Vicente Vallés is one of the best known faces of Antena 3 news, but some of his criticisms of the Government have made him an even more prominent figure if possible. In an interview with Telva, the presenter has given his opinion on the different current issues. However, it has stood out to know if after the confrontations he had with Pablo Iglesias and Pablo Echenique on July 7, 2020 had brought him the occasional quarrel with the managers of the chain.
Vicente Vallés on Antena 3 news
« It is no news that the heads of this company, like those of all journalistic companies, receive calls« Valles confessed. However, assures that in his bosses he has always found « total support ». The journalist affirmed that in all the chains in which he has worked he has put « all the professional responsibility » that he could: « Which does not mean that I have not been wrong. Of course I have done it! Like everyone, I have been for many years working and that is inevitable. «
Anyway, the newscaster stated that « attacking journalists has almost become a habit ». However, he believes that the strangest thing was that in the middle of the health and economic crisis that is being experienced « in a press conference after a Council of Ministers and with no less than four members of the Government present, minutes were spent talking of journalists « . Anyway, he defends that « the professional obligation of journalists is to focus the information on who governsregardless of who it is « because it is something that has happened » always « .
No more debates
Vicente Vallés has confirmed in his interview that he does not plan to return to the forefront of political debates during the elections: « In no way will I moderate more debates, let others do it« , assured the journalist. » I promised myself, when I did the first two, that I would not repeat; then they convinced me for the third; I didn’t want the room anymore, but hey, it was done and I think it’s fine now« Vallés explained. The journalist affirmed that his decision is due to the uncertainty that remains every time a debate ends, reconsidering the questions he should have asked.