Amid the vaccination scandal to Stefanía Desirée Purita Díaz, an 18-year-old collaborator of Minister Jorge Ferraresi. Jorge Lanata in dialogue with Nicolás Wiñazki and Carolina Amoroso, released an out-of-place commentary on the physical appearance of the young woman.
The commentary sparked a strong controversy on social media, where he was questioned and marked that his phrase, far from innocent or a joke, is inadequate and should not be replicated in a public medium. However, the journalist disagreed, and labeled the fact an exaggeration. Therefore, today afternoon she held a talk with Marina Abiuso, gender director of TN, who tried to instruct him on issues that concern his area. Lanata raised that the discussion surrounding an 18-year-old’s vaccination “was overshadowed by what was a bad joke or a minor observation” and apologized “to anyone who has offended.”
“Abiuso agreed on the importance of addressing irregularities in the immunization campaign in Argentina, but noted that comments like the journalist made “today generate other types of reflections.” My role as a gender editor is to think about whether we want to do them or not”
In this regard, Abiuso agreed on the importance of addressing irregularities in the immunization campaign in Argentina, but noted that comments such as that made by the journalist “today generate other types of reflections”. “My role as a gender editor is to think about whether we want to do them or not,” she said. The point is that this woman’s body was not a topic of debate, it was not a matter,” Abiuso said. “We would have been having the same conversation as the figure I had,” the specialist explained. But Jorge remained in his stance and used the closed free speech tool to understand what was being raised: “If I can have an opinion on other things, why can’t I comment on the body of a man, woman or trans? I don’t get it,” he wondered. “There are a lot of things we’re thinking about. Here was not a generic comment, it was about a specific person who has to give many answers, but none is regarding his ass. Different generations live together here. This debate, which is so obvious to me and for you it is a meaning to the contrary, we have to give it. What I find interesting is that there is a part that is obvious to me and not for you. In that distance there are people in their homes on either side. The decision that this role exists is to start going through that doubt. Having this conversation on the air enriches,” the gender editor said. For his part, the journalist argued that “it’s good that you can talk about it,” but emphasized that it bothers him that they want to “give him courses” on what to say. “I may be wrong, but I cannot fail to claim my right to think of freedom. Let me think alone,” he asked.
