Those years don't get erased, but I don't know if we'll sit down again
En el espacio donde la amistad y la exposición pública se entrelazan, Ethel Pozo salió al aire en Instagram para responder a lo que comenzó como una broma televisiva y se convirtió en una herida personal. Lo que estaba en juego no era solo un malentendido sobre gastos en Disney o el tamaño de una casa, sino algo más frágil: la reputación, la honestidad percibida y el peso de seis años de amistad. En el Perú mediático de abril de 2024, este conflicto recordó que las palabras dichas ante cámaras rara vez se quedan en el estudio.
- Todo comenzó cuando Yaco Eskenazi reveló haber gastado más de quinientos dólares en pases rápidos de Disney, un detalle que Ethel criticó públicamente por considerarlo una exhibición insensible ante la realidad económica de la mayoría de peruanos.
- Natalie Vértiz respondió con ironía en vivo, insinuando que Ethel era contradictoria: la acusó de criticar ese gasto mientras supuestamente hacía lo mismo, y cuestionó su asombro ante la mansión de Farfán comparándola con la suya propia.
- El golpe fue doble: Ethel quedó retratada públicamente como deshonesta y, según su propia lectura, como alguien que finge dificultades económicas que no tiene.
- Yaco minimizó el conflicto en 'Amor y fuego', calificándolo de broma sin necesidad de disculpas, mientras Ethel declaraba en 'América hoy' que la amistad había terminado y que le debían una.
- En su live de Instagram, Ethel matizó su postura: aclaró que no ha roto definitivamente con Yaco, que no se considera víctima ni pobre, y que seis años de amistad merecen más que una carcajada en televisión.
El lunes 15 de abril, Ethel Pozo recurrió a un Instagram live para poner en contexto un conflicto que había escalado rápidamente desde los pasillos de la televisión peruana hasta las redes sociales. El origen fue aparentemente menor: Yaco Eskenazi comentó en su canal de YouTube que había gastado más de quinientos dólares en fast-passes para evitar filas en Disney World. Ethel lo criticó, considerando que presumir ese tipo de gastos resultaba poco empático con la mayoría de peruanos.
La respuesta de Natalie Vértiz no tardó. Durante una aparición promocional de 'América hoy', con Ethel presente, Vértiz la cuestionó públicamente: le recordó que su propia casa era comparable a la de Jefferson Farfán —cuyo tamaño había sorprendido a Ethel— y sugirió que ella también frecuentaba Disney y usaba esos mismos pases. El tono fue burlón, casi juguetón, pero el efecto fue el de una acusación de hipocresía ante miles de espectadores.
Ethel respondió ese mismo lunes en el programa y en redes, declarando que la amistad con la pareja había terminado y que le debían una disculpa. Yaco, por su parte, apareció en 'Amor y fuego' restándole importancia al asunto: para él era una broma, no había nada que reparar.
En su live, Ethel fue más matizada. Explicó que lo que más le dolió fue quedar retratada como mentirosa ante el público. Aclaró que había hablado en privado con Yaco y que, en rigor, no había dado por terminada esa amistad de seis años —aunque su futuro era incierto. También rechazó con firmeza la narrativa que la pintaba como alguien que finge penurias económicas: 'Nunca dije que estoy en apuros', señaló.
Más allá del chisme, el episodio expuso algo sobre la fragilidad de las relaciones en la televisión peruana: cómo una broma transmitida puede convertirse en una herida pública, y cómo seis años de amistad pueden quedar suspendidos en el aire por unas palabras que ya no tienen reversa.
On Monday afternoon, April 15th, Ethel Pozo went live on Instagram to address a public dispute that had been building for days—one that had turned a private disagreement into a very public spectacle across Peruvian television and social media. The conflict had started when Yaco Eskenazi mentioned on his YouTube program that he'd spent more than five hundred dollars on fast-pass tickets to skip the lines at Disney World. Ethel had criticized him for broadcasting such spending when most Peruvians couldn't afford those kinds of conveniences. The comment seemed to sting.
Natalie Vértiz, Eskenazi's wife, decided to respond. During a promotional appearance for the show "América hoy" where Ethel was present, Vértiz questioned why Ethel had seemed shocked by the size of soccer player Jefferson Farfán's house when her own home was comparable in size. She then pointed out the apparent contradiction: Ethel claims she doesn't go to Disney or pay for fast passes, yet Vértiz suggested she does exactly that. The tone was mocking, almost playful on the surface, but it landed hard.
Ethel felt the sting of being called out publicly. She responded first on social media, then again on "América hoy" that same Monday, making clear that the friendship between her and the couple was over—and that they owed her an apology. But Yaco saw it differently. When he appeared on the program "Amor y fuego" hours later, he dismissed the whole thing as a joke, laughing off the idea that he and Natalie needed to apologize for what he considered lighthearted ribbing.
During her Instagram live that afternoon, Ethel explained what had hurt her most: being painted as dishonest. "It was unfair," she said, describing how Natalie's public comments had made her look like a liar. But she also clarified something important about her relationship with Yaco. She had spoken with him privately, she explained, and she hadn't actually ended their friendship—not yet, anyway. Six years of knowing someone doesn't disappear in a moment of conflict. "I don't know if we'll ever sit down together again," she said, "but those years don't get erased."
What seemed to bother Ethel most was the narrative that had formed around her—the suggestion that she was playing victim, that she was pretending to be struggling financially. She pushed back directly against that reading. "I'm not playing poor," she said. "I've never said I'm in financial trouble." She acknowledged that most people probably believed Natalie's version of events, but she wanted to be clear about what was actually true. Her house wasn't the same size as Farfán's. She wasn't claiming hardship she didn't have. She was simply someone who had been hurt by a public attack and wanted that acknowledged.
The dispute revealed something about the texture of these relationships—how quickly a joke can become a wound, how a private disagreement can become a public performance, and how hard it is to take back words once they've been broadcast to thousands of people. Ethel's live video wasn't an apology or a capitulation. It was a clarification, a drawing of boundaries, and a statement that some things—like six years of friendship—deserve more care than a quick laugh on television.
Notable Quotes
It was unfair. I saw on Sunday that Natalie made me look like a liar.— Ethel Pozo, during her Instagram live
I'm not playing poor. I've never said I'm in financial trouble.— Ethel Pozo, defending herself against accusations of playing victim
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
What made Ethel decide to go live and address this instead of just letting it fade?
Because being called a liar on television, in front of an audience, doesn't fade. That's the difference between a private disagreement and a public one. Once Natalie said those things on air, Ethel had to respond or the narrative would be that she had no answer.
But Yaco said it was just a joke. Do you think he genuinely didn't understand why she was upset?
Maybe he didn't. Or maybe he understood perfectly and thought the best defense was to laugh it off and make Ethel look oversensitive. Either way, there's a real gap between how he experienced the moment and how she did.
The thing about the house sizes—was that actually a fair point Natalie was making?
Fair in what sense? Technically, maybe their houses are similar. But that's not really what the argument was about. It was about Ethel criticizing Yaco for flaunting spending, and then being accused of doing the same thing. The house comparison was just the weapon Natalie chose.
Do you think they'll actually reconcile?
Ethel said she doesn't know. And that's probably honest. Six years is a long time, but so is the memory of being humiliated on television. Reconciliation would require both sides to admit something—Natalie and Yaco would have to acknowledge the hurt, and Ethel would have to let go of needing that apology. I'm not sure either side is there yet.
What's the real issue underneath all this?
Control of the narrative. Ethel criticized Yaco, Natalie hit back harder and more publicly, and Ethel lost the ability to define her own story. The live video was her trying to take that back—to say, 'Here's what actually happened, here's who I actually am.' Whether it worked is another question.