In the same week, a tweet from a political party led by Santiago Abascal drew widespread criticism. The message suggested a connection between Patxi López and the party with Otegi, accompanied by a photo showing the coffin of Isaías Carrasco, a member of the Basque Socialists who had been assassinated years earlier. The post sparked a chain of reactions across media and society, drawing attention to how inflammatory rhetoric can ignite public debate and inflame historical grievances. Critics argued that such imagery is not a neutral political statement but a provocative act that risks rekindling old wounds and deepening political polarization. The moment became a focal point in discussions about responsibility, free speech, and the boundaries of discourse in a highly charged political environment. It also raised questions about how social media platforms and political actors handle imagery tied to violence and tragedy, and what standards should govern the posting of material that references past acts of aggression. Attribution for the post was widely discussed as well, with observers noting the delicate balance between political critique and sensationalism in digital content dissemination.
Rocío Carrasco, the daughter of Isaías Carrasco, responded strongly to the broadcast, demanding the removal of the image and labeling the publication as inappropriate. Her public statement underscored the human impact of such messages and highlighted the pressure on families affected by political violence. The creator behind the post eventually removed the image, while offering a reflective note about the intent behind the action. The incident thus became a case study in how political actors navigate backlash, messaging, and accountability in real time. Observers pointed to the broader implications for dialogue in a divided political landscape, noting that removing provocative material can be seen as an attempt to de-escalate, though critics argued it does not erase the underlying tensions.
On the program front, Xabier Lapitz weighed in with a pointed critique of the son of Ekkehard Tertsch, a figure associated with controversial historical narratives and with ties to nationalist discourse. Lapitz described the situation as more than rude symbolism and called out the conduct as tasteless and mean-spirited. He suggested that such conduct may indicate an underlying pattern of provocative rhetoric that crosses lines of civility and decency in public discourse. The exchange highlighted ongoing tensions between media personalities and political commentators, and drew attention to how discussions of history and ideology can intersect with contemporary political narratives. The commentary intensified discussions about accountability, the ethics of public commentary, and the role of journalists and opinion leaders in shaping a respectful, informative public sphere. The remarks also sparked conversations about how figures with controversial backgrounds should be treated when they appear at media events, and what standards are appropriate for inviting guests who bring charged historical perspectives to the table.