A live broadcast opened with a focus on the protest in front of the headquarters, as a critical view aired on Wednesday, November 8. The program on Telecinco covered the latest violence and clashes that followed. The broadcast gathered the reaction of Santiago Abascal, who urged police to resist what he called illegal government orders, a moment highlighted during the evening coverage.
The conversation began with Home Terradillos and Vox General Secretary Ignacio Garriga discussing the issue. According to the guest, Abascal’s stance reflected common sense, and he proceeded to criticize what he described as a morning campaign that used newly released videos to bolster the PSOE argument. Garriga framed the content as manipulation and the criminalization of a patriotic and peaceful rebellion, a claim echoed in the studio by the Vox spokesperson.
The journalist defended his program and its implications, insisting that the team did not push a specific ideology. He described the work as produced by a dedicated team that spent long hours compiling material captured by citizens, not purchased by PSOE. The claim was clear: there is no ideological bias in the reporting.
The discussion then turned to the streets, with Garriga condemning calls to create disturbances and portraying anti-amnesty protests as tied to fascist, homophobic, and racist cries. He called the PSOE headquarters the epicenter of a supposed coup, while Terradillos pressed back, arguing that Spain defends itself both in organized meetings and on the streets. Garriga maintained that there is a persistent mobilization of Spaniards and that such energy should be encouraged.
Terradillos: “I have no intention of manipulating”
The host pressed Garriga on whether Vox condemned recent acts of vandalism. The Vox representative responded with irritation, asserting that peaceful and patriotic rebellion was being marginalized by insinuations. He rejected any notion that Vox would align with attackers or manipulate the discourse in a way that would justify violence.
Terradillos defended the journalistic approach, stating that he asks direct questions and expects clear answers. Garriga interrupted at times, asking the host to drop insinuations and remain focused on the discussion. The guest reiterated that the questions contained implications that would not be accepted and asserted his position with firmness.
The host reflected on the interview tone and expressed a desire to maintain accountability. He recalled the necessity of condemning unlawful actions while recognizing the complexity of the situation in public spaces. The Vox interlocutor acknowledged the interviewer’s concern but defended his own stance, emphasizing that the discussion should not be framed as a simple cut of blame.
The conversation continued with a firm exchange of views. The host noted that his intention was not to goad Garriga into a hidden admission, and Garriga stated his willingness to answer in a straightforward manner. The exchange highlighted the tension between media inquiry and political messaging, showing how each side framed demonstrations and street actions as part of a larger political narrative. The discussion also touched on the broader context of public demonstrations, security concerns, and the role of media in interpreting peaceful protest versus violent episodes.
Eventually the discussion concluded with reflections on the responsibilities of broadcasters and political actors. The host suggested that a future interview with another party could follow, underscoring the importance of addressing the issue openly. The closing remarks emphasized an absence of intent to manipulate or target any group. The dialogue illustrated a contentious yet essential conversation about civic action, media scrutiny, and the lines between protest and disorder.