Alvise Pérez releases full El País interview after paywall

Alvise Pérez releases full El País interview after paywall

Eighty minutes of recording. A few minutes of article. And a complete interview that El País decides to put behind a paywall while the interviewee publishes it entirely on his own. The result, according to the circulated material: 140,000 views in five hours and a trail of reactions ranging from applause to diagnosis on how political interviews are manufactured today. The piece starts with a specific accusation: what the newspaper turns into a paid premium article is, according to the circulated material, an eighty-minute conversation reduced to a few minutes of headline.

The format chosen by the interviewer—accusatory questions, constant interruptions when the interviewee tries to nuance—becomes the true protagonist. Some describe it as an interrogation more typical of a mafia movie than a journalistic interview. Others respond with the opposite argument: that Alvise knew where he was entering and held his ground without losing composure. The conversation quickly moves toward more interesting territory than the clash: the time count. A circulated tally states that the interviewer spoke for 37 minutes and the interviewee for 38, several of which were spent asking to be allowed to speak.

The non-existent electoral program and the real one

The central accusation from the interviewer is that Alvise has no electoral program. The answer, repeated in several parts of the material, is that he does have one, but does not present it as a PDF because the media manipulates and distorts it. The declared strategy consists of exposing proposals on social networks and reserving development for the media, thus forcing them to ask about them without prior filtering.

The counterattack comes in the form of a list: the interviewer did not ask about housing, occupation, immigration, the release of convicted sens offenders, amnesty, or control over judges and media. The conclusion drawn from the material is that the program was secondary: what mattered was the confrontational headline.

Why does the interview become a political trial?

Because the interviewer does not ask: he accuses. That is the thesis running through much of the reactions. It is pointed out that the journalist interrupts when the interviewee is about to answer and introduces value judgments instead of questions. The less frequent but present counterargument is that Alvise is a public figure who has built himself on confrontation and cannot expect academic treatment.

The Zelensky episode is cited as an example of double standards: the interviewee is criticized for attacking the Ukrainian president because he cannot defend himself, while the same outlet directs all kinds of criticism at Milei, Trump, or Bukele. Symmetry, or its absence, becomes argumentative ammunition.

The echo: from interview to electoral calculation

The material does not stop at the clash. Some argue that with 49% of the votes, PP and Vox would end up with 177 seats, one short of an absolute majority, and that Alvise's entry into general elections would sink that majority. It is a circulated calculation, not an official projection, and presented as such.

In parallel, the conversation moves toward a broader economic debate on whether Spain has pogre since the seventies. Data cross on vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants—from 11 to 23 in 54 years—car sales, GDP per capita compared to the eurozone, and relative stagnation since the seventies. The uncomfortable conclusion that emerges is: the indicator each side chooses determines the narrative.

---

The disorienting data is not the view count. It is the minutes: in an eighty-minute interview, the interviewee spoke one minute more than the interviewer. And several of those minutes were spent asking to be allowed to speak.