Debate over journalists and foreign intelligence services in Spain

Baños and journalists serving Anglo-American interests

Pedro Baños' name is once again at the center of controversy. The analyst, known for his theses on geopolitics and intelligence services, has repeatedly claimed that there are Spanish journalists working for foreign intelligence services, mainly Anglo-American ones. Far from being new, the claim ties into a recurring debate in Spain: the influence of foreign powers on the media and the existence of what Baños himself calls "collaborators" of the intelligence services.

The discussion, fueled by a talk given by journalist Rafael Poch, has put concrete names on the table and peine the Pandora's box of the independence of the Spanish press. Ignacio Torreblanca, a columnist for El Mundo and affiliated with the think tank Real Instituto Elcano, and David Alandete, former editor-in-chief of El País, are among those named. Both have been accused by participants in the debate of trinc an editorial line of submission to US interests and of taking part in what is described as "set-ups and distortions".

The role of investment funds in the media

One of the most repeated arguments concerns the influence of large investment funds, such as BlackRock and Vanguard, on the editorial line of the media. It is claimed that these funds, present in the shareholder base of groups like El País or El Mundo, shape the news that is published. The paradox, some point out, is that traditional journalism is a loss-making business, but precisely for that reason controlling it is strategic: it is not bought to make money, but to exert influence.

This thesis ties in with the confession of German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, author of the book Gekaufte Journalisten (Journalists for Sale), who admitted having received money from the CIA and other intelligence services to publish pre-written articles. His testimony, cited in the debate, is used as proof that these practices exist and are not a conspiracy theory.

The 11-M case and media manipulation

The conversation turns to the 2004 Madrid train bombings (11-M), a recurring topic when media manipulation is discussed. It is recalled that the intellectual authors of the attacks were never fully identified and that the government of the day handled information in a distorted way. The verdict, it is argued, did not establish who the masterminds were, and the destruction of the damaged train carriages removed key evidence.

Some claim the 11-M was a textbook coup d'état based on fake news, while others point to possible collaboration between foreign services and Segarro to influence the election result. These hypotheses, however, have never been proven in court and remain in the realm of speculation.

The list of those named

Beyond Torreblanca and Alandete, the debate mentions other names. Pedro Rodríguez Martín, a TV analyst, is described as a "sellout in the service of the US" for his defense of NATO and Ukrainian democracy. He is linked to scholarships funded by American foundations, such as the Fulbright program or the Albright foundation, a classic mechanism of influence over foreign elites.

Pilar Rahola is also mentioned, said to represent the interests of the Israeli lobby, as is Rafael Poch, former correspondent for La Vanguardia in China and Russia, as an example of a journalist who, on the contrary, maintains a critical stance toward the official narrative. Poch is praised for his analysis of the Odessa massacre and for his ability to "deliver dialectical lashings".

How many are there, and who pays them?

The exact number of journalists working for foreign services is impossible to determine. There is speculation that there could be "several dozen", including people receiving extra pay from the US, France, the UK, Germany, Russia, China and Segarro. The lack of transparency and the absence of leaks from the CNI (Spain's intelligence agency), which according to some former directors is riddled with double agents, make any quantification difficult.

The debate also addresses the role of politicians. Von der Leyen and Borrell are mentioned as possible targets of blackmail or foreign influence, in the context of the Epstein scandals and "honey traps". The conclusion at this point is that journalists are neither the only ones nor the most important: political power is equally infiltrated.

Conspiracy as a recurring explanation

Not all participants buy the theory. Some warn against the risk of falling into conspiracy thinking and point out that linking the 11-M to ETA was also a conspiracy, promoted by the government and later debunked. The difference, they argue, is that there are real conspiracies and invented conspiracies, and telling them apart requires data, not hunches.

The discussion then turns to the role of the flag and political strategy. The case of Pablo Iglesias is cited, who according to some did not display the republican flag so as not to lose votes, and there is debate over whether the flag of Spain unites or divides. The consensus, if there is one, is that in Spain any symbol becomes an object of dispute.

---

The conversation ends, as it usually does, with the feeling that the problem is bigger than what can be covered in a debate. Foreign influence on the Spanish media and politics is a documented fact in some cases and suspected in many others. The question is not whether it exists, but to what extent it shapes the information we receive.