|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: La cumbre progresista de Barcelona dejó una imagen nítida

By Leopoldo Lavín Mujica

The Barcelona Progressive Summit left a clear, almost uncomfortable image marked by a sense of bitterness: the key figures were active presidents wielding actual power, state apparatus, and decision-making authority. These were the leaders currently in government —those who have the potential to instigate change—not those who previously held power without making substantial alterations to the systems they now critique.

In this context, Gabriel Boric’s presence seemed inevitably diminished. Despite his youth, he appeared worn down, rendered less significant by his status. He was not seen as a decision-maker but as a mere commentator on a cycle that he and his coalition government (FA, PS, PPD, PC) helped create. This shift changes everything. When discussing democracy, media politics, citizen disaffection, and power, the crucial question is not merely about what is said, but rather what was done when there was an opportunity to act.

Chile serves as a particularly telling example in this respect. During Gabriel Boric’s administration, there existed a rare opportunity —perhaps the clearest in decades— to intervene in the media system: to open it up, diversify it, and limit its historical concentration. While it was not a straightforward task, it was politically feasible. There was a legitimate social mandate, initial public support, and a shared recognition regarding the influence of large conglomerates in shaping public opinion.

However, this political initiative never materialized. Thus, at the Progressive Summit, while Boric spoke about the necessity of unity among progressives during tumultuous times, Vallejo lectured on misinformation. Yet, when they were in power, there was neither the will nor a consistent strategy to tackle the concentration of traditional media.

Significant structural reforms were not advanced. There wasn’t even a sustained effort to adjust the balance between public and private information production. The outcome remained unchanged: a media ecosystem continued to function under the same dynamics, with the same dominant actors and persistent disparities.

It is well-known that the Chilean media system is characterized by a particularly high concentration of information power among a few private conglomerates, which diminishes effective voice diversity despite a facade of pluralism.

In print media, two groups —El Mercurio and Copesa— have historically dominated, shaping much of the public agenda. Meanwhile, open television features large private operators like Mega, Chilevisión, and Canal 13, alongside a public channel like TVN, which operates under financial constraints that limit its competitiveness.

Additionally, the increasing presence of foreign capital in radio, such as Grupo Prisa, and a more fragmented but economically weak digital sphere also contribute to this situation.

The result is an ecosystem where economic and advertising concentration heavily influences the creation of public meaning, complicating deep reforms even when political will exists.

Therefore, when Camila Vallejo speaks in Barcelona about algorithms, non-neutral platforms, and misinformation as systemic threats, the diagnosis may be accurate —and largely is— but it lacks one essential dimension: personal political responsibility.

Boric has been a staunch follower of Eugenio Tironi’s media policies. Camila Vallejo seems to overlook that this sociologist-entrepreneur has consistently maintained the thesis that the best communication policy is not to have one at all.

Moreover, the issue is not solely that platforms are not neutral. It is also that when the State’s power was at their disposal, no policy was constructed to balance that power. It is not about underestimating the complexity of the digital phenomenon, but about remembering that politics also involves anticipating, regulating, and contesting those spaces.

What is heard, therefore, is not merely a warning but also a transfer of responsibility. It represents a way —perhaps unintentional— of attributing the failure to the environment, the «pavement,» and external conditions, rather than acknowledging internal limitations, hesitations, or mistakes. This is where the figures lose credibility. Because it is understood…

Because for structural criticism to be credible, self-critique is necessary. Otherwise, it risks becoming a mere excuse. A sophisticated explanation for why nothing could be accomplished, in place of an honest reflection on why actions were not taken.

In this sense, the Barcelona summit not only brought together progressive leaders: it revealed a deeper divide. On one side are those who currently govern and must be accountable for their actions. On the other are those who have already governed and must stand accountable for their inactions. Unfortunately, Chile belongs to this latter group.

Leopoldo Lavín Mujica

La entrada Barcelona Progressive Summit Highlights a Stark Division in Leadership se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.