Jiménez Losantos threatened to fire Girauta over Vox criticism

Girauta and Federico: Clash over Vox and CAM contracts

During the campaign for Spain's July 23 general election, EsRadio became the stage for a dispute remembered more for its aftermath than its broadcast. According to accounts spreading from a tweet, Federico Jiménez Losantos threatened to fire Juan Carlos Girauta if he continued accusing him of being paid to attack Vox, inviting him to move to La Ser. Girauta, this version claims, did not make such accusations but merely rebutted arguments regarding Vox and Buxadé.

The argument is neither new nor isolated. It has persisted in Spain's political radio ecosystem for months, mixing two distinct issues: the tone used toward Vox on certain programs and the public funding received by their broadcasters.

What exactly was said on EsRadio?

The most repeated account states that the host threatened to fire Girauta if he insisted on linking editorial stance to alleged payments. The attributed phrase invites him to leave for La Ser. If confirmed, it would be a striking episode: a guest having his right to question media independence challenged.

From there, the issue turned into a reckoning with each other's pasts. The guest was reproached for his former membership in Falange, while the host was countered with his youthful admiration for Mao and alleged military training in China. Two uncomfortable biographies judged by the same standard.

How much Madrid regional government money is involved?

Here the debate becomes economic. Specific figures circulate: 23 contracts and over €170,000 from the Community of Madrid government in one year. A cited tweet raises the figure to nearly €400,000 annually, questioning if this financial relationship explains the program's hostility toward Vox.

None of these amounts are audited in the discussion. They are third-party allegations, repeated without verification and never confirmed by the station. This is precisely the weak point: suspicion serves as an argument but remains just suspicion.

Beyond institutional advertising, another channel exists: alleged contracts linked to the official campaign promoting postal voting for the July 23 election. If the station was paid for both, the total public money entering that editorial line ceases to be anecdotal.

From treating Vox well to censoring their arguments

Some pinpoint the attitude shift to a specific date: Vox's motion of no confidence. Until then, they argue, the party was treated kindly or neutrally. Afterwards, criticism became daily.

Against this thesis lies a simple fact: editorial shifts also respond to convictions, audience calculations, or internal political fights, not just contracts. Without the station's accounting, attributing the change to a specific transfer is a leap.

It is worth reconstructing the details of this turn message by message. Testimonies date it to a specific program, describing a hostile environment toward the female guest. This material, with names and dates, does not appear in press summaries.

Why is the program's tone questioned?

Part of the audience has left. Commenters say they stopped listening when the show shifted from political critique to permanent score-settling. Others accuse the other voice on set of not letting guests finish, interrupting without adding arguments, and dismissing any disagreement with a simple and that's it.

Uncomfortable vocabulary also creeps in. The use of derogatory labels like crappy to define a political opponent is questioned, as it turns discussion into a sarracena judgment where only one side is legitimate. When this happens every morning, viewers stop expecting analysis and start expecting blows.

---

With available data, the matter remains where it started: a firing threat told by third parties, unverified institutional advertising figures, and an editorial shift explained differently by everyone. The simplest and most uncomfortable question, unanswered with documents, is how much exactly, from whom, and in exchange for what.