In the midst of the scandal that shakes the Argentine Football Association (AFA) around the controversial links of Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia and the distribution of official advertising guidelines, a true media battle broke out between prominent voices in communication. What began as a criticism of the AFA’s management quickly escalated into a direct confrontation between journalists, with positions ranging from the open defense of Tapia to furious attacks on colleagues accused of operating with personal or media interests.
One of Tapia’s most visible defenders in this dispute was Alejandro Fantino, a host with a strong presence on the Carnaval streaming channel. Faced with the attacks of Jonatan Viale, who had harshly questioned political and sports figures linked to national football, Fantino responded with a belligerent tone. He accused him of not being independent and of working under the conditions of those who, according to him, finance his media space, suggesting that Viale would be more attentive to his economic ties than to the “journalistic truth.” In this context, Fantino came to indirectly target the sectors close to Tapia, defending the position of his own media in the face of external criticism.
For his part, Jorge Rial also stood on the side of those who question Viale and support Tapia’s defense. From his radio and television platform, Rial transformed the discussion about the AFA’s advertising guidelines into a frontal criticism of his colleague from TN and Radio Rivadavia, accusing him of lack of coherence and acting in an ambiguous manner, with contradictions between what he says on the air and what happens behind the scenes. The host stated that while some journalists present themselves as “crystalline” figures, they would also be part, in their vision, of the behaviors that they claim to combat through the media.
The war of words was not limited to mutual disqualifications: it also exposed the political and economic background surrounding official advertising, resource management and the influence of de facto powers in the media. This fight between influential figures in Argentine journalism highlights how the crisis in the AFA and suspicions about the CEAMSE guidelines have become fertile ground for personal and corporate disputes between those who should, at least in theory, be neutral arbiters of public reality.
Beyond the chicanery and cross-references, the media battle over Tapia shows that rivalries in the press are no longer just about what is said, but about who has the legitimacy to say it, what interests they defend, and to what extent the relationships between politics, sports, and communications end up crossing lines that were previously considered unwritten codes of journalism.
