In an increasingly tense electoral climate, journalists Pedro Rosemblat and Diego Brancatelli, renowned defenders of Peronism and fervent critics of President Javier Milei, found themselves at the center of controversy for comments that many interpreted as incitement to electoral fraud. Both communicators, influential in networks and media related to the ruling party, made statements in a humorous tone that generated concern about their possible impact on the electorate.
In a video broadcast on his Gelatina channel, Rosemblat ironically commented on the voting process and suggested, laughing, a provocative action in case a candidate was not found on the ballot. It made reference to the confusion generated by the candidacy of Diego Santilli, who replaced José Luis Espert on the La Libertad Avanza list, preventing the reprinting of the ballots with his image. “So that there is no doubt, if your candidate is not on the ballot, you go out and say loudly and clearly ‘Santilli is missing from the ballot and I want to vote for him’. That way you make the work of the table presidents easier. You arrive, you shout ‘I vote for Santilli’ and that’s it, like in the 1920s, the infamous decade,” he expressed to the laughter of his colleagues.
For his part, Brancatelli was accused of promoting confusion in a segment of his program on C5N, where he explained that to vote for Fuerza Patria it was enough to cross out the candidate and that’s it, while for those who wanted to support La Libertad Avanza he recommended crossing out Espert’s face and writing the last name Santilli in large on the ballot. The comment, although formulated in a mocking tone, was interpreted by different sectors as an irresponsible message that trivializes the electoral process.
The expressions of both journalists were harshly questioned on social networks and by opposition leaders, who warned that inciting people to alter a ballot or shout slogans in the dark room could constitute a serious offense. In a polarized political context, the episode revived the debate about the limits of humor and the responsibility of communicators during campaign times.
