Recent events in Torre Pacheco have once again brought the issue of immigration and security to the forefront of public debate. However, beyond what happened and its potential legal or social implications, it is worth analyzing how the narratives surrounding these cases are constructed. Because what ultimately influences collective perception is not just the event itself, but the narrative that accompanies it.
2 Narratives That Activate Opposing Emotions
There are two dominant frameworks competing to explain and make sense of these episodes:
🟥 Pro-migration narrative (inclusive)
- Presents the events as a consequence of structural precariousness and institutional neglect.
- Emphasizes systemic victimization and the need for integration policies.
- Appeals to emotions such as compassion, empathy, and solidarity.
- Calls for not stigmatizing groups for individual actions.
🟦 Critical or restrictive narrative (anti-migration)
- Reinforces the need to “regain control.”
- Connects events with insecurity, lack of control, and the loss of cultural identity.
- Uses language focused on maintaining order, protecting “us”, and fear.
- Amplifies images of crime or disorder to support a narrative of permanent risk.
The Narrative Is Never Innocent: It Selects, Amplifies, and Evokes Emotion
Both narratives:
- Select data and frame it according to their interests and beliefs.
- Activate very specific emotions (fear vs. empathy).
- Minimize their own contradictions and amplify those of the other.
- Are not false, but are not complete. Each tells “a partial truth.”
Cognitive Biases Exploited by These Narratives
These narratives are reinforced by the psychological biases we all possess. Here are some of them:
| Cognitive Bias | How it acts |
|---|---|
| Confirmation | We seek and believe only what reinforces our preconceived notions. |
| Attribution | If a migrant commits a crime, it’s “cultural”; if a local does, it’s “individual.” |
| Halo/Devil Effect | A single case can contaminate or idealize the perception of an entire group. |
| Dichotomous Thinking | Everything is black or white: “good” versus “bad,” “order” versus “chaos.” |
| Availability | If an event appears frequently in the media, we believe it is very common. |
| Framing | The narrative depends on how it is presented: “protest” or “revolt,” “attack” or “incident.” |
Selva Orejón Analyzes These Cases on RAC1
This reflection is not merely theoretical. Selva Orejón, CEO of OnbrandinG and an expert in cyber intelligence and digital narratives, was interviewed by RAC1 to comment in depth on the narratives generated around the Torre Pacheco case and similar incidents.
👉 You can listen to the full interview here:
🔗 https://www.rac1.cat/a-la-carta/detail/3be611bb-c707-4cd2-a2e9-b31c0140ecec
Why Is All This Important?
- Because the narrative can be, and is, more viral than the truth, even more than positive situations.
- Because fear or compassion are powerful political tools.
- Because understanding the mechanisms that make us believe or reject a version of events is a form of emotional and democratic defense.
In times of narrative polarization, it is essential to cultivate critical thinking. Not just to cross-reference data, but to detect when we are making decisions within a pre-written narrative. It’s not about denying emotions, but about learning to read them.
Thinking freely also means choosing how we interpret the world.
Some of the content that is going viral polarizes because it reinforces these beliefs, such as this one:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMIfIIAMWBs/?igsh=MWVyZ2d5M2JrYnZpbQ==
The Agents of Narrative: Who Really Moves Public Opinion?
In the current context of narrative polarization regarding immigration and security, the agents involved in shaping public opinion are far more diverse, anonymous, and sophisticated than they appear. We are not just talking about politicians or journalists, but about a constellation of actors who often operate under collective, digital identities and without any informational responsibility.
Local Pseudo-Brands with a Strong Digital Presence
- Accounts like bcnlegends, tgnlegends, grancanariatv_oficial, or canariotodayoficial present themselves as local channels, almost as if they were “citizen initiatives” or “alternative media.”
- Their style is direct, emotional, filled with impactful videos, headlines with keywords (“alert,” “violence,” “what have we come to?”), and highly geared towards creating outrage.
- They leverage the aesthetic of news accounts but do not follow any ethical code nor do they have editorial transparency.
- They play a key role as “narrative megaphones,” seemingly organic, but in reality following very clear viralization strategies.
Opinion Influencers Without a Party, But With an Ideology
- On Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Telegram, and YouTube, figures have emerged who do not formally belong to any party, but who articulate very distinct ideological discourses.
- They cannot be easily categorized within classical right or left: they operate from disruption, anti-establishment sentiment, and emotional populism.
- They use resources such as:
- street language mixed with data (not always accurate),
- edited videos to trigger reactions,
- constant accusations against traditional media and institutions,
- and above all, a “us versus them” strategy.
Apparently Spontaneous Networks… But Perfectly Orchestrated
- The content may seem like spontaneous reactions to specific events, but many are coordinated:
- They are published simultaneously across different channels.
- They share almost identical hashtags, phrases, and message structures.
- Some publications reach maximum reach in minutes thanks to bots, satellite accounts, and closed groups that “boost” content in a coordinated manner.
- Neither the extreme right nor the extreme left has a monopoly on these techniques.
The current reality is much more confusing:- Ideological boundaries have blurred.
- What unites these networks is not ideology, but the use of mass manipulation tools to condition the public narrative.
The danger is not just what they say, but how they say it and who it reaches
- These agents do not just seek to inform or express opinions, but to emotionally activate.
- They target specific groups (youth, working classes, disaffected voters) and exploit feelings such as fear, resentment, distrust, or frustration.
- They operate on platforms where the algorithm favors radicalism and rapid reaction: Instagram for visual impact, Telegram for impunity, X for viralization, YouTube for emotional and polarized narratives.
We are no longer talking about radicalization. We are talking about systemic manipulation.
- We are facing a new scenario of massive disinformation and social manipulation.
- These are not honest debates between different political visions, but orchestrated mechanisms to colonize the emotional and cognitive space of citizens.
- We must name these actors, study their mechanisms, and equip ourselves with tools—legal, educational, and social—to confront them.
Public opinion is not being formed: it is being molded for very specific purposes. And no, it is not accidental.
