Enrique Acevedo is the anchor of the news program En Punto on Televisa.
On Nov. 9, Televisa-Univision, the Spanish-language broadcast giant, aired an hour-long prime-time special featuring my interview with former president Donald Trump. The conversation was the first in 22 years of a current or former Republican president on the network. After days in the headlines, reactions to the interview took a turn straying far from a genuine engagement with its content and instead mirroring broader political divisions. As I watched the reaction unfold, I became concerned by the troubling innuendo in this criticism.
Joaquin Blaya, a former president of Univision who left the network 32 years ago, told The Post, “This was Mexican-style news coverage,” casting a shadow of corruption over my interviewing style and overlooking how journalists in Mexico, where I’m based, are killed more than anywhere else in the world for doing their jobs. Some Latino celebrities employed the same nativist rhetoric they decry from the far right to say “the Mexicans” were importing unscrupulous practices to meddle in U.S. elections. Never mind, I’m American, and have been working more than 20 years for some of the most prestigious news outlets in the world, my record speaks for itself.
Advertisement
Outdated prejudice about Mexico and its news media poses significant dangers, validating decades-old perceptions that fail to reflect the modern, vibrant and open society that defines the country today. Moreover, it underscores a striking absence of humility in the face of our own democratic challenges. Given this broader context, the irony of such false claims is glaring and concerning.
Amid intense partisanship with clearly delineated camps, my interview with Trump wasn’t crafted to convince Democrats or my colleagues in the press that Trump is an unsuitable choice. Instead, its purpose was to afford conservative Latinos the opportunity to hear directly from him without confrontation or hostility.
My approach was shaped by personal and professional experiences as a Mexican American journalist reporting from both sides of the border, including eight years at Univision, where I led the networks’ coverage of the Trump administration from our bureau in Washington. I drew insights from that assignment as well as nearly a dozen previous Trump interviews through various outlets; what I learned was that frequent contextual additions failed to generate newsworthy conversations and alienated viewers.
Advertisement
My firm belief was that, rather than imposing a personal stance, the goal was to empower viewers to form their own assessments and process the information rationally rather than emotionally.
Share this articleShareIt worked. It made news. Trump discussed the possibility of weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents and went on record defending family separation as a deterrent to try to stop undocumented immigration. The interview covered more than 40 questions and follow-ups, hitting everything from national security, foreign policy, Trump’s legal troubles, the Supreme Court and women’s reproductive rights, Big Pharma’s role in the opioid epidemic, U.S. gun policy, education and the economy. A comprehensive discussion for an audience with diverse interests, just like the rest of the electorate.
In offering a fair platform for Trump’s views, which resonate with a growing segment of Televisa-Univision’s viewership, I intentionally granted him ample space. It was a soft interview by design, not by accident or imposition, like some suggested. I treated him as a former head of state, not the host of “The Apprentice.”
Advertisement
Some critics argue that tactic allowed Trump to repeat false claims about the 2020 election, the nature of his legal issues and President Biden’s reputation. No, I didn’t fact-check statements live that have already been debunked repeatedly, and were debunked again after our conversation aired; what would have been the point in blowing up the conversation to do so? I would have become a protagonist instead of letting relevant information serve that role. (I did intervene when he made false claims about Biden’s relationship with Iran, or Russia’s behavior under his presidency.) Others labeled me a traitor for not hammering even more on immigration, assuming Hispanics are interested in only one topic, which I find overly simplistic at best.
While my friend and colleague Jorge Ramos champions confrontation as the only way to hold those in power accountable, the downside to that approach became clear in recent years as newsmakers across the political spectrum and beyond the United States refused to engage with Univision, driving the network to the brink of journalistic irrelevance. When an entire network is sidelined because of the perceived confrontational bias of a single journalist, its ability to fulfill the mission of serving and empowering Hispanics is severely compromised.
I believe as journalists, we are uniquely responsible for elevating the conversation, cutting through the noise and providing a platform for perspectives that question even our preconceptions. This is particularly crucial in an era marked by polarization and historically diminished public trust in the news media. True journalistic integrity lies not in sensationalism, but in fostering a space for diverse perspectives to be explored, offering the audience a deeper examination of critical actors beyond the confines of public caricature.
Rescuing this great tradition is not just a journalistic imperative — it is a pragmatic recognition that growing divisions undermine democracy and its fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of the press and its independence that we treasure and uphold on both sides of the border.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLyxtc2ipqerX2d9c3%2BOamloaWNkwbPBzKlkrZ2cmsOqv8BmrKehpp7AqrvNZqCnrJWnw6qx1mg%3D