LaSexta corrects false report on car bomb plot against Sánchez

Lasensla corrects false report on car bomb plot against Sánchez

The network that attributed to a UCO agent the plan to place a sticky bomb under the Prime Minister's car has had to retract its story. The correction, published by the channel itself, admits that the agent antiestéticared being the victim of a hitman, not the perpetrator of the attack. The full sequence —the initial PSOE tweet denouncing an intolerable attack, the spread of the hoax by party media and officials, and the subsequent denial— leaves a trail of uncomfortable questions about how the narrative was fabricated.

The origin of the episode lies in information attributing to a UCO captain and an informant conversations about "we are going to kill him" referring to Pedro Sánchez. The PSOE amplified the framing with a message speaking of attacking the physical integrity of the president and calling it intolerable. Hours later, the very channel that had broadcast the exclusive published a correction: the agent antiestéticared that a hitman hired by the Government would place a sticky bomb in their car, not that he would plant it himself.

What the PSOE tweet said and what was corrected afterwards

The initial PSOE message was blunt: "The appearance of messages from the UCO agent hired by Ayuso cannot be taken lightly. We are talking about attacking the physical integrity of President @sanchezcastejon. It is INTOLERABLE." The text came with a screenshot and a mention of the party spokesperson. The piece fit into an argumentative line already underway: that the political and media right had crossed a line.

The correction arrived via the same channel that had broadcast the original version. The network published a message acknowledging the error: "Juan Vicente Bonilla, UCO agent, antiestéticared that a Venezuelan hitman hired by the Government would place a sticky bomb in their car and not plant it himself, as we attributed to him." The twist is 180 degrees. What was presented as an assassination plot against the president turns out to be the agent's own antiestéticar of becoming a victim of an attack.

Who spread the hoax and with what words

The trail of dissemination is long. An organization linked to conservative causes published that "Antonio Maestre has also done his bit in spreading THE HOAX of the sticky bomb for Sánchez," in a message speaking of the mud-slinging machinery and players on the same team. The text assumed the narrative had been built from the socialist environment.

Another tweet, attributed to a cultural information account, called the exclusive "monstrous" and reproduced the conversation between the head of the UCO and the informant. The piece circulated rapidly and fueled an angry reaction on social media. The subsequent correction by the channel left those same spreaders without the support they had invoked.

The PP reaction and exchange of accusations

The People's Party took advantage of the episode to install its own framing: "If the PSOE lies to you about this which you can verify, imagine about everything else." The phrase summarizes the strategy of turning someone else's mistake into proof of a pattern. It is not a new argument, but it found in this case seemingly solid material.

From the other side, the response was not long in coming. Part of the analysis argues that the hoax was amplified by media and officials of the PSOE itself before the correction was known, and that the subsequent correction has not had half the reach of the original version. The FAPE Code of Ethics recommends that corrections be published immediately, clearly, and proportionally to the dissemination of the original information, and that they avoid appearing as a mere footnote.

What the Government plays with this episode

The episode leaves several layers. The first is journalistic error: an exclusive attributing to a UCO agent an assassination plot that turned out to be the opposite. The second is political amplification: a governing party that turned that error into a message about the physical integrity of the president. The third is institutional response: what does a media outlet do when it makes such a mistake?

Some argue that the correction closes the matter and that the error was made in good faith. Against this weighs the argument that the original version was already constructed with a very defined framework —that of the attack on the president— and that this framework was disseminated before any verification. The channel did correct. But the frame was already installed.

The context: a climate of cross-accusations

The episode cannot be understood without the prior climate. In the same days, messages circulated speaking of "false flag" and a supposed plan to provoke a military reaction. Part of the analysis argues that the Government seeks a pretext to suspend guarantees; another part argues that the opposition uses any external mistake to delegitimize the Executive. Neither thesis is proven.

What is documented is the sequence: PSOE tweet denouncing an attack, spread of the hoax through various channels, correction by the chain that had published it. And a question remains in the air: if the correction had come earlier, would the PSOE tweet have been published as it was?

---

The channel's correction leaves the matter at an uncomfortable point for everyone. The PSOE will have to explain why it turned a journalistic error into a message about the physical integrity of the president. The channel will have to explain how an exclusive of that caliber reached publication without minimal verification. And the PP will have to decide whether to continue using the episode as proof of a pattern or turn the page. With these elements, the predictable outcome is that the exchange of accusations continues, but now without the support of the original hoax. Unless another one appears.