Mexico: Under Siege?
Comments (9)
Creative Commons Licensed
I went to a lecture a few weeks back at Annenberg on "What's with the LA Times." I sometimes wonder the same thing, but remain a loyal subscriber. Yet the thing that galls me most is their Mexico coverage.
Not their Mexico coverage per se, but that they file it all under: "Mexico Under Siege." It is irresponsible at best; at worst, it is fear-mongering "brown" journalism. It would be as if the LA Times reported only from gangland LA to suffice as the coverage of the city and titled it "LA Under Siege." It is an inaccurate and twisted perspective on a far more complex issue. By broadly painting Mexico under the "Under Siege" title, it creates the impression that Mexico is some-how a failed state. It's not (see: former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda's, What's Spanish for Quagmire?). Such lurid headlines of narco-border violence obscure the relative safety felt throughout the whole of the country.
I have been to Mexico half-a-dozen times, and have traveled from its northern border all the way through its southerly line. In addition, I have done journalist work in Tijuana, a city that the press loves to chronicle with lurid tales of narco-violence. I always feel more unsafe at the Greyhound bus stations that I use to head south than any points beyond the border, and I often feel mas seguridad en Mexico than fair Los Angeles.
However, there is no need to rely on anecdotal evidence. The reality is that Mexico City's homicide rate is on par with Los Angeles and a third of the rate of my fair home, Washington DC.
I planned to tell them all this, but the conversation never came close. Instead I was reminded that newspapers are necrophiliacs. It seems all they care about is death, for all they talked about was their new homicide grid for Los Angeles. They have been collecting death data and they are proud to share it.
After the lecture I cornered an editor to toss my caja de jabon (soapbox) at his head. I argued that while the LA Times offers decent and nuanced coverage of Mexico, to put it all under "Mexico Under Siege" tars its coverage and skews the more nuanced reporting that it conducts. He noted that similar sentiments had been echoed even in his newsroom.
While Mexico indeed needs to carry out considerably more public diplomacy to convince its gringo neighbor to the north that the context of the "Mexico Under Siege" mentality is inaccurate, the sensationalist headlines surely don't help the matter. As a venerable paper of record, the LA Times should understand this better than most; yet its quest to gain Pulitzers at the sake of sensationalism and speciousness speaks to the state of the LA Times as much as it does to the state of Mexico.
The real Mexico (photo by Paul Rockower)
Paul Rockower is the Communications Chair for the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars (APDS). He is also a research associate for USC Professor Pamela Starr's US-Mexico Network, a USC-sponsored project to connect Mexican and US academics through public diplomacy.
This op-ed is the first of a newly initiated "Neon PD" project between Neon Tommy and the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars (APDS).
Comments
hi guys
My opinion. Mexico live a drug war.
we need a chage. Organized society.
we need education.
Thanks a lot
Laura
Truely precient observation. I'm a former journalist and hobby tour operator that has visited Mexico with guests almost every year in the last 10, mostly to Mexico City and points south. The insistence of the media on speaking of the country as though it is entirely in crisis has done tremendous perceptual damage to the U.S. / Mexican relationship. The economic damage to Mexico's tourism and artisania industries is particularly unfortunate.
"almost all"
mejor para todos?
-Paul
Paul,
I am bothered as well by the term "Mexico Under Siege" because of the impression it gives that the entire country is a war zone. That said, Bruce Wallace is correct. The statement "they file it all under: 'Mexico Under Siege'" is false. The LA Times does not and saying they do undermines the valid argument against such dominant display of coverage of the violence. Personally, while I take issue with the series name, I do think that the coverage is extremely important -- but it's a question of balance.
Yes, but...the majority of the Times' coverage on Mexico is on the drug war. In fact, a year ago it so dominated the coverage that his correspondents in Mexico were complaining to the local colleagues that they could not get articles in the LA Times that were not about the drug war. But when the story is not about the drug war it VERY rarely makes the front page but is instead buried deep inside the newspaper. Drug stories, by contrast, are generally front and center.
And while the balance in the Times' coverage has improved over the past few months, the title "Mexico under Siege" is always displayed so prominently on each drug war story that the message completely overpowers any other coverage the LA Times might give to Mexico.
Hello Paul. Interesting article, and thank you for acknowledging our "decent and nuanced coverage" of Mexico. I must point out, however, that you are wrong to write that we label all our Mexico coverage as 'Mexico Under Siege.' That phrase applies only to stories specifically related to the drug war and accompanying violence. Our stories about Mexican politics, business, the arts and other non-drug war topics do not carry the 'Under Siege' label. I look forward an amended post correcting this false impression.
Best regards,
Bruce Wallace
Foreign Editor
This points to a problem with the news media and its attempts to "sell" news. By branding its coverage with a catchy phrase, it goes for the sensational and exploits the fear factor, even if the article itself is more nuanced. Good reporting is what will draw readings, not one line slogans. Thanks for this.
Con mucho gusto.
-Don Pablo
What a much needed story. And what a great photo at the bottom of the page. Thanks.