Why? Colleagues from Buenos Aires often tell me that information is less biased in England; whereas their British counterparts believe that, as we are closer to the islands, we have better chances of collecting useful data.

Regardless of these binary stances, there is no doubt that there are several differences in how media is approaching this sensitive subject matter, and the varied accounts of Malvinas/Falklands are connected with different media traditions, and their association with power and history.

To begin with, the first difference is crystal clear when it comes to use of language. It is not the same saying “Malvinas” than “Falklands”: whereas Argentine media goes for Malvinas (conveying the underlying assumption that the islands belong to the country), the British prefer Falklands (obviously admitting the opposite). Puerto Argentino is Port Stanley. Falkland inhabitants are called “kelpers” by Argentine people and media, whereas they are the “islanders” for the British press. Like in the Argentine case, nicknaming people who live in Malvinas/Falklands is a way to look down on them, by depriving them of their British citizenship. Most sources interviewed by Argentine media acknowledge the existence of residents in the islands, but they are considered to be illegal settlers, a kind of colony.

The references to colonialism have been repeated at both sides of the sea by Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and by the British Prime Minister David Cameron. So far, the transcription of speeches of top-notch civil servants is transparent and accurate in both countries. Still, other journalistic genres like columns of opinion took the plunge to criticize both governments, and writers from both nations were brave enough to stand up for beliefs that are contrary to their native nations.

Historian Luis Alberto Romero’s article “Are Malvinas/Falklands actually Argentine?”, received a great deal of attention and debate in Argentina. Published in mainstream newspaper La Nación on 14 February, the author argued that “the conviction that Argentina has unquestionable rights over this land is deeply-rooted in common sense and feelings.” So, everything is not black and white in Argentina and the same happens in Britain, thanks to freedom of expression.

Still, although media is free in both countries, the Argentine scenario is peculiar. Over the past two years, since the country’s biggest media outlets Clarín and La Nación sided with farmers when they opposed the government over a controversial tax, the relationship between media and government is tense. At present, as the president accuses journalists publicly of manipulating information, reporters do their best to come up with news that inform the audience of the officials’ flaws. So it’s not surprising that many stories claim that the whole Malvinas/Falklands issue is all about the government’s intention to cover up major social problems like inflation, cuts in state-run services like public transportation, increasing demonstrations, among other difficulties faced here.

So, when UK Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne visited Argentina’s neighbouring country Chile and said “If I were Argentine, I would be more concerned about a stable economy, low inflation and the chance of a job than about Malvinas/Falklands”, local media echoed the phrased because it confirmed a sector of the population’s opinion. Likewise, sometimes British Media referred to the tensions as an “escalating rhetoric”.

This line of thought is not completely unfounded if we consider that in 1982, the Malvinas/Falklands war was used by the Argentine dictatorship for the same alleged purposes of distracting public opinion – to hide atrocities that were committed, like thousands of people going missing and the lack of freedom.

That’s also why former soldiers are labeled as “heroes” in Britain, and simply as “war survivors” in Argentina. The dark military past of the country still lingers in people’s imagination, and officers are often hardly criticized, by both media and the government due to their human rights policy. Instead, in a country with a long-lasting, well-organized military tradition like England, the recognition of people who fought in battle is widespread.

So, the main differences between Argentine and British coverage of Malvinas/Falklands are related to the nature of the relationship between the government and media, and also to varied memories of the past. Although journalism is supposed to be impartial, there are details that prove that viewpoints do matter when it comes to news-making, especially in such a delicate issue.