I love the Wall Street Journal and have read it daily now for 30-plus years. But earlier this week, they ran an uncharacteristically weak article about Mexico titled “Claudia Sheinbaum is learning the price of appeasing Trump.” It was so weak that our team actually even considered holding off on our new MND Sheinbaum Index, which we ultimately published the next day. Let me explain.
When I say “uncharacteristically weak,” what I mean is that the WSJ article felt gossipy — almost tabloid-like. The title was pure clickbait. The lead photo showed Sheinbaum peering out from the shadows, looking pensive and tired. The article repeatedly suggested that she is torn between former President AMLO and President Trump. A quote: “People close to her worried that she was beginning to buckle under the dual pressures from Trump and AMLO.” This particular talking point — that she is being managed “behind the scenes” by AMLO — has become the single most recycled line among her critics, repeated so often that its currency has almost nothing to do with whether it is true. Frequent critic Jorge Castaneda, a former foreign minister, said: “I disagree with almost everything she has done … but I don’t know what she could have done differently.” Alejandro Werner, who worked in the Mexican government years ago for an opposing party, and now weighs in from Washington, D.C.: “She feels like nothing has worked for her.”
Some other actual quotes from the article:
- “Sheinbaum has been getting little sleep, often just four hours.”
- “She is more hesitant and exhausted.”
- She is “drained after spending long hours in the cold halls and dark corridors of the ornate National Palace.”
- “She’s often indecisive, weighed down by worries over how both Trump and AMLO loyalists will react.”
- “She also has a fan in First Lady Melania Trump, who likes her elegant yet traditional dresses with Indigenous embroidery.”
- “One of her biggest complaints is that her orders are executed poorly, and sometimes not at all.”
- “Known for her short temper, she often snaps at her staff.”
Take a minute to re-read those lines. Each of them was credited to “people close to her,” or “people said,” or “the people say.” Not a single quote came from someone currently operating a business in Mexico, a manufacturer navigating tariff uncertainty, or a developer making investment decisions in the current climate. The voices selected were political figures from the past. This is not unique to the WSJ, but rather a pattern across major media platforms covering Mexico today. Pundits and former officials share opinions based on past experiences, rarely acknowledging the challenges of leading in the current geopolitical climate.
This is exactly the kind of superficial analysis that we are looking to move beyond with our recently-released MND Sheinbaum Index. As it was being constructed, we thought long and hard about human nature and popularity polls. As we encourage our readers to “look beyond the popularity polls and analyze the actual results,” we reflected not just on Sheinbaum, but on other world leaders. Vladimir Putin has maintained high popularity, despite what he has done to the Russian people and economy. Donald Trump has declining popularity numbers, but many of those who continue to support him would argue that he is the best president ever. So we have to ask ourselves, do we live in an age where actual results might not even matter? An age in which perception and popularity might be more important than results? A time when we can say that a president is “doing well” based on popularity alone — even if the country is actually not doing well?
I recently heard a quote that “good journalism should leave you feeling smarter.” To me, an entire article where nearly everyone has been quoted “off the record,” as in the case of the WSJ article, feels gossipy and unprofessional. It caters to what readers might already think rather than challenging them to think deeper. By referencing real data, we can elevate the level of dialogue and debate far beyond “people said.”
As our team was building this index, we found ourselves drawing on experiences from the corporate world, where both a 360-degree evaluation and a performance review are often conducted. Personality matters (the 360-degree evaluation), but so do the actual results (the performance review). One without the other is incomplete. One without the other feels too emotional, too personal, too opinion-based.
And so with that backdrop, we decided to go ahead and move forward with publishing our index this week. I want to reiterate that our goal with this index is neither to be an advocate nor a critic of Sheinbaum, but rather to give you a framework that helps better inform your own views in a more data-driven manner. Our goal is to arm readers with information that allows them to discuss and debate Sheinbaum’s actual performance versus just her likability or what former politicians say about her. We want to inspire readers to question whether we have held former presidents before her to a high enough bar. We wish to challenge Mexico to strive for a level of performance it has rarely achieved, but must continue to strive for.
It does the country no good to have some people love the president with little regard to actual results. It equally does the country no good to have other people dislike the president, no matter what the results. This index seeks to provide the analysis for a common ground of understanding, with the hope that it leaves us all feeling smarter.
As always, we welcome your feedback.
Travis Bembenek is the CEO of Mexico News Daily and has been living, working or playing in Mexico for nearly 30 years.
