When El Confidencial's information triggered a government crisis

Journalism not only tells stories, it also creates them. In the midst of the age of disinformation, Fernando Belzunce , editorial director of Vocento, composes a choral work in ' Journalists in Times of Darkness ' (Ariel) that portrays a profession in crisis and the attacks on press freedom . Through more than one hundred testimonies from journalists from around the world—Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzer Prize winners, war reporters, exiles, fact-checkers, chroniclers, promising young people, and international figures—the author constructs a narrative that highlights not only the vulnerability but also the importance of this work in the defense of truth and democracy. The result is a collection of voices - including those of Belarusian Svetlana Alexiévih , American Martin Baron , Nicaraguan Sergio Ramírez , British Carole Cadwalladr , Brazilian Patricia Campos Mello and Pakistani Zaffar Abbas - that come together to offer testimony of what was experienced in newsrooms, battlefields, centers of power and ignored peripheries, thus giving shape to an unforgettable essay that traverses the recent history of journalism and geopolitics.

From repression in Burma and exile in Costa Rica to newsrooms threatened byterrorism in Spain or the offices of the world's leading newspapers, this book focuses on those fighting to tell the truth in an era marked by the greatest global attack ondemocracy .

Below, we publish the text written by the director of El Confidencial, Nacho Cardero , one of the hundred included in the book 'Journalists in Times of Darkness'.

I found out about President Sánchez's message when I was in a taxi. During the journey, I was looking at my phone and, suddenly, I received a notification from X (Twitter) with a message from the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez . I opened it and found it so surprising that I couldn't believe it . I thought it was a fake message, that his account had been hacked or something like that. Well, let's see... The President of the Government took five days to reflect before deciding whether or not to continue in office. Something like that had never happened before. It was very powerful. I couldn't believe it. It was hard for us to accept that it could be true.

When I arrived at the newsroom that same afternoon, we organized a meeting. The reactions were astonished, even bewildered. I received a message from Carlos Alsina : " What a mess you've made , haven't you?" he said. Indeed, following El Confidencial's information about the actions of the Prime Minister's wife , an institutional crisis—in this case, a governmental one—had arisen such as we had never imagined. The possibility was being raised that a Prime Minister could resign in the wake of our information .

We began publishing information about this case—if I recall correctly—in March, which is when the Koldo plot broke in the media. It was a plot we were following in parallel, and we managed to piece it together and uncovered the information about Begoña Gómez , the wife of the Prime Minister. The first thing we published was the meetings Begoña Gómez had held with the CEO of Globalia, a company that received €475 million from the government in financial bailout after the pandemic and that had funded the Africa Center , an initiative of the Instituto de Empresa, which Begoña Gómez headed . That information came out, I believe, in March. Then we published the next investigation in April: Begoña Gómez's letter of support for businessman Barrabés to bid for public contracts under the Ministry of Economy and, later, the Ministry of Technological Transition. In May, we already published the story about the Complutense University master's degree. Remember, she obtained the position of director of the master's program without even having a degree , which had never happened before. This was in March, April, and May: each month, a research project.

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED

A coercive and irresponsible letter

The Confidential

The Prime Minister's announcement came after the Barrabés incident, but I don't think it was because of that specific information. I think the trigger, the fuse —I'm almost convinced of this—was the opening of a legal case against his wife by Judge Peinado in the Plaza de Castilla courts. The fact that the case suddenly became public and could reach enormous proportions. We also made it public because I was also summoned as a witness in that case.

The first thing the editorial team thought was that, logically, the Prime Minister had overreacted to the information. The second was that if he reacted that way, it was because something was really happening. In other words, he felt genuinely threatened . Ultimately, he gave much more weight to our information: we had touched the systemic part of the Government . Many things had happened before, and there had never been a reaction like that. That reaction implied that there was something else going on . We had to continue investigating because we had really hit the nail on the head. It was a way of reaffirming what we were doing. And, thirdly, people were considering the real possibility—although it seemed totally implausible—that Pedro Sánchez could leave the Prime Minister's office .

Naturally, we began working on the issue. It was no longer so much about advancing the investigation—which we always carry out in parallel—but rather about understanding what was happening within the government during those five days and what the final outcome might be. You know, there was always speculation that those days of reflection were a setup, a way to make the government emerge stronger. I believe the opposite happened. That tweet from Pedro Sánchez caused the entire international press to echo El Confidencial's reports , and the words "Begoña Gómez" and "corruption" were ubiquitous in international headlines. The image, both internally and externally, was that the Prime Minister, through his wife, felt truly threatened by the investigations we had conducted.

It's true that he never directly referred to El Confidencial as a pseudo-media outlet or a mud machine . But you can establish a cause-and-effect relationship. In other words, it turns out El Confidencial is publishing information, and he talks about hoaxes, disinformation, and mud machine. You can understand that he's referring to you—which is what I understood—although they never had the courage to name you . If we really are mud machines and we're spreading misinformation, we'll have to explain what information he's referring to in order to establish a debate and defend ourselves. But in this case, we weren't directly mentioned, nor were they told what the hoaxes were. A narrative was created that spread through WhatsApp messages , where people talked about disinformation and hoaxes. It was a narrative that, unfortunately, was bought by many people, including some colleagues I don't want to name. There was no critical thinking. What did he mean by disinformation?

Absolutely all the information about Begoña Gómez published by El Confidencial was accompanied by documents and evidence.

If there's one thing I'm clear about, it's that everything we've been publishing is of general interest because it refers to public funds. There's nothing more important than knowing where taxes go, how your money is managed, and public resources. Furthermore, the president's wife was involved , which was relevant in itself. And, as if that weren't enough, this information was true. All of it—absolutely all of it—was accompanied by documents, evidence, and testimony. There was even perfectly verifiable physical evidence. That's why I wanted them to name me directly and point out which part was supposedly disinformation. I was quite hurt that many colleagues unhesitatingly accepted the government's argument , without being able to explain which media outlets or what specific disinformation the executive branch was referring to.

From the moment we began publishing, we were pressured to stop disseminating further information on the matter. The pressure campaign was short-lived, but then came the announcement from the Prime Minister, after those five days of reflection . We were all waiting to see whether he would resign or not. He said he would continue as president —as many expected—and announced, in that same speech, that he would lead a plan for democratic regeneration. And we saw that this announcement was, in fact, a strategy to control the media sector and, basically, silence us, right? I thought it was extremely serious, because what was being promoted, at its core, was a type of censorship. It was, of course, very serious.

The best press law is the one that doesn't exist. The media themselves should regulate themselves through their various ethical codes.

The best press law is the one that doesn't exist. I believe that the media themselves should regulate themselves and, through their various ethical and deontological codes, ensure that journalistic activity and the work of their professionals are worthy of the project and their readers. I also understand the existence of a European Media Law , because it's true that there are hidden interests on the part of foreign powers to influence and destabilize countries through disinformation, hoaxes, etc. I understand that this pressure on liberal democracies exists and that Europe runs certain risks, as demonstrated in the United States with Cambridge Analytica.

I understand that something needs to be done. I don't like it, but I understand it. I accept the law. However, Pedro Sánchez's message focuses on the obligations of the media , and very little on their rights, when this law is basically designed to protect the rights of the press: to defend us from political and corporate pressure. This law has been used by the government as an excuse to try to introduce measures that have nothing to do with European regulations and are spurious provisions, with a clear political intention. It has become the pretext to intervene, in fact, in the media. And that is serious. If you do this when you are in power, no one will stop whoever comes after you from doing it just as badly or even worse. Because you will have opened a Pandora's box for the media and, above all, for the country.

Following our investigations, institutional and public company advertising in El Confidencial has been practically non-existent.

Based on our investigations, institutional and public company advertising in El Confidencial has been practically nonexistent . I don't want to talk about numbers—allow me to be discreet—but I can talk about percentages. From 2022 to 2023, advertising for the central government and the public companies under its control fell by 50% compared to the previous year, and in 2024, compared to 2022, it has fallen by 95%. In other words, central government advertising is, today, nonexistent. Logically, we consider this situation completely unfair , because El Confidencial hasn't changed at all during this time. We maintain our audiences. We are measured—or so they say—by different criteria that we are unaware of. Arguments related to European media and transparency are used to cover up, in reality, a bossy act like this.

I'm aware that this is also happening to other media outlets . We're not alone. Many colleagues have told me they're going through a very similar situation. We also know that companies have been pressured . But many have supported us. And then there are the readers.