Within the framework of the takeover of the Nacional Buenos Aires and the Pellegrini in demand for educational financing, Reynaldo Sietecase and Eduardo Feinmann starred in a television and network crossover which escalated to personal and professional questions.
It all started when Sietecase suggested in its program that, instead of taking over colleges and faculties, it would be more effective “take” Courts to pressure the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the Educational Financing Law, which has already accumulated two favorable rulings without compliance by the government.
Feinmann’s response did not take long to arrive: the LN+ host accused his colleague of “incite violence” and went so far as to suggest that he should be arrested for his statements.
Far from backing down, Sietecase responded directly to him online with an extensive tweet in which he dismantled the accusations point by point. “How strange, Feinmann asking for someone to be imprisoned”he opened, before drawing a clear line between legitimate debate and personal attack: “You can play with my last name, not with my moral or professional integrity. This is not your case”.
Then he specified the real scope of his original proposal: that instead of taking over colleges or faculties it would be more effective “taking” Courts to demand from the “Libertarian Automatic Majority of the Court” that is issued and forces the government to comply with the Educational Financing Law. He also clarified that at the same time he made that suggestion on the air he also proposed to surround the Palace of Justice —and not take it—precisely for “avoid certain repression”. The reasoning had an additional logic: in this way no classes missedwhich is exactly what the takeover of schools generates.
Sietecase’s underlying argument is that the ball is in the court of the Judiciary: “Maybe this is how the courtiers do their job and defend the Republic”he closed, pointing directly to the Court ministers as those truly responsible for the conflict for not enforcing their own rulings.
The crossing reflects the crack that runs through journalism Argentine in the face of each educational conflict: while one part of the media frames the takeovers as illegitimate disruption, another points to the Judiciary as the true bottleneck, for sustaining an institutional debt with public education that no student mobilization should have to pay off.
Image gallery
