Acceso usuarios
[1]
Málaga, España
Durante la crisis provocada por la DANA en la Comunidad Valenciana a finales de 2024, se intensificó el debate público y la atención informativa en torno a la desinformación. Este artículo analiza la evolución del interés relativo de búsqueda en Google de los términos “bulos” y “fake news” en España y explora su relación temporal con la actividad de verificación desarrollada por la plataforma Maldita.es entre el 29 de octubre y el 15 de noviembre de 2024. Los resultados muestran que el término “bulos” alcanzó su valor máximo de interés relativo (100) el 8 de noviembre, mientras que “fake news” llegó a un valor de 18, los niveles más elevados registrados para ambos términos desde la pandemia de la COVID-19. En ese mismo periodo, Maldita.es publicó un total de 98 verificaciones, mayoritariamente vinculadas a narrativas desinformativas de alto impacto, entre ellas las relacionadas el parking centro comercial de Bonaire en el que supuestamente se encontraban gran cantidad de fallecidos. El análisis territorial del interés relativo de búsqueda revela una distribución diferenciada según comunidades autónomas. Mientras que el término “bulos” presenta una presencia amplia y relativamente homogénea en el conjunto del territorio español, el término “fake news” muestra una mayor heterogeneidad regional, con valores proporcionalmente más altos en comunidades como Cataluña, el País Vasco y Cantabria. Aunque el análisis de varianza (ANOVA) identifica diferencias estadísticamente significativas en ambos términos dentro del conjunto de datos analizado, solo en el caso de “fake news” se observa una diferenciación territorial más marcada. En conjunto, los resultados sugieren la existencia de preferencias terminológicas regionales en la forma de buscar y conceptualizar la desinformación en contextos de crisis, y subrayan la utilidad de enfoques exploratorios para detectar patrones de atención informativa, así como la importancia de estrategias de verificación y comunicación adaptadas territorialmente en situaciones de emergencia.
At the end of 2024, the Valencian Community in Spain experienced a catastrophic weather event known as a DANA or isolated upper-level depression. This phenomenon brought intense and prolonged rainfall, triggering severe flooding that resulted in over 200 fatalities, widespread infrastructural damage, and significant social disruption.
The crisis sparked a surge in public attention not only to emergency updates but also to the reliability of circulating information, particularly in relation to misinformation and rumours surrounding the disaster. Data from Google Trends in Spain during this period reveal a notable increase in relative search interest for the terms “bulos” (Spanish for rumours or false information) and “fake news.” In November 2024, “bulos” reached its highest point of the year with a relative interest score of 52 out of 100—the most significant level since April 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, searches for “fake news” rose to 17 out of 100, their highest level since November 2020. Search activity for both terms peaked during the most acute phase of the crisis, between 29 October and 15 November, with the highest daily values recorded on 8 November: “bulos” at 100/100 and “fake news” at 18/100.
This increase in search interest coincided with the circulation of multiple misinformation narratives, many of which were subsequently debunked by the independent fact-checking platform Maldita.es. Early false claims included allegations that the government had deliberately demolished 26 dams in the Valencian region between 2020 and 2024, supposedly worsening the flooding, and assertions that the meteorological radar operated by AEMET (Spain’s national meteorological agency) had failed, impeding early warnings. Both claims were refuted by official sources, with AEMET confirming normal radar operation and the timely issuance of alerts.
One of the most prominent cases of misinformation centred on the flooded car park of the Bonaire shopping centre. Viral videos and images falsely implied that numerous deceased individuals had been found there. These claims were fuelled by fabricated audio clips and misleading visuals, including footage alleging that bodies were being removed—claims that were entirely unsubstantiated. Additional false accusations targeted the emergency aid efforts of NGOs such as Cáritas and the Red Cross, alleging they prioritised international causes over local victims in Valencia. These narratives were often accompanied by images depicting discarded aid items in misleading contexts.
A statistical analysis of relative search interest revealed regional differences. The Valencian Community recorded a moderate relative interest in “fake news” (28/100), while regions such as Catalonia (43/100), the Basque Country (35/100), and Cantabria (31/100) showed significantly higher levels. An ANOVA test identified statistically significant differences within the dataset (F(3,24) = 11.44, p < 0.001), grouping regions into four geographic clusters. The Levante group, which includes Valencia, showed the highest mean interest in “fake news” searches.
In contrast, the term “bulos” was more uniformly prevalent across the country. Most autonomous communities registered high scores, with La Rioja reaching 100/100 and Valencia scoring 82/100. Although an ANOVA test also identified overall variation for this term, (F = 4.65; p = 0.0106), post-hoc analysis did not reveal statistically significant pairwise differences, suggesting a broadly shared pattern of search interest across regions.
Overall, the data indicate the presence of regional preferences in the terminology used to search for information related to misinformation, with “bulos” prevailing in most areas and “fake news” being relatively more common in certain regions. These findings suggest that interest in misinformation-related concepts tends to intensify in later phases of crisis situations, when uncertainty persists and competing narratives gain visibility.
This study highlights the relevance of analysing information-seeking behaviour during emergencies and the role of fact-checking initiatives such as Maldita.es as contextual reference points in the public debate. From a methodological perspective, the use of Google Trends provides an exploratory indicator of relative attention rather than a representative measure of public concern or exposure to misinformation. Despite these limitations, the findings offer insights into the dynamics of attention to misinformation in crisis contexts and underscore the importance of communication and verification strategies adapted to territorial and temporal specificities.
