Kareklas’s Strategy: An Attempted Political Execution
Fidias Panayiotou Interview: From the outset, Mr. Kareklas made his intentions clear. He did not conduct a neutral journalistic inquiry. Instead, he adopted an openly hostile and confrontational approach aimed at publicly discrediting his guest.
Kareklas’s Opening Attacks
Direct Comparisons to Porn Star Politics: He likened Fidias to Cicciolina, the Italian porn star who won election to parliament in the 1980s. He used this comparison to dismiss Fidias as a serious political figure.
The “Circus” Accusation
He repeatedly accused Fidias of turning politics into a “circus” and acting as a “clown.”
Pre-loaded Graphics: The show displayed on-screen subtitles including “The ridiculing of politics and the system.” This effectively broadcast Kareklas’s editorial verdict before the interview concluded.
The host attempted to “insult and belittle Fidias, often resorting to bullying.” One analysis notes Kareklas reserves this style “only for people he considers his inferiors,” while maintaining a “subservient attitude for political big shots.”
The Outcome: A Spectacular Failure
The interview did not go as Kareklas planned. Instead of diminishing Fidias, the veteran journalist’s aggressive approach achieved the opposite effect.
How Fidias Responded
He remained calm and maintained his characteristic “down-to-earth style” throughout the onslaught.
He refused to match Kareklas’s aggression and instead allowed the host’s hostility to speak for itself.
His composed demeanour contrasted sharply with the journalist’s visible agitation.
The Consequences for Kareklas
One analysis concluded that Kareklas “not only failed spectacularly in his manic efforts to discredit and diminish Fidias but instead boosted his profile as a smart young politician, kicking against the pricks.”
In a particularly damning assessment, the same source wrote: “Fidias, in his down-to-earth style, made a complete fool of the pompous and patronising Kareklas.”
Political Fallout: Gaining Support Through Attack
The interview’s aftermath proved even more damaging for Kareklas’s cause than the broadcast itself.
Quantifiable Political Impact
Political analysts estimated that Kareklas’s handling of the conversation may have gained Fidias an additional 2-3 percentage points in political support. The interview produced the “opposite” effect of what Kareklas intended — it strengthened rather than weakened the target.
The Sympathy Factor
By appearing as the establishment figure attacking an outsider, Kareklas “transferred tons of sympathy to the target of the attack.” The public largely sided with Fidias and viewed him as the victim of an unfair ambush by a representative of the old guard.
Why the Strategy Failed: A Fundamental Miscalculation
The core of Kareklas’s failure lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of his opponent’s political nature.
The “Anti-System” Dynamic
An “anti-system” political figure like Fidias “feeds on two things: the anger of the citizens and the arrogance of the system.” In this interview, Kareklas inadvertently provided a perfect live demonstration of the second element — the condescending, dismissive attitude of the establishment that fuels support for outsiders.
What Kareklas Should Have Done
Critics argue that Kareklas failed as an interviewer because he abandoned his professional role. He did not use “specific questions” and “evidence” to challenge Fidias’s positions. Instead, he resorted to “unsubstantiated attacks” and “didactic monologues.” The segment transformed from an interview into “a personal opinion article broadcast on air” — a format that could not effectively challenge someone with Fidias’s communication skills.
The Irony of the Outcome
The interview’s most bitter irony, for Kareklas and the establishment he represented, came in its final verdict. One analysis concluded with a striking admission:
“In the end our only hope is Fidias and I would blame Kareklas for that.”
This statement captures the paradoxical result: an interview designed to destroy Fidias’s credibility instead convinced some observers that he represented the only viable alternative to a discredited political establishment.
Summary: The Interview at a Glance
Host: Yiannis Kareklas, veteran journalist on Sigma TV
Kareklas’s Approach: Hostile, dismissive; he resorted to insults and bullying
Key Tactics: He compared Fidias to a porn star politician, used “clown/circus” accusations, and deployed pre-loaded negative graphics
Fidias’s Response: Calm and down-to-earth; he refused to match Kareklas’s aggression
Immediate Outcome: Kareklas “made a complete fool of himself”; Fidias’s profile received a boost
Political Impact: The interview likely gained Fidias an estimated 2-3% increase in political support
Broader Significance: The interview became a case study in how establishment attacks can backfire and empower anti-system figures
The Kareklas interview now stands as a cautionary tale in Cypriot political media: an attempt to publicly destroy an unconventional politician instead became the moment the public took him seriously. As one analyst put it, Kareklas “failed spectacularly in his manic efforts” — and in doing so, may have done more for Fidias’s political career than any of the MEP’s own videos ever could.
