, and suddenly he gets off the road, goes to the lake and starts walking on the water. I want to think and believe that La Vanguardia would headline the news with a phrase such as “Sorpresa al Retiro” or something similar, but I can imagine other headlines and, if you accept my game, you can also join in thinking which other media it would say on the cover: “Sánchez flees his own rally”, and what else would headline: “One more deception from the president”. It could be that someone else, much more favorable, opens a page with a Berlangian “Miracle in Madrid” and that another, spinning very thin, accuses him like this: “Sánchez takes a bath and ignores the drought”. But I am very clear that a media that I will not name would give wide photographic coverage to the improbable walk on the waters to end up with the title: “The president does not know how to swim”. Here we go…