Brazilian Media Avoids Reporting Argentina’s Economic Recovery

Milei as a candidate → TV action in Brazil → Ridicule

Milei leading in the polls → TV action in Brazil → Ridicule and demonization

Milei as president → TV action in Brazil → Ridicule, demonization, and doomsday predictions

Milei implementing economic reforms → TV action in Brazil → Forecasts of chaos and economic collapse, plus ridicule and demonization

Milei showing early economic improvements → TV action in Brazil → Downplaying progress, always citing some negative side effect, almost like saying “improved quality of life just makes people grow old”

Milei dramatically improving the economy → TV action in Brazil → Near-total silence about Argentina, except when Milei insults someone

Today, most Brazilian “news” TV channels seem to avoid coloring Argentina with any narrative at all. That’s likely because it has become impossible to ignore the country's recovery—a recovery many thought was unfeasible, yet came surprisingly fast and strong. This was only possible due to the rejection of gradualism, the very factor that prevented more meaningful progress under Macri’s presidency.

Tiago Leifert was candid in admitting that over 90% of the journalists he worked with leaned left. Naturally, this creates a bias that shields one side from criticism while amplifying attacks on the other. In such an environment, the rise of the “Spiral of Silence” is entirely predictable. Also worth noting is the hypocrisy that emerges from the inability to maintain neutrality in a field where ethics should be paramount. How can anyone not see the political sides journalists have taken? Only the naive still believe these figures are simply guiding the public as if they were the “dads” of national morality, defining what’s right and wrong—while we clearly see how they vote. Spare me.

Let me be clear: I’m not a journalist, and I’ve never aspired to be one. What I do here are analyses made possible by a real background in math, finance, and economics. A journalist by training wouldn’t be able to dive into this kind of analysis without serious specialization. Journalism education is well-structured and competent, yes—but it’s generalist by nature. That’s why it’s often shallow on technical topics like the ones I address. Only those who pursued deeper education in economics and finance are truly equipped.

Today, two of the most capable analysts with that kind of depth—whom I’ll mention more than once—are William Waack and Eduardo Oinegue, both brilliant in their economic and political commentary.

Oh, and let’s be honest: many people choose journalism to avoid programs involving real math, applied economics, or hard finance. There's a clear and often admitted aversion to these more technical areas. As a complement, I’m halfway through a degree in Psychology, which brings me even greater insight into human behavior. That sensitivity was always in me, but now it’s backed by theory and technical knowledge that deepen my understanding of the world.

A revealing interview with a major media personality offers clues that ideology might be behind many of the undemocratic filters present in journalistic opinion. Below is a breakdown of the video interview:

• The guest believes the media leans left [00:04].

• He also thinks people have tied their identities to external things, which leads them to lose friends [00:18].

• He says he used to work with people who held opposing views and loved learning from them [00:31].

• He believes silent Brazilians will determine the next election [02:14].

• He believes left-leaning media bias caused a public trust crisis [02:53].

• He says insulting Bolsonaro voters only helps him get reelected [04:21].

• He didn’t speak much about politics while working at Globo [05:54].

• He dislikes the mental gymnastics people use to justify the unjustifiable [06:16].

• He says journalists should strive for maximum impartiality [07:08].

• He dislikes the condescending tone some journalists use [07:46].

• Journalism, he says, should be about presenting facts and letting people decide what to believe [09:30].

• He finds it hard to distinguish between news and opinion articles [09:36].

• There are many editorial layers stories must pass through before publication, making it hard for truth to get out [11:12].

• He says he loves Globo [12:34].

• He says he’ll spoil his vote in the next election [12:51].

• He shares his thoughts on some presidential candidates [13:39].

The word “radical” continues to be used negatively in Brazil when applied to Milei. It’s almost sinful now to follow the West’s successful economic blueprint. Free markets and a drive for economic efficiency seem to offend fans of the Venezuelan model.

Macri, polite and civilized, didn’t have the courage to break with the destructive habits of Argentina’s economy. Milei, on the other hand, was radical—but radical against state corruption, waste, and inefficiency. And being radical about that is actually a good thing.

Before becoming president, Milei was ridiculed. After being elected, the ridicule persisted. When his reforms started producing results, the media minimized them. And once Argentina truly began to take off economically, reports about the country all but vanished—unless Milei had insulted some union leader or made a brash statement.

News about Argentina has nearly disappeared from Brazil’s major TV networks. Coincidence? Funny how it used to be a national sport to mock the “grotesque” presidential candidate, who was practically called a lunatic on-air. Whenever you turned on a “News” channel, there’d be an Argentine “journalist” mocking Javier Milei, joined by Brazilian commentators who barely understood numbers—let alone economics. In fact, depending on the dominant ideology at one’s university, having a degree in economics might mean nothing—or worse, it might distort your understanding of how economies actually work.

Brazil still gives little recognition to great analysts like William Waack (CNN Brasil), Eduardo Oinegue (Band News), and the promising Joel Pinheiro, who continues to provide insightful commentary despite the limitations of the platform he’s on. We live in strange times: it’s easy to name a top three, but incredibly hard to go beyond that.

The Right Should Focus on Ethics and Humanity

Brazil’s “conservative” right makes plenty of mistakes—clinging to trivial causes and getting lost in debates about human rights, opposing others’ religious freedoms, sexual freedom, and individual identity. But being liberal means defending freedom of worship, belief, and identity. When the right denies this, it falls into ridiculous authoritarianism—ironically resembling figures like Stalin or Mao, who were communists.

The Left Should Stop Hating Math

The left’s problem is its inability to understand how a healthy economy works. I don’t criticize their support for vulnerable minorities, though often it’s more theater than true commitment. But the biggest flaw on the left is its economic worldview, which frequently mimics chavismo, the Cuban model, or Soviet ideas—systems that led the poor into hunger and chaos. There’s this obsession with printing money as if that magically creates wealth, an idea that, in physics, would be akin to believing in perpetual motion machines. Any mechanical, electrical, or physics engineer can explain in dozens of ways why this logic fails.

An Ideological Frankenstein

The right in Brazil—and globally—needs to stop attacking LGBTQ people, denying racism, claiming their religion is the only valid one, and disrespecting all others.

The left needs to keep standing up for the vulnerable—but without hypocrisy. And most importantly, it must learn economics. It needs to get over its fear of numbers and stop hating math. Only then can it avoid the same economic disasters that devastated Argentina, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Honestly, it’s getting harder and harder to fully identify with either side—especially in Brazil. In the end, both left and right manipulate their followers like blind sheep, propping up the privileges of their tribal leaders. There aren’t just two colors—there are many shades. Just look at how MBL’s version of the right often clashes with other conservative groups by calling out corrupt politicians. That’s why MBL often gets demonized—not for their ideas, but for refusing to align with shady political deals.