demands, such as time availability in order to participate when it is requested (A7) or the gender when the programme searches a representative parity (A8).

But there are also new demands that arise due to the extension of politainment. In discussion groups, debates, or interview programmes, the new mediatic logic promotes the confrontation “footballing” of the television speech (Sánchez-García y Campos Zabala, 2017). Thus, a new information producer access code has been incorporated to television that relies in its ability to produce controversy that will increase the audience rates. In fact, a great number of the talk show programmes guests are “professional polemicists” (Mercado, 2002) (named spurs by the television slang), experts in seeking the most sensationalists issues of reality and to make the most extreme observations.

It is required that the politician has the ability to polemicize about a wide range of issues without evading confrontation (A14). However, reaching this point, it is true that the interests of the media and those of the political party sometimes might get confronted. The logic of the political party is to encourage the prominence in the media of those politicians that are in a stronger position in the hierarchy, resulting in a more reliable image due to the ideological tuning with the party’s ideology. However, the media can sometimes prefer a discordant politician due to his ability to create controversy, not only with his political adversaries, but also with his own co-regionists, providing a more personal and original point of view. In any case, the ironic politician will be sought because the television message encourages negativity and confron-tation (A15), more than a constructive proposal and an explanation (Habler et al., 2014).

For the sake of populism, it is sought that the politician appeals the public, being able to become its spokesman and flatter their approaches (A10). It is also sought that the political message is easily understood in order to reach the TV audience, which is very heterogeneous. Given the ephemeral and immediate character of the media, “the expositive clearness of the speech has to be a must. This clearness has effects on the language, and in television it has to be clear, short, concise and precise” (Salgado Losada, 2005). In this same sense, there is a need to take into account punctual facts more than processes that inevitably require a greater explanation and contextualization imposed by the media (Habler et al., 2014) (A13). Searching for that simplicity, the absence of ambiguity is imposed (A 16): the media prefer polarized messages as

Sánchez-García y Campos Zabala point out in their analysis of the political television talk shows “the journalistic talk show guest and the political fellow guest go on to the stage with `preconceived´ postures easily recognizable by the audience (…) this explains why the audience gets hooked with this sort of talk show in their search for reinforcing their ideological positions by clinging to clearly ideologically defined debaters” (2017: 83). However, the politician will opt, in some occa-sions, to choose an ambiguous message better than a more precise one that in the end can reveal inconsistencies (Habler et al., 2014).

Given that the infotainment programmes combine a wide range of formats, what is sought is that the political figure is flexible and can adopt different speech styles (A11), as a result, he will take part in the news programmes with an institu-tional image when he is referring to present issues from his own training or adopt an individual role in a talk show sharing his personal ideas or relating his own personal experiences in relation to other affairs with no relation at all with politics.