Here's your daily lesson in "you can't hate the media enough."
If you're not familiar with The Economist, it's a British news site. Some call it a magazine. Apparently, it prefers the term "newspaper."
When you google it, you get the following description: "Fact-checked journalism — In-depth global analysis and opinion, with full digital access, podcasts, and more. The Economist is independent journalism for independent thinking."
I don't know who is checking these facts, but it got one label very wrong this week.
On September 24, it published an article on El Salvador with the headline: The dictator’s laboratory: Nayib Bukele is pushing AI hard.
The "dictator," of course, being Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele.
But many people have taken note of the fact that back in July, the outlet published an article called: Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega scraps elections.
Why on earth is the man who is elected freely and fairly in a country where he is beloved called "dictator," while the one who literally stood up this summer and said "no more elections ever" called a "president?"
As Bukele posted on X: "Hahaha you left some article in your propaganda 😘"
Hahaha you left some article in your propaganda 😘 https://t.co/c6CeSaEeL8
— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) October 1, 2026
Now, before I go any further, I do want to point out that the writer does call Ortega a dictator in the article. So there's that. But here's something I've learned working in this business: Most people only read the headlines. Most people only see the social media post with the word "dictator" and respond, react, or re-post. Framing one man as a dictator and another as a president in your headlines is a choice.
In Ortega's Nicaragua, political opposition is jailed for merely speaking out. People are banned from celebrating religious holidays. People are fleeing the country because there is little freedom. Ortega made his wife, Rosario Murillo, his "co-president," and had his family dynasty written into the constitution so that only it can rule. On Friday, the Organization of American States (OAS) announced that its member states had "agreed on a concrete process to pursue diplomatic engagement, assess progress, and determine further action" in support "of democracy in Nicaragua and the rights of the Nicaraguan people."
Nearly every country in the Americas doesn't come together because it fears that the people of El Salvador have lost their rights.
Quite the opposite. The country is one of the United States' top allies in the region, and a member of the Shield of the Americas. Bukele was elected in 2019 and again in 2024 with something like 85% of the vote, which was verified. His organic approval rating hovers somewhere above 80% in every single poll; even his opposition will confess that. The only thing he "bans" is criminal activity, as any country should. He's building the economy and changing the education system, and giving the Salvadoran people a chance at a good life. People who left are literally returning home. I've even talked to some people from the U.S. lately who are moving there. What he has done with El Salvador was part of the beginning of the whole "rightward swing" in Latin America.
Bukele calls himself the "world’s coolest dictator" as a joke, to troll the lefties who like to label him as such. Apparently, The Economist didn't understand the punchline.
The Cambridge Dictionary describes a dictator as "a leader who has complete power in a country and has not been elected by the people."
I will concede there are some who believe Bukele does have too much power. But I will also point to the fact that the stories that they use to prove this often lack a lot of nuance. I've written about that at length over the past two years, so I won't get into it here. More often than not, it's a case of U.S. and European journalists looking at a very broken country through their spoiled, elitist lenses.
The Salvadoran people have the final say, and this is what they want.
The people in Nicaragua have no say at all.
