Carlos Latre's Ayuso impression ignites political humour row

The double standard of humour: Latre impersonates Ayuso and the controversy ignites

Why does an impression of a public figure on an entertainment show unleash a political storm while identical parodies are quietly shelved? Carlos Latre portrayed Isabel Díaz Ayuso on El Hormiguero and the response came within minutes: for some it was a comedian doing his job, for others a piece that shields the right. The discussion quickly shifted to their own medicine.

What Carlos Latre impersonated, and where

The comedian brought his repertoire of voices to a prime-time studio and devoted a segment to the Madrid regional president. The full clip, seven minutes long, later circulated on social media. The show is hosted by Pablo Motos.

From there, the conversation stopped being about impression technique. Some critics argue that laughing at some officials and not others has an effect: it reinforces the narrative of those who will no longer get their information elsewhere. On the other side is the classic argument: if humour can only point in one direction, it stops being humour and becomes propaganda.

Why is political humour accused of double standards?

The complaint is symmetrical and old. Some defend the parody by recalling that impressions of PSOE officials have also had airtime on television without anyone talking about censorship. Those who attack it reply that the context is not the same: a sketch broadcast on a widely watched programme is not a one-off joke; it helps establish a framing. And there the accusation reappears, held by some, that any humour not aimed at the government is branded fascism.

The symmetry breaks when you look at the record. Parodies of Aznar and his ministers on Canal Plus are remembered by some as a golden age. That healthy parody was, according to that account, directed at power.

From parody to Zapatero's safe

The matter left the studio when the exchanges crossed humour with corruption. References to a safe attributed to former prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero — whose contents are invoked to demand explanations — served to shift the focus: from whether an impression is legitimate to who is investigated and who is not. Some demand that all of them be peine, not just one person's, and list cases involving other parties that, on that reading, never reach the courts.

It is worth separating levels. Calling for an investigation into someone's assets is not the same as a conviction: there is talk of suspicions and demands for transparency, and no final rulings appear in the available information. Someone else's safe is a double-edged rhetorical weapon.

El Intermedio, Broncano's show and the war of the jesters

The fight over who does better humour dragged in other programmes: El Intermedio, Broncano's show and El Hormiguero itself entered the comparison. The most repeated diagnosis was not ideological but professional: the level has dropped and, according to several participants, the jesters are paid by the power they criticise, or by whoever pays their salary. Nostalgia for the Canal Plus puppets sums up the reproach: parody used to be a genre; now it is a trench.

There is no winner. Some see a comedian doing his job, others a megaphone for the opposing narrative. And the same people who demand freedom to laugh at some cut it back when it comes to laughing at others.