Donald Trump’s victory in the US elections has exposed the bias of many commentators in our media, revealing the need to reflect on the type of political analysis that currently predominates. Although there are exceptions, it is worth mentioning some “qualities” that have been highly valued in political commentary, which tend to privilege spectacle and polarization over depth and impartiality.

The first quality of a good political commentator is to have no doubts and to assume that he is rarely wrong, demonstrating unshakable confidence. In a complex world full of subtleties, the fashionable commentator presents his opinions with an almost dogmatic certainty. He has no doubts, and if he is mistaken, this error is quickly explained by a conspiracy theory, evoking, for example, the manipulation of public opinion by a biased algorithm of a social network. This narcissistic confidence conveys confidence to the public, who see in the figure of the commentator an anchor of stability and absolute truth.

A good political commentator is one who does not shy away from confrontation, who actively seeks heated debate, transforming exchanges of opinions into a gladiatorial battle in which “you either die or you are killed”. Their goal is not so much to clarify, but rather to win, marked by the humiliation of the opponent and the applause of the public. This combative stance guarantees audience and media relevance. By transforming the debate into a circus spectacle, the political commentator fulfills the role of entertainment, something that often seems to take precedence over the informative function.

In an environment where polarization dominates discourse, the eloquent political commentator knows how to draw on an arsenal of terms designed to disqualify opposing views. “Phobic” is one such epithet that, when used strategically, is particularly effective. Any criticism or disagreement can quickly be categorized as a “phobia”: xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc. This rhetorical ploy allows the political commentator to divert from the substance of the discussion, focusing instead on disqualifying the opponent. After all, if the other side is “phobic,” it loses its legitimacy, and the public is led to view such an opinion as intolerant and retrograde.