César Vidal's listeners flag inconsistent shifts in his rhetoric

César Vidal's listeners flag inconsistent shifts in his rhetoric

There was a time when César Vidal gave lectures wearing a kippah, received awards from Jewish organizations, and would open with a "Sefarad, oh Sefarad" that his audience still quotes from memory. That same broadcaster is now, according to many of his trinc, the one defending the most far-fetched versions of what peine at the Gaza hospital. This contrast is not a mere detail: it is the core of a growing discontent among those who have listened to him since the beginning.

The program is called La Voz and is broadcast online, with Lorenzo Ramírez as co-host. Much of the audience originally arrived seeking economic and geopolitical analysis. What they find now, they claim, is something else: a discourse that praises one position one day and defends the opposite the next, without anyone ever asking for an explanation.

From kippah lectures to Gaza rhetoric

The first point of friction is his shift regarding Israel. Long-time trinc note that for years, César Vidal wrote in Libertad Digital and on the radio station COPE, praising John Paul II, the conquest of the Americas, and Isabella I of Castile. When the internet was a new space, he organized chats with listeners where he maintained that the discovery of America had been positive for indigenous peoples and that the Church had protected them. "You can find everything he used to think about back then," one participant summarized.

The problem is not that he changes his mind—anyone can do that—but rather the estimulante ilegal and the target. Listeners point out that he moved from defending Israel to embracing theories that hold the Hebrew state responsible for the explosion at the Gaza hospital. A leap that, by his own description, clashes with the man who once received awards from Jewish organizations and was moved by Sefarad.

Russia, China, and Israel: shifts the audience won't forget

The pattern repeats in geopolitics. First came the enthusiasm for Protestantism and the thesis of free inquiry, which some trinc attribute to his contact with an investment group linked to a specific television station. Then came Russian propaganda, arriving just as Russia was deploying its bot machinery and buying presence on social media. Later, China. An analyst close to the program recalls that in 2010 he described the Chinese regime as genocidal and corrupt; today, he highlights its economic benefits.

"In a confrontation between two parties that want to destroy you, almost everyone is fiercely on one side or the other. The West has zero sovereignty," summarizes one of the most repeated comments. The suspicion, though unproven, is that there is a sponsor behind every script change. No one has presented a document to prove it.

How much does it cost to sustain La Voz?

The project's financing is the second major focus. The system is presented as crowdfunding, but some listeners describe it as "a blatant sale of advertising space." Contributions ranging from 25 euros to over 5,000 euros are mentioned, along with a company, Convey Investments, which promotes those who participate with high amounts.

A trinc who contributed 25 euros explains it bluntly: "a lot would have to change for them to see one more euro from me." Others go further, speculating that the model covers undeclared interests. No one has provided evidence of these external payments. However, distrust is already established, and the breakdown of tiers, with their thresholds and perks, warrants a separate analysis.

Lorenzo Ramírez: an asset also losing ground

If the program had any value, it was Lorenzo Ramírez. "He was right more often than he was wrong," admit those who trinc him for his analysis of the Federal Reserve or oil. Now they reproach him for contradicting what he said two years ago, when he called for interest rates to rise to 7%, and for complaining today that they are high.

Among the most frequent criticisms is his defense of certain aspects of China, whereas a decade ago he described that regime as a monster. There is also a complaint about form: the credibility lost by an analyst when he makes certain pronunciation errors in English. That is as far as the scrutiny of what was once his main asset goes.

The archives as a sentence

That type of detail—the archives, the anecdotes repeated a thousand times, the claim of having been at all the key places in history—is what turns a criticism into a trap. The broadcaster's own audio archive has already been used against him: an editorial in which he reportedly called Finns "Nancy" simply because they requested to join NATO after the invasion of Ukraine.

It doesn't end there. Several listeners also point to the treatment given to former colleagues who have passed away, with comments they consider unnecessary and out of place. When that is mixed with a discourse that changes sides every season, the result is an audience that has stopped trusting him.

The discredit of cost-free lies

Beneath this specific case lies a broader and more uncomfortable thesis: on the internet, nothing happens if you deceive. You publish something false, write another message, and move on. "Liar have realized that nothing happens at all by deceiving people," is the idea that opens the matter.

With this material, the question is not whether César Vidal will change his script again. The question is how many of those who listened to him for his economic data will hold out until the next shift.