«Me río de tu profesionalidad; lo tuyo no es objetividad, lo tuyo es maldad»

«Me río de tu profesionalidad; lo tuyo no es objetividad, lo tuyo es maldad» names a sharp accusation Bea makes to Rebeca Ramos during a demonstration. Its force comes from the collision between public role and alleged private motive: Bea presents Rebeca not as an incisive, objective journalist, but as someone using that professional appearance to pursue revenge. When demonstrators take up the phrase, the accusation also exposes how quickly a pointed personal attack can become a crowd’s portable slogan.

The confrontation behind the phrase

Bea’s charge is part of a direct exchange, not a detached judgment on journalism. Rebeca first dismisses Bea’s claim that she knows who Bea’s sister is, saying that she does not even know who the sister might be. Bea answers that Rebeca knows perfectly well: the person at issue is Irene, the mayor. The dispute therefore involves not only the reporter’s conduct but also the decision to target someone close to Bea.

Bea frames that targeting as retaliation. She alleges that Rebeca could not bear that Bea had slept with Rebeca’s boyfriend three nights earlier, that he still paid no attention to Rebeca, and that Rebeca consequently went after Bea’s sister. These are Bea’s accusations within a heated confrontation, not an independent account of Rebeca’s motives. That distinction matters: the phrase sounds like a verdict, but the scene presents it as one person’s forceful interpretation of another’s actions.

The appeal to professionalism sharpens the charge. Bea does not merely call Rebeca dishonest; she sets Rebeca’s claimed journalistic virtues against the conduct Bea attributes to her. Incisiveness and objectivity become the public image under suspicion, while revenge and malice supply Bea’s counter-explanation. The phrase’s blunt opposition makes the argument easy to grasp, even as the scene leaves the accusation rooted in a personal dispute.

From accusation to counter-slogan

The line’s structure makes it especially easy to repeat. It begins with a direct attack on Rebeca’s professionalism, then pivots to a compact contrast between objectivity and malice. The first part challenges her credibility; the second supplies a memorable alternative account of what her reporting means. Bea’s wording thus acts both as criticism and as a verbal counterattack: it disputes the identity Rebeca claims as a journalist and assigns her a hostile motive instead.

The phrase also carries a tension that the scene does not resolve. Bea condemns Rebeca for allegedly disguising revenge as objective work, but Bea herself speaks from anger over a claimed romantic betrayal and the involvement of her sister. That context does not prove her accusation false; it does make the confrontation personal on both sides. The line’s certainty is therefore more forceful than the evidence the exchange itself establishes. Its rhetorical effectiveness and its status as a confirmed account are not the same thing.

The crowd takes up the words

After Bea speaks, people with megaphones begin repeating the accusation. The narration observes that demonstrations can make people susceptible to a good slogan even when it has little to do with the protest’s subject. In this moment, the phrase travels beyond the exchange that produced it: a charge about Rebeca’s conduct and Bea’s family becomes a chant within a larger public gathering.

That shift changes what the words do. Initially, Bea addresses Rebeca and explains why she believes the journalist acted against Irene. Once the crowd repeats the line, it no longer belongs solely to their argument. The megaphones give it reach, while repetition turns its contrast into something participants can voice together without restating the dispute behind it. The scene’s irony lies in that separation: a demonstration’s collective energy can lend a personal accusation the appearance of a public slogan, even when the accusation does not address the protest’s central issue.

The phrase’s role in Bea’s attack

The crowd’s repetition does not end Bea’s confrontation. Rebeca looks from one person to another, unable to understand how the demonstration has become her worst nightmare, and Bea continues. She claims that Rebeca has caused the uproar because she could not accept that Diego preferred Bea, whom Rebeca had treated as a nobody. Bea then rejects the idea that she wants Diego, says she finds him repellent, and insists that she has already refused him. The closing insistence makes the conflict more complicated than a simple contest over a man: Bea presents herself as rejecting Diego while accusing Rebeca of making him and their alleged rivalry the basis for an attack on Irene.

The repeated slogan is therefore both a condemnation of Rebeca’s supposed professional bad faith and an instrument in Bea’s public counterattack. Its memorable contrast helps it circulate, but its meaning remains tied to the scene’s unresolved clash between journalistic objectivity, personal motive, and public spectacle. The novel shows the words acquiring collective force without showing that the crowd has verified their truth; what becomes undeniable is their power to redirect attention from the protest toward the reporter herself.