Under the orange light of the Intercontinental Hotel, just a kilometer from Genoa’s headquarters, from side to side of the table, glide the future of the Royal House, the state of the Spanish center-right, the management of March 11. On the right, Jose Maria Aznar answers. On the left, Jordi evolves asks. The debut of the former Prime Minister in La Sexta, 25 years after arriving in Moncloa. The first program of the new season of Lo de Évole. The story of the first times. He has been chasing Aznar since the beginning. Why such insistence? Because he is a key character in our recent history due to his influence before and after being president. It is a shadow that is still very present in Spanish politics.
And why at this time?Because we remember that March 3 marks 25 years since he won an election and that made him especially excited does the current context of the center-right not influence?
The current situation is not bad, but I would be lying if I said that we interview that. Trading began in September and we did not imagine that we were going to find this moment, it was pure chance had never sat in La Sexta. In an in-depth interview, it is his first time. As he told me, he gave me the interview because perseverance must be rewarded. That is part of the rectitude that dominates Aznar’s behavior.
It is becoming difficult to see politicians sit with journalists with little affinity
They lavish little in general and tend to go to related media.
The problem is that the media are more and more related to a type of ideology, more linear, and that is not good. Is the problem one of the media or the politicians who address their audience? It is the tendency to make thought parishes, to follow on Twitter people who think like you, columnists who think like you or to see social gatherings who say we want to hear it. The mix would be much better, it would enrich us more, but this moment of absolute polarization does not admit shades of grays. Qualifying an opinion is not commercial, we prefer a radical and positioned opinion.
The other day a colleague said that now we want the press to reaffirm ourselves
It is not something very new and it is going to grow, the media and the people are increasingly more ideological supporters of . It is very marked on which side is each commentator, each newspaper, or each radio. I like that Aznar appears in La Sexta, although I know that many people will say why did we take him out. Well, precisely because it can give a point of view that we do not hear much in La Sexta.
Is your program also ideologically marked? We cannot give up an editorial line, but that cannot restrict you to certain guests or certain topics. That Aznar is with us is great because he goes to a program that is not related to him and lets him talk. I begin the interview by telling him that we voted for different parties, we are from different teams and we like different potatoes, but his presence is an enormous joy.
Is it easier to face an interview with someone in the antipodes than with someone related?
It is difficult for me to interview whom I appreciate because an interview to have some interest must have uncomfortable questions and with a friend, you cut yourself short.
With Pau Donés it was not bad that interview had little to do with finding a headline or looking for information that may be hiding from you, it is a self-help interview so that we can stay with a series of lessons. And that of Messi? You cannot ask Messi for the responsibility that you ask of a politician or a great businessman. Although you can squeeze him into something, he is a guy who plays soccer and I was interested in reaching the person behind the best in history. It has the controversial point with the contract published by the problems with the TreasuryAnd that’s why he was asked about his behavior with the Treasury but beyond that.
He insists a lot that it would have been a failure to end Aznar badly. Did you fear it?
It would have been the most predictable, but it didn’t motivate me at all. There were tense parts, but the important thing was that he explained himself and be able to ask him without breaking the rope and say I get up and go. Is Esperanza Aguirre’s then a failure? His uprising is almost comical, it is not the anger of an interviewee saying go to hell or that question is intolerable. We have had several characters who have left the program and, although they were television moments, we have not counted them because I was not interested in that point of tension and aggressiveness.
Who Is It?
If I did not issue them, why am I going to say them now? What was the tense point with Aznar? The informative management of 11-M because many moments are questioned if hisGovernment told us the whole truth did you break so it wouldn’t break?
Don’t stop, ask from a non-aggressive place. You don’t need a doggy interview to get answers. It does not coincide then that the lack of aggressive questions is to whitewash the guests are very wrong about bleaching, we have sanctified the controversy and the culture of the Casca that it seems that if there is not, there is no chicha. In a calm conversation, we can also get the attention of the spectators, it doesn’t take permanent tension to attract them. We have fallen into the trap that if there is no tension, they don’t pay attention to you. For a while, my show had that aggressive stamp, but now I don’t want that. You can’t be twitching all day.
Would That Stage Change?
No, everything is an evolution and specific moments. As programs, we live a very angry stage like 15-M and we were as pissed off as the people who occupy the seats. When you were facing certain political leaders, you were going with one more point of rage, that was the situation, but now I want to uncheck myself. Was it easier to express that anger with a center-right government like that of Rajoy? We started in the Zapatero government and there was the most rabid moment of the program. Continuing with anger, what is the right point at which tension breaks out in this country? The current tension is more unsustainable in the media than in society. There is less tension in the street than in social gatherings. The gatherings are pressing catch, they don’t really hurt each other, it’s a role.
Aznar insists a lot in his promotion on the rupture of societies due to the delegitimization of institutions.
We have given ourselves a series of institutions to which we owe respect and we must take care of, but we must also improve them even though there are people who understand that as delegitimization. Who is responsible for that process? Those who have used it wrong, especially from within. It is much more anti-system who has been corrupted within an institution than who is from outside. Do you consider certain parties more anti-system than the social movements from which they are born? A party in general, no, but members certainly. They all have individuals whose behavior has delegitimized the institutions.
Now that all the living presidents have sat down, what interview do you keep?
It was very useful when we brought Felipe Gonzalez and Artur Mas together in a very incipient moment of the process because we gave the example that two people who think very differently can dialogue politely. If our rulers had opted more for this option, we would not have reached the point we have reached.
That is the argument that is considered equidistant, What can we doIs Spain a full democracy? There is no doubt that Spain is a democracy and there is no doubt that it could improve, but it cannot be said that it is not full. We like the head of full democracy better than saying that things can be improved. Is the same thing happening with the protests in the case of Pablo Hasel? It is very good to mobilize for freedom of expression because no one should be taken to jail for a few letters, but at the same time, we turn people who are not into symbols.
