Virginia Pérez Alonso, co-director of digital news outlet Público and president of Plataforma por la Libertad de Información, explores Spain’s announced Democratic Regeneration plan in an interview with the International Press Institute (IPI). Prompted by a row over false information about the Prime Minister’s wife, the plan aims to improve media transparency and legal safeguards for journalists, according to the Spanish government.
—
How did the idea of a Democratic Regeneration Plan arise, in relation to the current Spanish media ecosystem? What factors have led the Government to take measures against what the Prime Minister has called “hoaxes” and “pseudo-journalism”?
It all stems from a legal case that was initiated against the wife of the Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, for alleged influence peddling and corruption. The complaint against his wife was based on information published by conservative media outlets, but some of it was false.
One report, for instance, claimed that Sánchez’s wife had received a subsidy about which the government had withheld information. However, that subsidy was actually granted to someone with the same name and surname as the Prime Minister’s wife, but with a different identity document number. In other words, that “media outlet” had confused another woman with the Prime Minister’s wife.
Although various media outlets echoed that this news was false, the judge still approved the lawsuit, which had been filed by an organization close to the far-right1 that specializes in strategic litigation – often with an ideological agenda -, amplified through allied media outlets. Previously, the Prime Minister’s wife has been the target of scurrilous rumours and falsehoods to smear her reputation, such as claims that she was a transgender person.
It is following these incidents that the Prime Minister announced this Democratic Regeneration plan, later named the Democratic Action Plan. It is notable that the initiative is directly related to his wife’s case, and not linked to the numerous threats to freedom of information and expression that have been recorded in Spain for years.
One of the key points of the plan is the establishment of a media registry controlled by the National Competition Market Commission, and the reform of the Institutional Advertising Law. In your opinion, how is this law currently impacting the media in Spain? What are the specificities of the Spanish media landscape, in terms of ownership and financing allocation transparency? Do you consider that these proposed measures will reinforce transparency and plurality, as the government aims?
One of the main problems is that public institutions operate under a zero-transparency policy when it comes to providing information about institutional advertising. This prevents media outlets (and citizens) from verifying whether advertising is granted according to the “objective criteria” established by law. These “objective criteria” are not defined, so in most cases advertising is awarded based on audience figures, without considering other parameters, such as whether the beneficiary media outlets comply with laws (such as the equality law) or audience loyalty.
The Institutional Advertising Law regulates the Government’s activity in this area, but in Spain, there are many other public entities (regional governments, provincial councils, municipalities, public companies…) suspected of using advertising discretionarily. As of today, it is impossible to transparently know how all these entities use institutional advertising.
“Any progress in transparency will be positive for the media and the public.”
Virgina Pérez Alonso – Público & Plataforma por la Libertad de Información
Additionally, the management of this public money ends up in the hands of so-called media agencies, private intermediaries who, based on audience rankings, decide through which channels different advertising campaigns, whether public or private, will be disseminated. These audience rankings are also compiled by private companies that media outlets must pay to access their data.
Moreover, much of the content in some of the top-ranking media outlets has nothing to do with current news but is designed strictly for positioning on Google. However, when surveys ask citizens about the news media they have recently read, these rankings change significantly.
The plan announced by the Government is very general, serving as a starting point that needs to be developed throughout the legislature. But one of the proposed measures is the obligation for public entities to report on institutional advertising every six months.
I believe that any progress in transparency will be positive for the media and the public. In my opinion, a media register is necessary to prevent anyone who creates a website from passing it off as a legitimate media outlet. Initially, I don’t see anything that threatens media plurality, as long as its implementation ensures journalistic freedom, regardless of who is in power.
The plan also mentions the reform of the “Gag Law”, particularly the article on images dissemination of State Security Forces, which in the past has led to numerous sanctions of media professionals. Do you think that this will effectively contribute to improving safeguards for journalists covering demonstrations, rallies, and other politically charged events?
In my view, this measure is merely cosmetic, as most of the sanctions under the “Gag Law” against citizens and journalists are imposed for so-called “disrespect” towards the State Security Forces (Article 37.4) and “disobedience to authority” (Article 36.6), two excessively ambiguous provisions. Moreover, regarding Article 36.23, the Constitutional Court has already ruled in two judgments that the mere recording of images of the State Security Forces can never be punishable.
“The simple fact that defamation and slander are included in the Penal Code […] is already a clear threat to freedom of expression and information. And the measures announced by the government do not address this.”
Virgina Pérez Alonso – Público & Plataforma por la Libertad de Información
For the dissemination of such images to be punishable, the danger they pose must be imminent and specific; it is not enough for it to be abstract or remote. In any case, the Constitutional Court states that each case must weigh whether the images or data disclosed pertain to private life or are related to the official activity of authorities or agents, and assess the public relevance of disseminating those images or data.
In other words, modifying the “Gag Law” in this area will not substantially improve the protection of journalists, because it does not propose eliminating the two aforementioned articles. Furthermore, it does not address the “truthfulness principle” of the Police nor propose regulations to make police uniforms include clear and visible identification of officers, so the impunity for attacks on journalists remains.
The government also apparently aims to introduce changes to the law on official secrets, reform the law on the right to honor and privacy, and amendments to the Penal Code to deal with crimes of freedom of expression – but without specifying yet whether it will include that relating to insults against the Crown. How do these existing provisions currently affect your work, if they do? What impact do you think the plan will have on journalists in Spain?
We need to wait for the development of these measures to understand their true scope, but the mere fact that changes to the Official Secrets Act are being announced is good news, as successive democratic governments have used (and continue to use) this law to withhold information that is relevant to the public.
As for the so-called “crimes against honor”, the simple fact that defamation and slander are included in the Criminal Code and are not handled through civil law – as the UN Human Rights Committee has called for since 2011 – is already a clear threat to freedom of expression and information. The measures announced by the Government do not address this, despite the fact that the fear of prosecution and a criminal conviction can have a chilling effect on many journalists, leading to self-censorship.
“We will need to […] remain vigilant against any initiative that could ultimately threaten freedom of information. It would never be acceptable for the government to decide what is truthful information and what is not.”
Virgina Pérez Alonso – Público & Plataforma por la Libertad de Información
Lawsuits against media outlets and journalists for defamation and slander are, unfortunately, very common in Spain. And often, these legal actions are taken merely to intimidate, as plaintiffs (mainly public figures) often have the financial means and know that these processes are costly for media outlets and journalists, both financially and reputationally.
Regarding “opinion crimes” (defamation and slander against the Crown, the general and regional parliaments, “insults” to Spain, and various state institutions), these clearly serve as intimidation against those who wish to disseminate information or simply express ideas, opinions, or thoughts about these institutions. Furthermore, they carry harsher penalties than those applied to defamation and slander against ordinary citizens.
Public figures, by their nature, are subject to greater scrutiny by the public, journalists, and media outlets, so granting them greater protection is unjustifiable. A separate issue is the offense of religious sentiments, systematically used by ultra-Catholic and far-right organizations to intimidate artists, civil society, and journalists.
As for SLAPPs, the only thing the Government has announced is the transposition of the European directive, something it is obliged to do. Once transposed, this will offer greater protection to journalists against strategic litigation.
A reform of the law on the right of rectification, to improve the system for rectifying “false or openly biased” news items, has also been mentioned. What are the risks of Sánchez’s government focusing on defending “accurate information” against the so-called “mud machine”?
The measures announced are, for now, mere statements of intent. We will need to monitor their development and remain vigilant against any initiative that could ultimately threaten freedom of information. It would never be acceptable for the Government to decide what is truthful information and what is not. This should fall, if anything, to an independent body that does not currently exist in Spain.
In general, what positive aspects and what potential hurdles or negative consequences do you see in the implementation of this plan for press freedom in Spain?
As a statement of intent, I think the Government’s proposals generally align with the goal of safeguarding independent press and freedom of information. However, the conservative press will likely put up as many obstacles as possible in the development of these measures because they see them as an interference with their freedom of action and enterprise.
Moreover, the Government’s support in Parliament is not guaranteed, so any measure that requires passage through the Congress of Deputies [the lower house of the Cortes Generales, Spain’s legislative branch, editor’s note] may not succeed.
We can only wait and see how these announcements evolve and urge the Government to engage in dialogue with the media and organizations dedicated to defending freedom of information. This process must strengthen independent media, informational plurality, and citizens’ right to information, ensuring these protections continue regardless of who is in power.
- ↩︎The Manos Limpias organization is often associated with the extreme right due to its origins and legal activities. Its founder, Miguel Bernard, was involved with the far-right Frente Nacional political party and had links to the Francoist movement. The organization has been criticized for promoting a far-right agenda through legal actions that sometimes lacked evidence. In 2016, Bernard was convicted of extortion, although he was later acquitted by the Supreme Court.
This interview was produced as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism that tracks, monitors, and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.
