Watch TN for a couple of hours or a few episodes of 678, and I think you'll be able to answer that question for yourself.
That said, a politician does not answer to the media, and has no duty whatsoever to entertain its questions.
There is a difference between required by law, and duty. Cristina has a duty and a responsibility to answer to the Argentine people. I'm betting there's even a law in the Argentine constitution that makes it a legal requirement (not necessarily reporting to the media, but rather maintaining communication with the people), but I can't state that as fact. In a republican democracy, it is generally accepted that it is a duty and a responsibility that the press handle the function of being the public body to which the government is responsible to reporting to, outside of things like formal declarations made before a governing body such as a State of the Union address. The big difference between something like the State of the Union and a reporter asking questions has to do with propaganda vs transparency. The only communication Cristina gives to the people, if she gives nothing through press, is propaganda.
Political figures do not necessarily like this, but in most countries they are indeed responsible for transparency and communication, not just propaganda. Particularly, for example, in the US where the media is tipped quite a bit to the left, a right-leaning politician may feel quite put-upon to have to answer questions by the press when his opponents of a different philosophical persuasion rarely get equally tough questions and pressures. Yet they answer them equally as a part of their responsibility to report to the people, whether they like it or not.
It would seem to me that the only politicians who are not responsible to the media, no matter what they think of said media, are those who are part of an authoritarian government and don't feel the government is responsible to report anything to the people beyond what they want them to know. Which does, indeed, seem to me to be Cristina's position on most things. She, and only she, knows exactly what must be done to make this country a worker's paradise and anyone who has any other thoughts to the contrary are quite irrelevant to her. One cannot declaim the current government a democracy when it reports only what it wants to to the people and ignores their questions.
The problem here is not the press, completely. It is what the people accept from their press. The people also elect those who govern them. The press actually reflects quite a bit, as far as I've been able to determine, the exaggerated, emotional and irresponsible behavior that many here encourage and practice within this society. Including the behavior of its rulers, which go hand-in-hand with many things, including the press.
She really went full retard, sadly it's her pose through all these years. I have nothing against people with mental illnesses, but is worrisome when they lead countries...
