The boundary between criticism and abuse of power had grown blurry
En Argentina, el poder ejecutivo volvió a cruzar una línea difusa cuando el presidente Javier Milei utilizó sus cuentas oficiales para insultar a una periodista, interviniendo en una disputa mediática y judicial que no le correspondía arbitrar. El episodio se desencadenó tras el emotivo discurso de Lizy Tagliani en los premios Martín Fierro, donde la actriz expuso el daño personal que le había causado el conflicto público con Viviana Canosa. No es la primera vez que Milei apunta contra Canosa desde su plataforma presidencial, y esa reincidencia convierte lo que podría parecer un exabrupto en un patrón que interroga los límites del poder.
- Tagliani rompió en público durante una ceremonia de premiación, describiendo con visible angustia cómo el conflicto con Canosa había dañado a su familia y la había llevado a los tribunales.
- Milei no esperó al margen: lanzó un insulto directo contra Canosa en redes sociales, usando el peso implícito de la presidencia para tomar partido en una pelea ajena a su cargo.
- El gesto no fue aislado —el presidente ya había atacado a Canosa antes por los mismos canales—, lo que transforma cada intervención en una pieza de un patrón más inquietante.
- La pregunta que crece en Argentina es si existe todavía una frontera real entre los rencores personales del presidente y el ejercicio formal del poder del Estado.
- El debate sobre el uso de cuentas oficiales como herramienta de ajuste de cuentas mediáticas vuelve a instalarse sin señales claras de resolución institucional.
En los premios Martín Fierro, Lizy Tagliani tomó el micrófono y habló de dolor. La actriz y comediante describió ante el público el costo que había tenido para ella y para su familia el conflicto con la periodista Viviana Canosa, una disputa que ya había escalado hasta los tribunales. Sus palabras llevaban la carga de alguien que había sido lastimado y buscaba justicia.
Canosa había lanzado acusaciones públicas contra Tagliani lo suficientemente graves como para que esta decidiera actuar legalmente. Al hacerlo, también expuso el daño colateral que el enfrentamiento le había generado en su vida privada. El discurso en la ceremonia fue la expresión visible de ese proceso.
Lo que siguió fue más perturbador. Javier Milei, presidente de la Nación, publicó un insulto dirigido a Canosa en sus redes sociales, eligiendo un bando en una pelea que no tenía ninguna relación con las funciones de su cargo. No era la primera vez: Milei ya había criticado a Canosa desde sus cuentas oficiales con anterioridad, usando el alcance y la autoridad implícita de la presidencia para dirimir lo que parecía una disputa ideológica o personal con la prensa.
Ese patrón repetido es lo que más inquieta a los observadores argentinos. La frontera entre la crítica legítima al periodismo y el uso del poder ejecutivo para intimidar o castigar a periodistas se ha vuelto cada vez más borrosa. Y la pregunta que persiste es si aún existe una distinción real entre los agravios personales del presidente y los asuntos del Estado.
The president of Argentina took to social media to attack a journalist, inserting himself into a bitter dispute between two television personalities that had already spilled into the courts. The provocation came in the wake of an emotional moment at the Martín Fierro awards ceremony, where actress and comedian Lizy Tagliani stood before an audience and spoke about the toll that a public conflict had taken on her life and her family.
The underlying quarrel between Tagliani and journalist Viviana Canosa had been building for some time. Canosa had made public accusations against Tagliani, allegations serious enough that Tagliani decided to pursue the matter through the legal system. When she did, she also disclosed the personal damage the dispute had inflicted—harm that extended beyond herself to those close to her. At the awards ceremony, Tagliani's distress was visible. She used her platform to call for justice, her words carrying the weight of someone who had been hurt and was seeking accountability.
Then Javier Milei, the sitting president, weighed in. His post on social media was an insult directed at Canosa, a move that seemed designed to take sides in a conflict that had nothing to do with his office. It was not an isolated incident. Milei had criticized Canosa before, using his official accounts to launch attacks on the journalist. Each time he did so, he was using the machinery of the presidency—the reach, the authority, the implicit weight of his position—to settle what amounted to a media grudge.
The pattern raised a question that Argentine observers had begun asking with increasing frequency: what is the proper role of a president in disputes between media figures? Milei's interventions suggested a willingness to deploy his platform and his power in service of personal grievances or ideological battles with members of the press. The boundary between legitimate criticism of journalism and the abuse of executive authority to intimidate or punish journalists had grown blurry.
Canosa and Tagliani's conflict belonged to the realm of media and courts. Milei's decision to insert himself into it—to use his official channels to insult one of the parties—was a different matter entirely. It spoke to a broader pattern of presidential conduct that had become a subject of debate in Argentina: the use of social media as a tool for settling scores, the erosion of norms around what an elected official should or should not do with the power of their office, and the question of whether there remained any meaningful distinction between the president's personal grievances and the business of the state.
Notable Quotes
Tagliani called for justice in relation to the situation she was facing, visibly emotional during her remarks at the awards ceremony— Lizy Tagliani, at the Martín Fierro awards
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Milei feel the need to insert himself into this dispute at all? It's not his fight.
That's the question everyone's asking. But for Milei, it seems like any criticism from the media is fair game for a public response. Canosa had been critical of him, so when he saw an opening—Tagliani's moment at the awards—he took it.
But he attacked Canosa, not defended himself. That's different, isn't it?
Exactly. He wasn't responding to something she said about him in that moment. He was using someone else's pain as an opportunity to settle an old score. That's what made people uncomfortable.
Has he done this before?
Multiple times. It's become a pattern. He uses his official accounts to go after journalists who criticize him. Each time, people ask: is this what a president should be doing? And each time, the answer seems to be yes, he'll do it again.
What does it say about the state of things in Argentina?
It suggests the lines are shifting. The president is treating his office like a personal megaphone. And because he has the megaphone, people listen, whether they should or not.