Yes, we have no bananas...and other former imports too

[Amargo]

This part (of the article) is false:

The UN asks both parts to talk but the UK refuses, arguing that she will only talk when the islanders desire so. Argentina argues against that stance but receives no answer. A rebuttal is something quite different.

Moreover, there is no such detailed account. Lawrence Freedman is UK's Official Historian of the Falklands Campaign and author of The official history of the Falklands Campaign, among other work on the subject. I quote from his book (page 2):

This argument of the war settling the question, which I left inside the quote to maintain proper context, was disputed even by a UN resolution.

Freedman later says that UK's case is currently based on prescription, as they have abandoned previous arguments based on historical facts, mostly because research in the early 1900s concluded that they were weak. Authoritative literature supports this version, frequently giving more emphasis on the shortcomings of the British historical case and casting doubts on the applicability of prescription. To address these kinds of doubts, the UK cast the card of self determination. Freedman says (p. 13):

Yet, self determination is also disputable, as has been written in competent sources, given that the islanders are an imported population. As far as I understand, that more or less summarizes the British case, which has its value but is clearly inconclusive.

Therefore, the lines I quoted from the article are ungrounded and misleading on a key matter. There are no serious grounds to refer to alleged 'historical falsehoods and misinformation deployed in support of Argentina’s claim'. This is probably due to some pseudo-revisionist self-published texts that have been circulating, which contradict established literature and, afaik, haven't been taken seriously in educated circles. I responded to some of their challenges in the last pages of this other thread: http://baexpats.org/world-politics/19267-will-falklands-debacle-soon-repeated-6.html

Besides, we will probably agree that name giving as in 'Only the incompetent Argentines could achieve the impossible' doesn't make good journalism.

The rest of the article may have useful points, although I seriously doubt that the situation in Buenos Aires is as apocalyptic as it may be reasonably interpreted from it. If you are living here, you may judge it yourselves. Those who don't live here perhaps can't. Just as with the points above: those who are interested enough to read about the subject may identify partisan and ungrounded statements, but a majority probably can't.

Excellent, thank you, a very objective and reasonable post.

 

[French jurist]

No more bananas, no more dildos (and less imported books)!
http://www.lapoliticaonline.com/not...ibradores-y-se-reune-con-prime-y-tulipan.html

Winter nights are going to be long.

 

[CarverFan]

No more vibrators? Maybe he's trying to boost sales of electric toothbrushes...

 

[elhombresinnombre]

All that the article complains about is indeed a problem, but this is a bad piece of hit job journalism. Definitely one of the least even-handed articles I've read.

Not all journalism is even handed. Why would you expect this piece of journalism to be even handed? It wasn't even written for Mercopress: they simply chose to republish it. It was written by a (retired) journalist who had covered the Falklands war in 1982 and the target audience is Falkland Islanders.

 

[French jurist]

No more vibrators? Maybe he's trying to boost sales of electric toothbrushes...

Yop, but you have to hold them the other way around

 

[stl999]

My company struggled with customs for two months to release books of US tax law. They questioned why we couldn't have them printed here. It was ridiculous, but finally, they let us have them. Too bad they focused more on that than the fact we had created 200 new jobs for the local economy.

 

[alpac]

This part (of the article) is false:

"Its submissions to the United Nations have been met by the UK’s robust rebuttal and a detailed, factual account of events going back centuries validating British sovereignty."

The UN asks both parts to talk but the UK refuses, arguing that she will only talk when the islanders desire so. Argentina argues against that stance but receives no answer. A rebuttal is something quite different.

Is that it...nothing else...
It seems to me that your entire criticism that the article is indeed bad journalism (at least in part) is based on what appears to be a hypertechnical parsing of words, specifically the non-existence of rebuttals to Argentina's claim made within the framework of the UN. I gather from your expiation that no UK rebuttal to Argentina's claim to the islands has been made within the framework of the UN. Is it your argument that even if rebuttals to Argentina's claims have been made outside the framework of the UN (would you deny they have been so made), that because no rebuttal has been lodged with the UN, the article is "bad" or false and misleading.
If so, that hypertechnical distinction strikes me as a thin reed on which to support your criticism of the piece. If I am I missing something please advise.

I do note that you deny the legitimacy of UK"s historically based argument:

Therefore, the lines I quoted from the article are ungrounded and misleading on a key matter. There are no serious grounds to refer to alleged 'historical falsehoods and misinformation deployed in support of Argentina’s claim'. This is probably due to some pseudo-revisionist self-published texts that have been circulating, which contradict established literature and, afaik, haven't been taken seriously in educated circles. I responded to some of their challenges in the last pages of this other thread: Will the Falklands debacle soon be repeated?

You sound very well informed of the historical issues. On the other hand, what I know about the history of the islands would echo in a thimble. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure there are two sides to the historical argument. Accordingly, would you not at least concede that your assertion that there are no valid British counterpoints to Argentina's historical claims to the islands is a hotly disputed conclusion. More significantly, that historical dispute was not the subject of the article in question. In that regard it only reported that arguments against Argintina's claim have been rebutted robustly...even if outside the framework of the UN.

The article was not an argument for the validity of the UK claim per se, but a recitation of the harm that CFK's attempts to restore the Malvinas is doing to society, especially as concerns imports. While you opine the author's view is misleadingly apocalyptic, he did cite the strong growth of the economy in addition to the raft of problems facing the country. In my opinion, mounting inflation and the ineffective economic policies adopted by a government that more and more appears to be willing to shoot itself in the foot over this Malvinas issue, are going to have serious negative effects on the well being of the citizenry. I venture to say a lot of people share that outlook.

 

[expatinowncountry]

to expantinowncountry.
What part of this article bothers you?
I felt it was right on the mark.
It seems that i will not be able to get the english language bible that my local mormon missionary promised. Why ? Because Douchebag guillermo moreno has placed a ban on all imports of books.
Seems he doesnt want people to read what is written of him in other countries.
Again I ask , What in your opinion is wrong with the article

Since you asked my opinion, I give you two examples of what is wrong with the article:

1) ”But a few weeks ago, they had no bananas in Buenos Aires shops. Only the incompetent Argentines could achieve the impossible.”

2) ”It reminds me of chronic shortages over thirty years ago when Argentines would take the LADE flight to the Falklands to buy Cadburys chocolate, toilet paper, and even carpets.”

These are two examples of bad (yelllow) journalism. Period. I hope I do not have to elaborate why this is the case.

Don't get me wrong, I am not fun of Guillermo Moreno, Cristina, or I have any particular strong view on Malvinas/Falkland but that is totally irrelevant with respect to the point that the article was very bad, offensive, mean spirited, wrong in some of the facts and trying to link issues that are totally unrelated.

And yes, sometimes, in foreign countries you cannot get the goodies that you get in your country. I am sorry for your lost but think of it as a contribution to fighting global warming

 

[alpac]

Since you asked my opinion, I give you two examples of what is wrong with the article:

1) ”But a few weeks ago, they had no bananas in Buenos Aires shops. Only the incompetent Argentines could achieve the impossible.”

2) ”It reminds me of chronic shortages over thirty years ago when Argentines would take the LADE flight to the Falklands to buy Cadburys chocolate, toilet paper, and even carpets.”

These are two examples of bad (yelllow) journalism. Period. I hope I do not have to elaborate why this is the case.

Don't get me wrong, I am not fun of Guillermo Moreno, Cristina, or I have any particular strong view on Malvinas/Falkland but that is totally irrelevant with respect to the point that the article was very bad, offensive, mean spirited, wrong in some of the facts and trying to link issues that are totally unrelated.

And yes, sometimes, in foreign countries you cannot get the goodies that you get in your country. I am sorry for your lost but think of it as a contribution to fighting global warming

expatinowncountry,
Was the article inaccurate regarding either the absence of bananas or that it reminded the author of shortages 30 years ago that resulted in Argentines flying to the Falklands for items unavailable at home...
I'm sorry, but if these statements are true, then, yes, you will have to elaborate why the article is bad journalism. What other facts were inaccurate...what issues were improperly linked...

And you may want to look up the definition of yellow journalism before using it to describe this piece in any event. It is not sensationalist or scandalous in the way that term is ordinarily used. An obviously sarcastic, hyperbolic opinion ("Only the incompetent etc") doesn't define yellow journalism when reportage is either accurate or so obviously facetious as to be incredible. I'm sure it rankles, but reasonably sensible people would interpret it to be nothing other than facetious hyperbole. I'm reminded of the Rev Falwell defamation suit against Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine. The defendants could not be guilty of defaming the Reverend for claiming he had sex with his mother. It was absurd exaggertion and not a statement of fact reasonable minds would think true. More so in this case, since the remark is clearly one of opinion and not one of fact.

 

[Aleina Dee]

It´s sooo reminiscent of a conversation one is likely to have in a Coto.
A laundry list of shortcomings based on a narrow view.

"Only the incompetent Argentines etc, Buenos Aires a city of pickets and shortages " sort of gives me the idea that the writer is not actually trying to be balanced or research his facts. One woman going to Uruguay to buy an iron. Hello ? My Coto stocks five models starting at 110 pesos. No bananas ? Was shipping delayed , was it the day of the truckers or were there really no imports that day,week or month ? For a seasoned journalist it would have been easy to verify

Nice comparison about the shortages over 30 years ago and now. Hmm, what exactly happened 30 years ago and what conclusion am I supposed to draw from this ? Ah yes, I get it...