Ricardo Salinas Pliego, the prominent owner of TV Azteca, has stirred significant controversy with his recent directive prohibiting the use of 'woke' language across the network's programming. On December 17, 2024, Salinas took to social media to announce his stand against what he perceived as insensitivity and deviation from traditional communication norms, prioritizing viewer preferences.
His message was stark: "A mis colaboradores que salen en pantalla quiero decirles que ser 'diferentes' en un mundo lleno de insensatez… es valentía, no caigan en tratar de encajar y ser normales" (Translation: "To my collaborators on screen, I want to tell you all, being 'different' in a world full of foolishness... is courage; don’t fall for trying to fit in and be normal"), he wrote, framing the use of 'woke' language as incongruent with common sense.
But what does 'woke' language actually mean? The term has evolved over the years, originally rooted within African American communities as both awareness and activism against social injustices. According to the Oxford Dictionary, it has grown to denote being conscious of social issues, particularly around race and equality, emphasizing sensitivity to language so as not to promote stereotypes or discrimination.
Examples of 'woke' language include the use of inclusive terms like 'cisgender' (for those whose gender identity matches their birth sex) and 'non-binary' (those who do not identify strictly as male or female). Advocates argue such language promotes respect and acknowledgment for all identities. For many younger audiences, it’s about cultivating comprehension of diverse experiences and fostering societal equality through communication.
Nevertheless, not everyone is on board with the so-called 'woke' movement. Salinas’ ban has reignited discussions around freedom of expression versus the perceived impositions of political correctness. Critics argue such initiatives reflect censorship — limiting how individuals express their identities and the broader social discourse.
"Ayer vi a varios 'progresistas' ofendidos porque en mi empresa yo establezco las reglas" (Translation: "Yesterday I saw several 'progressives' offended because in my company I establish the rules"), Salinas remarked, addressing dissenters who claimed his policies are suppressive. He stood firm, stating, "Vivir en fantasías acabará destruyendo nuestra sociedad" (Translation: "Living in fantasies will end up destroying our society"). For Salinas, the issue transcends language; it’s about the vision he holds for his media outlet and the content it produces.
There's considerable discussion among commentators and viewers alike about the impact of Salinas’ decision. Some viewers welcome the call for authenticity and traditional values, aligning with Salinas’ viewpoints, considering it necessary for media to uphold certain standards. Conversely, others see it as regressive, denying the evolution of societal conversation about diversity and inclusion.
The debate is emblematic of larger societal divisions — around freedom, identity, and the language we use to express both. TV Azteca, under Salinas' leadership, may find itself at the center of this cultural discourse, with potential repercussions not only for its programming but also for its audience engagement strategies.
What remains clear is the challenge facing media conglomerates today, where the demand for inclusive language must be balanced against the preferences and values of their audiences. Salinas’ directive will undoubtedly force conversations about the nature of communication and representation within media and society at large.
Salinas has made his position clear, and it raises pressing questions: Will such mandates lead to greater viewer satisfaction or will they alienate segments of the population? What will be the long-term effects on dialogue within Mexican media? The future for TV Azteca lies not solely with Salinas’ rules but with the dynamic relationships between the network, its viewers, and the ever-evolving cultural fabric of society.