These texts brought about the importance of the influence the government has on media production, especially as more of the means began to expand and increase across Latin American countries. In document 7.1, a newspaper article from the New York Times reports the tales of Peronist corruption, repression and fakery. It mentions how there has been a serious split within the peronista party over Eva’s candidacy to the point that some members of the council were forced out for advocating the governor of the Province of Buenos Aires as second place on the ticket. The New York Times selectively reports Latin American events in a more negative view.

The second document, an account on the “renunciamiento” from the Peronist Party of Buenos Aires does not provide us with the dialogue from the crowd. Eva advocates for Peron as he brought social justice, economic independence and the civic, moral and spiritual sovereignty of the country. She also strongly promotes General Peron as the leader that will bring justice and freedom. However, the words in the text do not appear to be what was Eva actually said. This shows how dangerous it is to rely on written texts from archives in order to reconstruct a past that did not take place through the medium of the written word.

The third document, an approximation of what was actually said in the “renunciamiento” only provides us with fragments or a small glimpse of the moment that happened. This version seems considerably different then that given by the Peronist Party, showing how written data was easily transformed by political leaders to portray a different reality through media. Eva asks the audience to not make her do what she does not want to do, something completely opposite from what the second document said, where she was willing to devote her life if it meant bringing happiness to one household in her Nation.

The last document, is an accurate rendering of what Eva said on the radio after the “renunciamiento.” All these documents show us how different realities can be portrayed through media, be it radio in the 1940s or online articles today. The texts show us how powerful the government was and is today to be able to influence society into thinking certain ways through forms of media such as: radio, TV, newspapers, etc. It was a way for political leaders to reach out to the “humble” “working class” people and convince them to believe in them so that they could remain in power. This way, the “audience” or national community is able to connect with the words said by such leaders and come together to promote their rights as the working class across the country, promoting the industrialization processes that make the region rich. Since times like these, the reliability of media communication is questioned, leading to the distrust of such sources.