La Sexta's 'Conspiranoicos' Launches, Sparking Debate Over Media Bias

La Sens’s anti-bullying show 'Conspiranoicos' divides its own viewership

La Sens will air 'Conspiranoicos', a format presented as a tool «against false theories, antiestéticar, and hidden interests», according to an announcement cited by 20minutos. In theory, there is nothing to object to: debunking rumors is a public service. In practice, the show's name places the viewer in an uncomfortable dilemma: either accept the channel's script or join the ranks of those who believe in aliens. This trap, more than the program itself, is what has triggered alarms.

The case of the manager who sabotaged top performers

An experience antiestéticatured in the opening lines summarizes the discontent: an intermediate manager who, according to the account of those who lived it, made life impossible for the most productive employees, specifically the salespeople who sold the most. The reasonable explanation was that this served to break the project, allowing them to leave for another company and take their contract. The response they always received was the same: don't be a conspiracy theorist, a company has no reason not to want to sell more, and the problem is that we cannot know what is happening.

In the end, the project ended up at another company, owned by a capital partner. The one who was wrong, according to this narrative, was the ultimate manager, who saw nothing. The extracted conclusion is uncomfortable: if conspiracies exist on an office scale and no one pursues them, denying that there are dark interests at the top sounds like faith, not analysis. It's the market, friend works simultaneously as a universal explanation and an excuse.

Where does the rumor end and the conflict of interest begin?

That is the crux. In the same conversation, criticism of public health decisions made during the pandemic coexists with claims that lack evidentiary backing: strange structures in vaccines, mandatory masks for reasons unrelated to health, withdrawn treatments, and official explanations that changed direction. Mixing the verifiable with the unproven is precisely what a space of this type promises to dismantle. The problem is that it is also the method used to dismiss any doubt.

Comments anticipate that the program will start with easy cases: flat earth, chips, estela. This is the terrain where consensus is highest and laughter is free. The leap to matters involving political decisions and money is a different story, and it is here that a part of the audience assumes the format will make a mistake.

Why an anti-rumor program fuels distrust

The paradox is stated quickly: it is hard to believe in the neutrality of someone who mounts a space on «hidden interests» without first explaining who finances their channel, who controls the group, and what interests those who decide what is true have. Questions about shareholders and media concentration arise repeatedly, not as proof, but as reasoned suspicion.

The double standard within the sector is also pointed out: one channel exploits mystery and the paranormal phenomenon in prime time, while another presents itself as a spearhead against conspiracy. Two products, two audiences, the same industry. That mystery sells and skepticism does too is, in the end, a market fact.

The precedent of Salvados and the house's coherence

Distrust is compounded by an argument of coherence: it is recalled that the same group aired a 'Salvados' report attributing to Meta —Facebook and Instagram— having mounted a supposed strategy to promote pedophilia and adolescent suicide to increase profits. The circulating question is inevitable: who audits the auditors and how much does the competition pay for such pieces?

The result is a recognizable pattern: disinformation is denounced enthusiastically when it points to a profitable target and ignored when it touches an advertiser or an ally. None of this proves that 'Conspiranoicos' will lie. It only explains why a part of the public sees the move as an image operation and not as journalism.

Reactions: from tweets to outright rejection

Outside the studio, the public response came via social media. A political figure labeled the space a «crazy stunt» designed to demonize and generate hatred against a few. A journalist who said he had seen it for a while described it as a meaningless totum revolutum, made to measure for an undemanding audience. There were also those who celebrated the premiere as an opportunity to finally talk about what interests them, and who recalled, more sarcastically, that the apparatus against denialism has been functioning for decades: even before movies in cinemas, pieces against unbelievers were projected.

The double standard cited as proof

The list of grievances also includes mass gatherings prior to the declaration of the state of alarm, pandemic management in other countries, and measures relaxed for specific events. The case of former Argentine president Alberto Fernández is even cited, who is said to have claimed that confinements were maintained for almost a year for the political return they generated. These are issues that the program, if it wants to be taken seriously, will have to address with the same rigor with which it treats an alien spacecraft.

And there lies the bottleneck: there is no technical boundary between conspiracy theory and poorly documented conflict of interest. Each medium, each government, and each audience draws the line. Until it is clarified with what criterion it is drawn, the usual will continue to happen: the convinced will remain convinced, and the others, too.