Olona, the viral clip: Who pays for television?

Macarena Olona and the TV clip business

In April 2025, a new piece was added to the series: Macarena Olona, in the studio, opposite Gonzalo Miró. The messages that spread the moment summed it up with the usual formula. The former leader of VOX destroys and humiliates her interlocutor live, with an attached video. Earlier, according to those same messages, the exchanges shared had pitted her against Antonio Maestre, Ignacio Escolar and Sara Santaolalla. Same mold, same verb, different rival. What circulates is not the argument: it is the scene of the opponent bowing their head.

The cycle of “destructions”: same scene, different rival

The mechanics repeat with a precision that no longer draws attention. A talk-show segment, a headline with the word destroys, a tweet with fire emojis and an account that amplifies it. In one of the clips shared, Olona faces Antonio Maestre and, according to the description accompanying the video, gets him to bow his head by telling him the truth. In another, the setting is La Sens and the rival, Ignacio Escolar.

The harshest of the exchanges shared pits her against Sara Santaolalla, who in the studio calls her far-right and sens and reproaches her —according to the clip summary— for up to 1.300 murders of women at the hands of their partners. Olona's response, again according to that same viral spread, consists of turning the script around with a question.

There the first sustancia ilegal appears. “And what good is it that she destroys whoever on TV?”, asked one participant in the thread. It is the question that hovers over the entire sequence.

Who pays for the television seen in prime time?

Another line of analysis points to the money, not the studio. A participant in the thread speaks of 20 % of “absurd institutional advertising” and claims that Olona “is on the PSOE payroll,” a claim launched without evidence. The underlying idea, according to that reading, is that a media outlet paid with public money is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds it. It is an old and controversial thesis, and like any old thesis it should be taken with a pinch of salt, but it gives a different frame to the TV fight. The brawl would not be the product; it would be the packaging.

Some add a detail of programming logic: if Olona were still in VOX, they would not have invited her. That is, the studio's interest would depend on the position from which one speaks and not on what is said. Hard to verify. Also hard to rule out.

The truth that wakes no one

Part of the analysis flatly rejects that these fragments serve any purpose. The argument is that public debate does not work by revelation of facts, but by repetition, emotion and manipulated instinct. The more messages accumulate over time, the more a perception settles, whether true or not. In communication terms, truth would be a secondary ingredient, almost decorative.

Hence the uncomfortable paradox: the same clips that some celebrate as dialectical demolition are, for others, fuel for a mechanism that does not distinguish sides. Whoever gets more seconds of outrage wins.

And here the analysis stalls. No one disputes that the confrontations exist or that they are shared massively. What is not settled is whether they serve to convince someone who was not already convinced. There are no audience figures. There are no impact studies. A minimal certainty remains: the clip is shared.