You can read through 90 percent of today's New York Times piece on Argentina without having discovered the most important piece of news. When it finally comes:
Mr. Kirchner has recently acknowledged the crisis but also says there is “no reason for drama.” He portrays the energy shortages as merely a temporary bottleneck that is a consequence of the success of his economic policies.
“Thanks to having grown 50 percent over the past four and a half years, we have a strong need for this product,” he said this week. “Sometimes growth brings us problems,” he added, but “an Argentina that grows, with jobs and consumption” is preferable to the depressed economy he inherited when he took office.
The rest of the piece, which is about fairly typical election year woes in Latin America, makes it seem like Argentina is some kind of basket case of a country. Au contraire, Argentina since 2002 is one of history's biggest economic success stories as a result of their casting aside IMF, World Bank and WTO-style advice. Reading the piece, which is one of the longest and most in depth pieces on Argentina I remember seeing in the Times for some time, this fact barely comes through, and when it does, there is no context, and it is presented merely as the claim of an outgoing president.
This piece is an illustration of why the "there is no alternative" argument to neoliberalism is bogus. There are plenty of alternatives, but lack of adequate coverage often buries them. This radio silence in turn shapes the TINA perceptions among some readers.