Court of Public Opinion: Chew v. Delsol

A recent article by Time.com's Robert Chew (Baja, Land of Drug Wars, Tries to Draw Tourists) certainly cuts a wide contrast to the story by Christine Delsol of seattlepi.com (Behind the Headlines: Safety in Mexico).

While the former pronounces ongoing danger and violence at the Mexican border cities on an unprecedented level, the latter basically suggests the tales of violence may well be way out of proportion. Both articles, which were published on 23 April 09, could not be any further apart in their depiction of the situation down south.

Well, who is right?

For one thing, I find myself drawn towards Delsol's dramatically measured and level-headed approach when it comes to digesting all the media account about the state of drug-related violence at the Mexican border cities. Her article is sufficiently beefed up with facts and figures to provide readers with a rounded perspective of the situation (she doesn't deny there is violence, but pleads for a common-sensical approach when examining the data).

It's not all gloom and doom, she says basically, as she urges visitors to just be intelligent about their travels to Mexico - the same tone and message that is also shared by the U.S. Department of State. Unlike the most current travel alert which specifically advises U.S. citizens against any non-essential travel to Mexico due to the outbreak of the H1N1 "swine flu," there hasn't been any travel warnings of such specificity on its 20 April security-related travel alert.

In fact, it's worth noting that this most recently updated travel alert is simply a continuation of the previous alert issued on 15 October 2008, which is precise in pointing out crime spikes in cities like Tijuana, Chihuahua City and especially at Ciudad Juarez, instead of over-generalizing violence in the Baja as a whole. In addition, Mexico is also not on the department’s current list of countries slapped with travel warnings that describe long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable.

I suppose it is intuitive to expect that the State Department would be responsible enough to recommend a similar non-essential travel restriction if the violence down south is proving to be detrimental to U.S. citizens? It's absence is therefore highly conspicuous, wouldn't you think?

On the contrary, there are some questions to ask about the Chew's article on Time. He talks about an 'unusual step by the U.S. State Department last month (March 2009) to citizens to avoid border towns like Rosarito Beach.' But two things struck me about this statement: Firstly, if the level of violence is as bad as his article is suggesting, then wouldn't the State Department's purported actions by well within reason and responsibility? The use of the word 'unusual,' in this case, appears to be a rhetorical move aimed at reinforcing his overall narrative about the dangers in Mexico.

This leads me to my second concern, which is about the veracity of the statement. Now, I'm not sure about his sources, but the State Department's webpage on Travel Alerts clearly points out that the 20 April 2009 advisory supersedes that of 15 October 2008, and even the link to 'Recent Embassy Notes on Mexico' fails to point substantively to this supposed March advisory.

There are also quotes that reeks of sensationalism and generalization that Chew clearly appears to have failed to challenge, framing as factual or logical statements such as (Gringo Gazette publisher) Conroy's take that "everyone [Mexicans] is lying," or that the entire real estate business over there is "...just another Mexican rip-off."

Everyone is lying?

Another Mexican rip-off?

Is he subtly trying to signal his agreement with Conroy's position?

In my opinion, he also appears to mischievously position the arrest of Santiago Meza Lopez, who notoriously dissolved victims of cartels in vats of acid, as if it were a recent matter when he was actually busted by local law enforcement agents in late January this year (see NPR's 'Tijuana Violence Likely to Continue in 2009' from 1 February 2009). By not providing a date to the mention, less informed readers may naturally conclude this as one of the more recent developments in Mexico's 'web of violence.' As Jamieson and Waldman (2003, p. 23) put it, journalists [and reporters], being custodians of facts, are duty-bound to help the public make sense of the world around them by sieving out the gold from the dross. Surely Chew could've done a batter job here.

If only the Time article had a space for readers to leave their comments, just as in the seattlepi.com piece, I wonder what the response would've been. If the reaction from the latter is anything to go by, I suspect the Web community may actually do a fairly decent policing job, with "voices of truth" springing forth to call-out instances of inaccuracies, generalizations or stereotypes.

Delsol's article garnered, at the time of this blog, 16 responses (the latest of which is dated 27 April 2009) generated by 12 different people. A review of the postings shows reveal that most of the participants aren't swallowing the conventional anti-Mexican rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Among themselves, many of them had in fact been to a couple of the border towns and were talking about how safe and secure they felt. These are the informed readers who refuse to be swept away by everything the media reports, or apply the situation of violence across the board with a broad stroke of the pen.

I respect these readers greatly for this because it certainly takes time and effort in order to stay on top of the situation, especially with today's fast-food media culture.

So here's my closing thoughts on the two articles analyzed here...

While the Time piece may appear authoritative, broad-based and well-researched, one really needs to dig deeper and question the accuracy of some of the anecdotes that tend to bury the complexities of the drug situation south of the border. The seattlepi.com story, on the other hand, seems to me a more level-headed and less alarmist approach to the matter.

But don't take my word for it. After all, aren't we in the courtroom of public opinion? Take a swipe at both stories and decide for yourselves if you agree.

Just do me a favor and remember to come back and tell me about it!