An opinion piece published on 1 November 2026 by elDiario.es La Rioja entitled “¿Qué se gana insultando?” focuses on the normalisation of insults in political disputes. The article describes the psychological patterns behind verbal attacks – such as the illusory, short-lived relief of venting aggression, and defensive reactions when personal convictions are experienced as part of one’s identity and therefore perceived as under personal threat. This provides a starting point for a wider debate about the tone and limits of political communication in Spain there.
Beyond this individual case, surveys and analyses point to an entrenched pattern. The Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS) has for some time documented widespread perceptions of increasingly harsh rhetoric and a polarised climate in its surveys. Specific figures vary from one survey wave to another, but the findings consistently suggest that many respondents observe a coarse tone and personal attacks in everyday politics. These data provide an empirical context for the impression described by elDiario.es .
Academic research, including work published in the journal EPSIR, analyses the mechanisms that contribute to such developments. These include the shift of political communication to social networks, where emotionally charged messages and personalisation gain high visibility, as well as strategies by parties and individuals to capture attention through confrontation. Studies of campaign communication and digital formats show that put-downs, demeaning memes and direct personal attacks are more common online than in traditional debate forums.
The effects are already measurable and tangible: polarisation makes it harder to reach understanding, reduces willingness to compromise and reinforces the perception that public debate has become “undignified”. Journalists, researchers and civil society groups are therefore discussing possible remedies. These include clearer moderation standards in public forums, deliberative formats on radio and television, media literacy initiatives, and internal party and inter-institutional guidelines that penalise personal attacks and require arguments to focus on the issues.
Facts, attributions and open questions must be distinguished: the article in elDiario.es La Rioja is the immediate prompt; the CIS surveys document the perception of a harsher tone; and academic analyses describe the drivers and dynamics. Whether politicians and institutions derive verifiable rules and incentives for more respectful debate from this is a political decision, and its outcome remains open.
Editor: Phillipe Schmidt-Araguin (Article created with AI assistance).