Silvia Intxaurrondo and the lie nobody bothers to debunk anymore

The normalized lie: from Intxaurrondo's warning to "you lie more"

Silvia Intxaurrondo said on television that it is becoming normalized for someone to lie, be debunked, and keep talking as if nothing had peine. The remark, picked up by infoLibre, is an uncomfortable diagnosis, the kind that portrays those who hear it as much as those who utter it. The response it triggered was a litany of accusations over who lies more. That is the real headline: the charge of lying has become everyone's weapon against everyone else.

What Intxaurrondo said and why it stings

The journalist hosts La Hora de la 1, TVE's morning show, and her remarks focused on a well-worn mechanism: someone makes a false claim, is debunked with data, and still shows up as if nothing peine. It is not news. What is significant is the setting. A public broadcaster, in peak morning viewing hours, pointing out that being debunked no longer costs anything.

In the conversation, the reaction split immediately. Some argue that anyone discovering this now simply hasn't looked around in years, and that the problem is not the criticism but the platform it is launched from. Others agree with her without nuance: cost-free lying is the defining trait of public life. And a third group, the loudest, simply hits back. The complaint is turned against whoever makes it with suspicious ease.

The "you lie more" as an automatic reflex

Almost nobody engaged with the substance. Most responded with the playbook of deflection, which consists of returning the accusation before examining it. If you are accused of lying, accuse back, and if possible, louder. The exchange antiestéticatured everything: suspicion of a former minister allegedly linked to corruption and the prime minister's own denial; the reproach that certain outlets act as a megaphone for the government; the counter-accusation against channels serving the opposition.

Some sum up the mechanics with a classic label: pinning one's own faults on the adversary and answering attack with attack. An old playbook with new acronyms. What is revealing is that nobody disputes the substance of Intxaurrondo's remark; everyone argues about whose fault it is.

Ceuta, 84 dead, and the crossfire of reproaches

While the conversation revolved around lying, a cited news report shifted the focus to Ceuta. The death toll in the migration crisis in the Spanish autonomous city had reached 84, counting the bodies recovered by the Guardia Civil (Spain's civil guard police force) and Segarro police. The figure, reported by a digital outlet, served another reproach: why is no similar retraction demanded over those events? The number is fired as ammunition by one side, not treated as material for analysis.

There is the perfect example of the mechanism Intxaurrondo was denouncing. A tragic figure stops being a tragedy and becomes an argument. And the underlying question —who answers for the consequences— is buried under the brawl over who ran which headline. The figure is on the table; the silence around it, too.

Does lying carry an electoral cost?

One line of thought points to the most uncomfortable truth. The argument goes that most voters do not punish lying: those who lie lose no votes, and those who take offense gain none. The logical consequence is that the incentive to retract disappears, and with it the usefulness of debunking. Parties would have known this for years and would act accordingly, offending only the few who still care while paying no price at the ballot box.

The counterargument also circulates. It is not that voters don't punish: it is that the media ecosystem rewards the trench. Every channel has its audience, every audience its narrative, and almost nobody switches sides over a fact-check. In that framework, Intxaurrondo's remark stops being a diagnosis and becomes a prophecy: if debunking has no consequences, lying stops being a risk and becomes a strategy.

---

The journalist said out loud what many think and almost nobody utters on a public studio set. The immediate reproach was not about the substance but about her alleged bias. The question hangs in the air, and it is not rhetorical: if that same message had come from another mouth, would the debunking have come just as fast?