Vice President Cristina Kirchner, the most polarizing political figure of the last 15 years, spoke last Thursday with Pablo Duggan for an hour and a half on C5N. The fact does not seem extraordinary. However, perhaps it was.
The participation was commented before, during and after Duro de tamar, the cycle that received her with open arms. The role of mere partner of Duggan was commented, without a minimum intention of asking with journalistic rigor, there was talk of the enchantment of the panelists with the vice in the final greeting (despite the fact that she denied them the possibility of asking), and the rating was also analyzed: almost 11 points towards ten thirty at night, figure that placed the program as the most watched of the day, even above open television. Total success.
All that was said and no more was said.
It did not occur to anyone to object to Cristina Kirchner's right to say what she wanted to say, nobody thought that this would undermine democracy (although she again questioned the Supreme Court, one of the democratic powers, and spoke of its prohibition, which is not such) nor was C5N judged for offering her the comfort of an hour and a half of total complacency. Everyone assumed that the channel, with its unnuanced officialism, offered the guarantee that Cristina required.
And what's so exceptional about this?
Two weeks ago, Donald Trump, former president of the United States and almost certain future candidate of the Republican Party, was interviewed on CNN.
The appearance provoked definitions of dramatic tone of many American media, in disagreement with allowing the former president to speak.
- "It's hard to see the utility to the United States of the lie show that aired on CNN on Wednesday night."
- "The open interview with Donald Trump on CNN was a disaster. If the network plans to cover the next presidential campaign like this, its director should resign now."
- "Trump surely considered it a great night. CNN as a company, too. But it was a disaster from start to finish."
Even Christiane Amanpour, CNN's legendary foreign correspondent, fired: "Perhaps we should go back to the newspaper editors and TV bosses of the '50s, who in the end refused to let McCarthyism into their pages."
Almost the only dissenting voice was, obviously, that of CNN director Chris Licht, who according to The New York Times, said, "They don't have to like the former president's answers. But they can't say we didn't get them."
Although the format (the note was made with a platform dominated by Trump voters) may be questionable, the rebuke of the decision to give space to the former president looks very much like a claim of censure. And it confirms a level of polarization that ignores basic rules of democracy, including freedom of expression, even bad presidents and even corrupt ones.
What would happen if Cristina Kirchner was interviewed in TN? Possibly many things, but it's hard to think that anyone could reasonably judge the channel for that. The interview could be criticized (it would be a minor issue), but not the right to invite it, and the right of the audience to listen to it.
In a country burdened with problems, it is encouraging that Cristina, Macri and whoever speak wherever they want when invited. And let no one think that the solution to disagreement is the prohibition of speech.