The renowned restaurant "Roldán" has been the scene of an extraordinary interdimensional phenomenon: last Thursday, March 12th, four people… who were not present!!! dined there!
In a lengthy and tedious note published in the newspaper "La Nación," titled "Neighborhood scandals in the storm of the world," where there are references that lead the reader to think of acts of corruption and dark dealings involving the government of Javier Milei, the following can be read:
“...on Thursday night, there was a meeting led by Sergio Massa at Roldán, the restaurant of José Luis Manzano and Daniel Vila. Among those present were the shadowy Antonio Stiuso, his private secretary, Lucas Nejamkis, and the same character reappears: Ariel Lijo” (who, according to the author of the note, would have intentions of occupying the Attorney General's Office of the Nation, after failing to secure a place on the Supreme Court of Justice).
Why does this particular paragraph of the note stand out? Simply because none of those mentioned were there. Obviously, we cannot ask the restaurant's staff to remember every diner who frequents the establishment, so we consulted directly with those mentioned, who categorically denied the version disseminated by “La Nación,” and even one of them provided us with a photo (see below) of the dish he had that night (bife de ojo with sweet potato puree), specially prepared by his daughter, of which he has a detailed photographic record (like many others), with date and time.
Perhaps the reader is wondering what we really mean by this anecdote. Very simple: the exploitation that some media outlets and their star journalists make of the trust that the public places in them. It is truly striking to observe how repeatedly, from that same column, there are systematic lies about meetings, shady deals, and vague political negotiations, etc. And not only that, but also the constant repetition of names of people whom someone has decided to link to anything to expose them. Our bewilderment increases when, in some cases, the writer and the attacked have had a close informational relationship in the past. One as a journalist, the other as an intelligence agent.
We sought a psychological explanation for this situation and found three possible explanations:
a. Narcissistic Personality Disorder: The person projects their insecurities, feeling superior and reacting with anger or disdain, often personalizing blame onto others to protect their ego.
b. Mythomania (pathological lying): Compulsive and constant use of lies to manipulate reality, often associated with the need for attention or personal gain.
c. Chronic victimhood: The individual constantly places themselves in the role of victim, using false criticisms and narratives to blame others for their own conflicts.
It is concerning that any media outlet with influence on public opinion could have among its collaborators someone suffering from any of these three syndromes, or from all of them. Can we trust anyone who uses the pages of a medium in which they work to settle a private conflict that may threaten their credibility? What role are they assigning to public opinion, which they manipulate and misinform?
Beyond all these questions, what is at stake, ultimately, is the credibility and trust of the media and their journalists. We are talking about NOT lying, not bastardizing the concept of “independent journalism,” and not becoming mercenaries of information, and of course, NOT using the privileged position granted by a mass medium to settle personal conflicts.
Honestly, it is increasingly difficult to believe that there is truly independent journalism. And cases like the one we have narrated in this note only increase our doubts.
Comments