Yikes, I think that by Mary O`Grady is the worst article I have ever read on Chile
“tear down” institutions, what is she on about? Boric and his team have not proposed anything of the sort, and there is no evidence they are planning any such thing
what is all this about the social crisis violence coming from the "extreme-left” or being “trained” or “organized”. pure speculation, certainly no evidence, and yet presented as fact.
what is this about churches being set on fire “all over the country” I don´t recall that. For sure there were a few in Santiago and maybe some other cities, but not many, a wild exaggeration.
note the attempt to link Boric to the violence, even though it had nothing to do with him, rather than actually addressing his policies
the idea that there is towards Kast a “hostile media”, intolerant of his Catholicism - complete nonsense
The Guardian may be biased, but at least they just don´t make things up, or say things that are speculative or false as if they are fact
to the WSJ, there is a clear relation between economic growth and “good” - never mind how many homeless people there are or how long the waiting lists are in the hospitals, as long as the growth number is high everything must be fine. This idea that economic growth is the goal itself, very outdated.
May be anecdotal but many observers here noticed that the operatives of destruction in San Antonio were not San Antoninos and were “imported” from Santiasco.
So you can believe what you want.
The most violent native protests here are when the pescadores go on strike and multiple attacks to take out supermarkets and destroy public infrastructure ARE NEVER part of their plan (only damage being the tarmac of the thoroughfares of their burning barricades}.
You are free to believe what you want to believe, especially if isolated from reality,
I agree Mendoza - that Wsj article is as biased as The Guardian, but I suggest you try reading the Guardian without your personal bias.
Kast is constantly mentioned, as far-right, ultra conservative etc, where Boric is just left-wing. Is that a fair angle?
and what about this:
“But the prospect of a four-year Kast presidency has horrified many in Chile and across the region and fueled fears that one of South America’s most prosperous and stable democracies could be on the verge of being captured by Steve Bannon-style extremists.”
Is that not just as bad as Wall Street fearmongering?
As I have said, The Guardian is biased. However, there is a difference between a biased opinion and just making stuff up. Boric will not tear down institutions, and churches were not set on fire across the country. Those are factual, false lies or errors which you will not likely find in the Guardian.
If it wasn’t for those two things, I would be tempted to agree with you, infact I wouldn’t have even have replied to criticise the the article in the first place.