There is an expression that belongs to the Argentine political imagination and emerges whenever a government seems to live within a carefully curated reality: "the Yrigoyen newspaper."

History tells that during the second presidency of Hipólito Yrigoyen, between 1928 and 1930, his circle crafted a sugarcoated version of the news so that the President received only those that were favorable to him. However, it is important to make a historical clarification: there is no conclusive evidence that such a newspaper actually existed. The version became established as a political legend, and over time it turned into a metaphor to describe rulers who end up surrounded by information that confirms their own beliefs.

And that is precisely why the metaphor is so powerful today.

Because a modern "Yrigoyen newspaper" does not need to print a fake newspaper.

It can be constructed with social networks, digital portals, consultancies, influencers, leaders, businessmen, journalists, and algorithms.

And it does not even need to invent all the data.

It can be much more sophisticated:

select true data, omit other equally true data, and build from that selection an interpretation that ends up functioning as propaganda.

Then an uncomfortable question arises:

Is there today a "libertarian Yrigoyen newspaper"?

It would not be serious to respond affirmatively by automatically pointing to a particular media outlet. To demonstrate that a medium serves that function, it would need to be systematically studied what it publishes, what it omits, what sources it uses, how it treats negative and positive news, and whether it applies the same criteria when the data favors or harms the Government.

But we can do something much more useful:

build a methodology to discover it.

1. THE “YIRIGOYEN NEWSPAPER” IS NOT NECESSARILY A LIE

This is probably the first important distinction.

A propaganda medium does not have to invent statistics.

It can publish an absolutely true piece of data.

The problem arises when that data is presented as if it represents the whole reality.

For example:

Data: inflation has slowed down.

Reasonable interpretation: the inflationary process has lost intensity.

Propaganda: "Inflation is defeated."

All three phrases are related, but they do not mean the same thing.

The data may be true.

The interpretation may be reasonable.

The third assertion requires much more justification.

In August 2026, for example, the national CPI recorded a monthly variation of 1.7%. This is official data. But in the same month, the Basic Food Basket increased by 2.6% and accumulated a year-on-year rate of 39.6%.

Thus, two realities can coexist:

general inflation slows down and the cost of certain essential consumption continues to rise at a faster rate.

There is no statistical contradiction.

The contradiction arises when someone uses only one of the two data points to draw a general conclusion.

2. THE “DATA – INTERPRETATION – PROPAGANDA” MATRIX

A simple way to detect the problem is to always separate three levels.

DATA

What actually happened?

It should be verifiable from a reliable source.

INTERPRETATION

What does that data mean?

This is where analysis begins. Two specialists can interpret the same number differently without necessarily anyone lying.

PROPAGANDA

What political conclusion is being attempted to establish using that data?

Propaganda appears when partial evidence becomes a total conclusion, when context is omitted, or when conclusions requiring causality are presented as facts.

Let’s take economic growth.

The Argentine GDP increased by 2.3% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2026 and by 0.7% compared to the previous quarter.

Data: the economy grew.

Interpretation: there is a recovery of activity.

Propaganda: "The model has lifted the entire Argentine economy."

Why?

Because within the same official report, there are enormous differences between sectors. Private consumption grew by 2.7% year-on-year, but the manufacturing industry fell by 1.7%. Fixed investment also showed a year-on-year contraction.

So the correct phrase might be:

"The economy is growing, but the recovery is heterogeneous."

The propagandistic phrase would be:

"The economy is flying."

3. MILEI’S GOVERNMENT HAS FAVORABLE DATA

And this point is fundamental for the analysis to be intellectually honest.

Detecting propaganda does not mean denying positive results.

The Government of Javier Milei can showcase concrete economic achievements.

Inflation has greatly reduced compared to 2023 levels.

The National State maintains a positive fiscal result: during the first half of 2026 it accumulated a financial surplus equivalent to approximately 0.1% of GDP and a primary surplus close to 0.6%.

Poverty has also decreased compared to the peak recorded in 2024. In the second half of 2025, it reached 28.2% of people in the 31 urban agglomerates surveyed by INDEC.

The GDP has grown again.

It would be absurd to turn all these results into propaganda simply because they favor the Government.

A favorable piece of data remains a favorable piece of data even if it benefits Milei politically.

This principle is essential.

If an opposition medium denies a real improvement because it does not align with its political stance, it is also constructing its own "Yrigoyen newspaper," but in reverse.

4. THE PROBLEM STARTS WHEN ONLY GOOD NEWS IS CHOSEN

Here lies the true mechanism.

Let’s suppose a medium publishes:

• inflation ↓

• poverty ↓

• deficit ↓

• GDP ↑

• reserves ↑

But systematically leaves out:

• declining industrial sectors;

• formal employment problems;

• deterioration of certain consumptions;

• regional differences;

• loss of purchasing power in certain sectors;

• difficulties for small businesses;

• investment evolution.

Is it lying?

Not necessarily.

But it is doing something very important journalistically:

it is constructing a selection of reality.

In the first quarter of 2026, for example, the unemployment rate was 7.8%. The employment rate was 44.8%.

Those numbers also cannot be interpreted in isolation.

A serious analysis must ask what type of employment is being created, what happens to registered employment, how real incomes are growing, and which sectors are generating employment.

The economy is not a single figure.

It is a set of realities that move simultaneously and often in different directions.

5. THE CONFIRMATION BIAS

The modern "Yrigoyen newspaper" can operate without anyone sitting around a table to decide what to hide.

There is a much more powerful mechanism:

the confirmation bias.

People tend to seek out, remember, and share information that confirms what they already believe.

A libertarian activist will tend to pay more attention to news that shows the Government is right.

An opponent will do exactly the opposite.

Social networks amplify the phenomenon because algorithms quickly learn which content generates interaction.

Thus, informational bubbles are constructed.

The user starts by seeing favorable information.

The algorithm offers more favorable information.

Influencers comment on that information.

Followers share it.

Other media reproduce it.

The Government observes that this information circulates significantly.

And finally, the digital perception can begin to blur with the social reality.

Then it is no longer necessary for a censor to exist.

The audience itself can become the editor of the newspaper it wants to read.

6. THE MOST IMPORTANT SIGNAL: WHAT DO THEY DO WITH BAD NEWS?

This is probably the most effective test to identify a possible "Yrigoyen newspaper."

It is not enough to observe what a medium publishes when the Government is successful.

It is necessary to observe what it does when negative data appears.

A professional medium should be able to say:

"This indicator improved, but this other one worsened."

A strongly biased medium will tend to use one of these mechanisms:

Denial: "That data is false."

Disqualification: "The one who published it is an operator."

Decontextualization: "That is irrelevant."

Selective comparison: "But look how we were before."

Changing the subject: in the face of an uncomfortable fact, another positive one immediately appears.

Personalization: the discussion shifts from the data to who published it.

None of these mechanisms, in and of themselves, proves propaganda.

But when they appear systematically and always in defense of the same political actor, they become a signal.

7. THE “DOUBLE STANDARD” TEST

There is another tool that is even more powerful.

Question:

Does the medium use the same criteria when the data favors and when it harms the Government?

Let’s suppose a consultancy publishes:

"Food prices increased by only 0.1% over a week."

If the medium believes that this data demonstrates that inflation is under control, it should apply the same criterion when food prices rise significantly one week.

If, however, when the data is favorable, it is presented as an accurate snapshot of reality, and when it is unfavorable, it is said that "one week means nothing," we have a problem.

The same happens with surveys.

With employment.

With poverty.

With industrial activity.

With consumption.

With investments.

Serious journalism does not need all data to be favorable. It needs to apply the same method when it is favorable and when it is not.

8. AND CONSULTANCIES?

Here a particularly delicate issue arises.

A consultancy can conduct a perfectly legitimate measurement.

But every measurement has:

• methodology;

• universe;

• sample;

• period;

• weights;

• assumptions;

• margin of error.

Therefore, it is not enough to look at the number.

We must ask:

What does it measure exactly?

How does it measure it?

What is left out?

Is it comparable with other periods?

Does it align with other indicators?

A weekly food estimate may be useful to detect trends.

But it does not automatically equate to the official CPI.

And the consumer does not live within a statistical average.

They buy certain products, in certain stores, in a particular area, with a specific income.

Therefore, there can be a perfectly legitimate difference between statistical inflation and perceived inflation.

The problem begins when someone uses a particular measurement to systematically invalidate the experience of millions of consumers.

9. THE DANGER IS NOT ONLY FOR THE OPPOSITION

This might be the most interesting aspect of the entire analysis.

A "Yrigoyen newspaper" does not only harm citizens.

It can also harm the Government itself.

Why?

Because a President needs uncomfortable information to correct itself.

If a minister says:

"This works, but this other thing doesn't,”

they are fulfilling their function.

If a consultant says:

"The overall numbers are good, but this sector is running into problems,”

they are doing their job.

If a journalist close to the Government points out a contradiction,

they may be providing a much greater service than someone who continuously repeats good news.

The ruler who only receives praise may end up believing that praise is information.

And that’s when the "Yrigoyen newspaper" reaches its most dangerous form:

when it stops being a propaganda mechanism to become a mechanism of self-deception.

10. DOES A "LIBERTARIAN YRIGOYEN NEWSPAPER" EXIST?

The responsible answer should be:

We cannot identify it simply because a medium is favorable to Milei.

Being supportive, oppositional, liberal, socialist, conservative, or Peronist does not automatically turn a medium into propaganda.

The correct question is another one:

How does it work with reality?

Does it publish information that contradicts its position?

Does it recognize mistakes?

Does it differentiate news from opinion?

Does it explain the methodology behind the figures?

Does it contrast sources?

Does it present negative data when relevant?

Does it correct itself when it is wrong?

Does it apply the same standard to Milei that it would to any other president?

Does it distinguish a correlation from causation?

Does it avoid turning an indicator into an absolute conclusion?

If the answer is systematically negative, then we have reasons to suspect that this medium is functioning more as a political confirmation tool than as a source of information.

11. A “YIRIGOYEN TEST” FOR ANY MEDIA

We can turn all this into a small audit.

10 QUESTION TEST

1. Does it publish bad news about its own political space?

2. Does it publicly recognize its mistakes?

3. Does it differentiate information from opinion?

4. Does it cite primary sources?

5. Does it explain how a piece of data was obtained?

6. Does it provide context in addition to the number?

7. Does it contrast favorable and unfavorable data?

8. Does it use the same standard for allies and adversaries?

9. Does it criticize the Government when appropriate even if it contradicts its editorial line?

10. Does it allow reality to contradict the narrative?

The more negative answers that appear, the greater the possibility that we are facing a closed information ecosystem.

And there is an even more compelling question:

What news published by that media outlet in the last month actually harmed its own political space?

If the answer is “none,” there are reasons to pay attention.

12. THE CONCLUSION

The discussion should not be:

“Is Milei right or wrong?”

Nor:

“Are the media libertarian or anti-libertarian?”

The truly important question is:

Are we receiving information to understand reality or selected information to confirm what we already believe?

Milei may have real economic successes.

He may have real mistakes.

There may be excellent indicators and other worrying ones simultaneously.

And a serious media outlet should be able to show both things without feeling that it betrays any ideology.

The modern “Yrigoyen’s newspaper” does not need to be false.

It can be built with partial truths.

That is precisely its power.

And that is why the best way to discover it is not to ask who supports Milei.

It is to look at what that media does when reality contradicts its narrative.

Because when a media outlet only publishes what confirms its readers, it stops functioning as a window to reality.

It becomes a mirror.

And a government surrounded exclusively by mirrors risks ending up believing that the reflection is the country.