After the confrontation he starred in with doctors from the Garrahan Hospital on television, Eduardo Feinmann apologized publicly for his tone. That gesture, far from closing the controversy, opened another: the writer Martín Caparrós reacted from Twitter and unleashed a new virtual round.
Caparrós was the first to shoot, quoting Feinmann’s phrase where he said that he had been “confronting this mob, the unionists” for years and that this time he “didn’t like it” when he saw himself in the television episode. “If it were up to him, 12-hour days and a fixed salary, as his bosses want. But of course, he says that yesterday ‘he didn’t like it’. Does that mean that in general he did? Poor man,” wrote the author of “El Hambre” and “Valfierno”, among others, pointing out the journalist’s historical stance towards the unions.
Feinmann responded bluntly and chose a sensitive flank to attack. “A lot. I assure you. I send you my regards, Mr. Hunger Table,” he replied, pointing to Caparrós’ participation in the table convened by the government of Alberto Fernández to combat food insecurity.
The Roundtable against Hunger, launched in 2019, brought together social organizations, academics, businessmen and cultural leaders under the promise of outlining policies to reduce malnutrition and destitution. It met five times until May 2021 and then became inactive, while poverty indicators continued to grow. For its critics, it was an initiative that was more symbolic than effective and ended up becoming blurred over time.
Caparrós closed the crossing by returning the irony: he said that “the sad Mr. Feinmann says that ‘he likes himself a lot’ – greetings to his mirror – and attacks me for having participated in a failed initiative against Argentine hunger. Of course, he is in favor.”
In just a few tweets, the discussion once again exposed the differences between combative journalism and the intellectual world, now crossed by the debate on the role of the State in the face of hunger and inequality.
