President announces Argentina’s first quarterly fiscal surplus since 2008 during a televised speech, promising his commitment to eliminating deficits wouldn’t waver throughout his term.
I need to make a moderator judgment here and I am going to have to rely on people who know more about Argentina than I do. I’d prefer to hear from at least three people before I decide:
Is this a source that is just parroting government PR or is this actual reporting?
Media Bias Fact Check hasn’t updated its information on this source in five years and I know the political landscape in Argentina was very different five years ago. It also says that the source is mostly factual, but on the right. And Milei is a right-wing president, so I don’t know whether or not it should be trusted.
If it’s the former, I will remove it as a violation of rule 3, but if it is the latter, I won’t.
It could be that his policies are so batshit insane that just describing them sounds like criticizing, but if they were just parroting propaganda I don’t think they’d mention the currency devaluing by 50% or quote the economist saying it’s not sustainable.
That is a fair point. It’s really hard for me to judge these things and do I try to read every article before I make any mod decisions, but sometimes I miss things. Looks like I did this time, so in this case, I really didn’t know where things stood. I appreciate it.
Argentina achieved its rare surplus by slashing three-quarters of transfers to provincial governments and halting nearly 90 percent of public works, Milei said
That isn’t glowing per se. If the public works need to be done, he just halted needed work. If it was waste then he did a good job.
I don’t know enough Argentina to know what the transfer entail but in America, that wouldn’t be good since it would halt productive work.
If the left-wing source is one I am unfamiliar with and it touts a left-wing success of a left-wing government in such a glowing way, yes. I do. Because we have rules in this community and it’s my job to maintain them.
As it happens, I delete left-wing posts which violate rule 3 on a regular basis.
When people ask these sort of questions of me, I always suspect it’s because it’s not something they themselves would be even-handed about, so they expect that no one else would be.
Are you talking about users or moderators? And if you are talking about moderators, are you talking about the moderators of World News? And if you are, do you have evidence to this effect?
Otherwise, I see no reason for your initial post unless you just decided to find a random moderator to imply has a bias problem when enforcing community rules.
I need to make a moderator judgment here and I am going to have to rely on people who know more about Argentina than I do. I’d prefer to hear from at least three people before I decide:
Is this a source that is just parroting government PR or is this actual reporting?
Media Bias Fact Check hasn’t updated its information on this source in five years and I know the political landscape in Argentina was very different five years ago. It also says that the source is mostly factual, but on the right. And Milei is a right-wing president, so I don’t know whether or not it should be trusted.
If it’s the former, I will remove it as a violation of rule 3, but if it is the latter, I won’t.
The article itself seems critical of his policies. And “trumpets” seems like a very deliberate and not positive choice of word.
I guess I’m missing the criticism, but maybe I just didn’t notice it when I read the article?
It could be that his policies are so batshit insane that just describing them sounds like criticizing, but if they were just parroting propaganda I don’t think they’d mention the currency devaluing by 50% or quote the economist saying it’s not sustainable.
That is a fair point. It’s really hard for me to judge these things and do I try to read every article before I make any mod decisions, but sometimes I miss things. Looks like I did this time, so in this case, I really didn’t know where things stood. I appreciate it.
It seems even-handed to me.
Thanks. Patapon Enjoyer pointed out some criticisms I had missed when I read it. It sounded much more glowing in my initial read.
That isn’t glowing per se. If the public works need to be done, he just halted needed work. If it was waste then he did a good job.
I don’t know enough Argentina to know what the transfer entail but in America, that wouldn’t be good since it would halt productive work.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/24/americas/universities-protest-milei-argentina-intl-latam
Removed by mod
I trust the same level of scrutiny is applied to left-leaning sources, yes?
If the left-wing source is one I am unfamiliar with and it touts a left-wing success of a left-wing government in such a glowing way, yes. I do. Because we have rules in this community and it’s my job to maintain them.
As it happens, I delete left-wing posts which violate rule 3 on a regular basis.
When people ask these sort of questions of me, I always suspect it’s because it’s not something they themselves would be even-handed about, so they expect that no one else would be.
I ask because the bias I’ve seen on Lemmy has been both extreme and uniformly in one direction
Are you talking about users or moderators? And if you are talking about moderators, are you talking about the moderators of World News? And if you are, do you have evidence to this effect?
Otherwise, I see no reason for your initial post unless you just decided to find a random moderator to imply has a bias problem when enforcing community rules.
Cry harder, fash
Anybody who recognizes obvious and heavy bias must be a fascist or a communist, got it. Thank you for enlightening me.