On the night of Thursday, November 24, Paul Motorcycles took a few minutes to broadcast a response to the Ministry of Equality’s campaign launched on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, under the banner of the year’s provocative question, “Who next?” The broadcast featured a television presenter who, in a moment of dialogue with a guest, asked whether she was wearing underwear that was more about sex appeal or comfort. The moment echoed a question the same show had previously posed to Elsa Pataky in 2016, generating immediate reactions and sparking a broader discussion about tone, boundaries, and the limits of inquiry in televised interviews.
Interpretations of the campaign as a personal provocation were quickly shared on air, as a prominent presenter from Antena 3 criticized the initiative in a subsequent program. He asserted that more than a million euros in public funds had been spent on a television campaign designed to label him as macho. He contended that the expenditure was misdirected given the current condition of the country and described the campaign as morally questionable, emphasizing that it targeted him specifically even though it claimed to address universal issues. He also noted the public nature of the debate and the lingering discomfort his appearance prompted among viewers who felt the commentary crossed a line of decency.
Following the presenter’s defense, Motos, the other figure involved in the exchange, attempted to contextualize the incident by recalling that the very question had been asked of Elsa Pataky during a different setting years earlier. He argued that Pataky had come to promote a campaign centered on sexy lingerie and pajama wear, suggesting that the contrast between the original interview and the campaign’s framing illustrated a perceived double standard. He displayed the actual question as a means of clarifying the audience’s perception of tone, arguing that the campaign’s portrayal of him had misrepresented the exchange and that the demonstrated interaction bore little resemblance to what occurred in his earlier dialogue with the actor.
The discussion then shifted to the responses of the interviewee involved in the controversial moment, with the host of the show emphasizing that his behavior did not resemble the aggressive or invasive tone attributed to the campaign. He asserted that if the roles had been reversed, the same interrogation would have been met with resistance, suggesting a gendered double standard in public scrutiny. He challenged viewers to examine the consistency of the campaign’s claims against his stated approach, noting that he had routinely conducted interviews with a range of guests, including musicians and actors, without crossing professional boundaries. The moment drew renewed attention to the broader conversation about how media personalities should balance curiosity with respect for guests’ boundaries, especially on sensitive topics tied to gender and personal appearance.
In the ensuing minutes, the show’s panel of collaborators weighed in, underscoring their responsibility to protect guests from offense while maintaining a constructive, respectful atmosphere on set. They described their long-standing commitment to avoiding any remarks that could be interpreted as insulting to either female or male participants. One contributor reflected that the program had always prioritized a careful and considerate style of questioning, regardless of a guest’s gender, while another colleague expressed feeling shocked by the nature of the public relations push surrounding the episode. The dialogue highlighted the tension between editorial freedom and the potential for political or social campaigns to steer media narratives in ways that may not align with everyday journalistic practices.
The discussion reached a critical moment when the host, in a final nudge toward a broader reflection, encouraged Motos to share any final thoughts, inviting him to arrange future encounters for deeper conversations. Cristina Pardo then weighed in, expressing regret that contemporary politics had become heavily intertwined with social media dynamics, public shaming, and quick judgments. She characterized the campaign as a mistake of communication strategy, while Tamara Falcó echoed the sentiment, labeling the initiative as unsatisfactory and dismissing it as an example of a media stunt that distracted from substantive public discourse. Through these exchanges, the episode became a case study in how modern media handles gender-sensitive topics, public campaigns, and the friction between accountability and freedom of expression, prompting viewers to consider the responsibilities of both broadcasters and campaign organizers in shaping a respectful, informative public arena.