The DANA of 29 October 2024 marked a milestone for disinformation in Spain. Not only did the volume of disinforming content increase considerably, but it also targeted specific institutions: the Guardia Civil, AEMET, Cruz Roja… So much so that at Maldita.es we had to look for new ways to combat it, adding to data the use of logical arguments that showed the inconsistency of some of the disinformation published.
In a crisis where negative emotions such as anger or confusion prevail, argument checking appeals to the ability to stop and reason. After identifying its necessity in a context of urgency, we are now studying this new strategy to fight disinformation with the help of academic organisations.
10 reasons not to believe that deaths were being hidden in the car parks of Bonaire and MN4 or the Alfafar Tunnel
One of the main narratives after the DANA claimed that in enclosed places such as the Bonaire car park, the MN4 car park or the Alfafar Tunnel, many people had been trapped during the flooding and that the security forces involved in the rescue operations were hiding their bodies.
Before professionals entered the car parks, the idea that deceased people might be found could make sense, given that many people did not expect the flooding and that these were places with difficult exits. However, although different police forces and involved personnel stated that they had not found any bodies in Bonaire, MN4 or the Alfafar Tunnel, the content insisted and claimed that information was being hidden and that deaths were being covered up.
At the time we provided 10 reasons not to believe them, which we summarise here:
- The media focus was on those three locations. If bodies had been found, it would have been recorded.
- Police officers, firefighters, UME military personnel, authorities from the PP, from the Government (PSOE and Sumar), from the judiciary… were required for the inspection of the car parks and have different interests. It makes no sense that none of them would have reported the situation, not even anonymously, showing photos or videos.
- On the other hand, if there had been fatalities, some of the many people involved in the removal of bodies (truck drivers, morgue and crematorium workers…) would have spoken out.
- Are there deaths in these three places, but no relatives publicly reporting their disappearance, providing the names and surnames of the deceased?
Dams are being demolished that would have stopped the flooding… but it is not known which ones?
Another of the major narratives spread during the DANA is that the flooding was so severe because in recent years dams and reservoirs had been demolished in the riverbeds affected by the rainfall. The river barriers that have been demolished in Spain are not large dams or reservoirs; they are small barriers incapable of retaining a flood, and none had been demolished in the DANA area.
But above all, if someone firmly claims that dams large enough to stop the force of the water have been demolished, they could easily point out which ones. Reservoirs and dams are large engineering works that take years to build and dismantle: if some had been removed in towns south of Valencia, there would be some trace on the Internet allowing them to be identified. However, names are usually not given or, when they are, they point to reservoirs that are still in operation today.
“Don’t let yourself be deceived”: reasoning against disinformation on Instagram and TikTok
At Maldita.es we took argument checking to Instagram and TikTok, two of the social networks where disinformation circulated most easily. On TikTok, hundreds of disinforming videos accumulated millions of views (and many are still published without any warning label). Although the platform recommended that users inform themselves through “official sources”, it did not label the videos that spread hoaxes already fact-checked against the Spanish meteorological agency.
The video combined fact-checking —contrasting data and facts with disinformation narratives— with argumentation to convey a complete message, achieving more than 200,000 views on TikTok and more than 400,000 on Instagram.
Argument checking together with the academic world
At Maldita.es we are working with the University of Navarra to study the possibilities of argument checking with the help of the academic community and to design a methodology to complement data and fact-checking with arguments. With the project Argument Checking vs Disinformation Content during Climate Emergencies and Crises (AC/DC), we select narratives that can be addressed through reasoning, develop arguments and test different prototypes and formats that are then analysed by a sample of the public.
The idea is to incorporate the results into the daily work of Maldita.es in order to use argumentation when necessary in the most effective way possible, always as a complement to fact-checking.
This publication has been produced with the support of the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF), managed by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of Maldita.es and does not necessarily reflect the views of the EMIF or the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.