Guns and shootouts have always, in my mind, been a romanticized and fascinating part about the wild wild west.
Those were the days of the cowboy on horseback, or the lone ranger, or the town sheriff battling a group of bandits. But in those stories that I recall, the good always triumphed against the bad.
Against all odds.
Fast forward to today, and Americans are seeing a wild west of a different kind. Look no further than the south of the border, where according to Mexican newspaper Excelsior, drug-related murders for 2009 have hit the 1,367 as of today.
Mexico is seen as a new frontier of violence and lawlessness.
But of course, that’s nothing new.
But what appears to be a new development, and one that's taking momentum, is the increasing recognition and public acknowledgement that most of the guns that are giving rise to the shootouts in the new wild west are actually creeping in from U.S. states with the laxer gun controls.
The phenomena is so serious that Mexican authorities have even given it the name contrabando hormiga (or ant contraband) because the illegal gun shipments are typically small and arrive in a steady trickle (see ‘Cartels' guns flow from U.S.’ by the San Diego Union Tribune).
This is also a narrative that’s reflecting in the ‘Police can't fight Mexican cartel violence alone' editorial piece by The Arizona Republic, which reports that U.S. demand for labor and illicit drugs are what’s enriching Mexico's crime syndicates, with an estimated 90 to 95 percent of the drug-related killings thus far being committed with high-powered weapons obtained in the United States.
‘This isn’t just Mexico’s problem,’ the editorial states.
U.S. President Barack Obama said as much during a press conference this past Tuesday when he praised his Mexican counterpart Felipe Calderon for the courage in tackling the cartel problem in his country (see ‘Violence spirals as US joins Mexico war on drugs’ by Channel NewsAsia). President Obama also added that the U.S. will have to do more to disrupt the flow of guns and cash back to the drug cartels in Mexico.
I find it really heartening to observe the gradual turnaround in the themes in the newspapers about the drug crisis, and to see the U.S. now coming out in unequivocal support of firm action together with the Mexicans. For a trans-border challenge that stretches from south of the border past the States into Canada (see a previous report), it requires no less a response.
Maybe with this narrative gaining traction, citizens from both sides can rally around a familiar story with a tang of twist but ultimately, I hope, a similar ending: that of the sheriffs and the Federales triumphing against the bandits of the times.
Against all odds.
It’s good that the word is getting around!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
A Tale of two Laredos
How the Gamboa family's woes are linked to US-backed law enforcement operation
Todd Bensman, GlobalPost
19 March 2009
Article URL: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090319/tale-two-laredos
This is not a story about Rosarito but Nuevo Laredo, another of the many Mexican border towns that are plagued by the ongoing violence arising from the drug cartel situation. It seems ironic that no more than two months ago, John Burnett of NPR had filed a story about the gradual return of peace and a sense of normalcy to the town because the in-fighting among the various cartel factions were abating (apparently because one side was taking its operations elsewhere). And then this happened. This latest piece by Bensman only goes to show the fragile and often illusory nature of peace that our neighbors south of the border are living under.
I chose to comment on this story because there was something in the way the article's narrative was framed that arrested my attention almost immediately. I'm not sure if this is indeed happening, but I do suspect that elements of the U.S. media are gradually starting to develop the narrative about the violence in Mexico from a broader geopolitical perspecitive - one that recognizes the hand that America plays in the ongoing crisis, rather than a scapgoating of the southern nation that seemed to be the preferred route of the past.
Even until recently, Alex Johnson's MSNBC story on 9 March this year was, though a useful piece in providing a big-picture perspective to the drug situation and how the fortunes of Mexico are inexorably linked to the well-being of the U.S., a couple of steps short of framing the drug demand in North America as the engine for the continued supply from the south. This GlobalPost article, however, contains a key theme that the Mexican government had been trying to convey to the U.S. media, especially those in California and Texas, but had hitherto been unable to gain much traction: That tourists are rarely hurt or deliberately targetted in the violence; most of the victims have some sort of involvement in the drug trade.
A separate but equally interesting theme that cropped up is the key role the U.S. government plays alongside the Mexican federales in combating the cartels. Granted that in the case of Bensman's story, it is really a tale of a cross-border collaboration gone awry, thus jeopardizing the lives of the two Gamboa families (Alex Gamboa had leased the house to the US agents, but it was Ricardo that got kidnapped and is how feared murdered). But still, taking a step back and examining this from a broader perspective of gaining public mindshare, I would argue that having more such coverage that acknowledges the complexity of the cartel violence, and the consubstantiation between the U.S. and the Mexicans (e.g. the recent 16 March Rasmussen Report that cited how Obama Administration would soon unveil a plan that aims at stopping U.S. weapons and money from drug sales here from pouring back into the gangs in Mexico) would gradually develop a more balanced public perception of the emergency. Even if most Americans were to continue supporting tough actions such as the staging of troops along the border to combat potential violence, any resultant positive swing in perceptions from an anti-Mexico hysteria would be coup in the grand scheme of things.
But coming back to Bensman's article, I do have some questions to ask about the way certain events were played out.
While it's saddening to learn about how two potentially innocent families were dragged into this cycle of violence because of the alleged faux pas of the U.S. government, I think the circumstances in which Alan Gamboa had rented the house to the agents seem questionable. I'm not sure what Alan Gamboas thought about the likelihood of low-ranking counsulate officials arriving in a couple of armored SUVs, because that seems to suggest anything but a simple and ordinary transaction. Was Alan promised protection and a large sum of money in exchange for making the house available? This is somethign we'll never know for now.
However, if Alan's allegations are true, then one has to wonder about the competence of the U.S. agents, isn't it? Wouldn't traveling around a cartel-controlled town in armored vehicles be asking for trouble? Doesn't it seem that it was their rather cavalier actions that may have compromised the situation right from the onset?
Or, is it as the U.S. government says, that the Gamboa brothers' records aren't as clean as they appear to be? Thus, could it be the exact theme - that the victims tend to be those that are involved in the trafficking - playing itself out in reality after all?
Well, who knows for sure? What's certain right now is that a man has been kidnapped and is presumably dead, while his despairing wife and children are fearing for his safety as well as their own.
Despite all odds, I truly hope there will be a more fairytale-like ending to this story than the route it currently appears to heading. Where innocent lives are concerned, any life lost is always one life too many...
Todd Bensman, GlobalPost
19 March 2009
Article URL: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090319/tale-two-laredos
This is not a story about Rosarito but Nuevo Laredo, another of the many Mexican border towns that are plagued by the ongoing violence arising from the drug cartel situation. It seems ironic that no more than two months ago, John Burnett of NPR had filed a story about the gradual return of peace and a sense of normalcy to the town because the in-fighting among the various cartel factions were abating (apparently because one side was taking its operations elsewhere). And then this happened. This latest piece by Bensman only goes to show the fragile and often illusory nature of peace that our neighbors south of the border are living under.
I chose to comment on this story because there was something in the way the article's narrative was framed that arrested my attention almost immediately. I'm not sure if this is indeed happening, but I do suspect that elements of the U.S. media are gradually starting to develop the narrative about the violence in Mexico from a broader geopolitical perspecitive - one that recognizes the hand that America plays in the ongoing crisis, rather than a scapgoating of the southern nation that seemed to be the preferred route of the past.
Even until recently, Alex Johnson's MSNBC story on 9 March this year was, though a useful piece in providing a big-picture perspective to the drug situation and how the fortunes of Mexico are inexorably linked to the well-being of the U.S., a couple of steps short of framing the drug demand in North America as the engine for the continued supply from the south. This GlobalPost article, however, contains a key theme that the Mexican government had been trying to convey to the U.S. media, especially those in California and Texas, but had hitherto been unable to gain much traction: That tourists are rarely hurt or deliberately targetted in the violence; most of the victims have some sort of involvement in the drug trade.
A separate but equally interesting theme that cropped up is the key role the U.S. government plays alongside the Mexican federales in combating the cartels. Granted that in the case of Bensman's story, it is really a tale of a cross-border collaboration gone awry, thus jeopardizing the lives of the two Gamboa families (Alex Gamboa had leased the house to the US agents, but it was Ricardo that got kidnapped and is how feared murdered). But still, taking a step back and examining this from a broader perspective of gaining public mindshare, I would argue that having more such coverage that acknowledges the complexity of the cartel violence, and the consubstantiation between the U.S. and the Mexicans (e.g. the recent 16 March Rasmussen Report that cited how Obama Administration would soon unveil a plan that aims at stopping U.S. weapons and money from drug sales here from pouring back into the gangs in Mexico) would gradually develop a more balanced public perception of the emergency. Even if most Americans were to continue supporting tough actions such as the staging of troops along the border to combat potential violence, any resultant positive swing in perceptions from an anti-Mexico hysteria would be coup in the grand scheme of things.
But coming back to Bensman's article, I do have some questions to ask about the way certain events were played out.
While it's saddening to learn about how two potentially innocent families were dragged into this cycle of violence because of the alleged faux pas of the U.S. government, I think the circumstances in which Alan Gamboa had rented the house to the agents seem questionable. I'm not sure what Alan Gamboas thought about the likelihood of low-ranking counsulate officials arriving in a couple of armored SUVs, because that seems to suggest anything but a simple and ordinary transaction. Was Alan promised protection and a large sum of money in exchange for making the house available? This is somethign we'll never know for now.
However, if Alan's allegations are true, then one has to wonder about the competence of the U.S. agents, isn't it? Wouldn't traveling around a cartel-controlled town in armored vehicles be asking for trouble? Doesn't it seem that it was their rather cavalier actions that may have compromised the situation right from the onset?
Or, is it as the U.S. government says, that the Gamboa brothers' records aren't as clean as they appear to be? Thus, could it be the exact theme - that the victims tend to be those that are involved in the trafficking - playing itself out in reality after all?
Well, who knows for sure? What's certain right now is that a man has been kidnapped and is presumably dead, while his despairing wife and children are fearing for his safety as well as their own.
Despite all odds, I truly hope there will be a more fairytale-like ending to this story than the route it currently appears to heading. Where innocent lives are concerned, any life lost is always one life too many...
Friday, March 20, 2009
In Mexico's drug wars, fears of a U.S. front
Violence that has killed thousands is beginning to cross border, officials say.
Alex Johnson, MSNBC
9 March 2009
Article URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29516551/
I really wonder if this story is the start of a brand new discussion thread in the wide expanse of the theme regarding Mexican cartel-related violence, but also one that marks the shift in the narrative from just being confined as an issue south of the border to one that is beginning to take root in mainstream US society.
A 25 Feb 2009 news release from the US Drug Enforcement Agency about Operation Xcellerator, which is one of the anchors of this MSNBC story, talks about the culmination of a successful 21-month operation between anti-narcotics and law enforcement units in Mexico, U.S. and Canada that landed a crushing blow to the Sinola Cartel by snagging some 750 individuals on drug charges and seized some 23 tons of dope. But equally eye-catching is the paragraph third from bottom of the news release, which hints at the breath of the cartel's operations in the country: from California in the west to Minnesota in the north and Maryland in the east.
In fact, Alex Johnson's story talks about how Mexican cartels have come to be rooted in a staggering 230 cities across the U.S., and flooding its markets with a buffet spread of both designer and organic drugs. This has led the US Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center to list the Mexican cartels as one of the greatest urban threats to American safety and security. As President Felipe Calderón continues to wage war against the cartels in Mexico, are the drug organizations shifting their main operations to the States? One must question how this will affect the ongoing state of violence in so many of the Mexican border towns.
Johnson's article makes one thing unequivocally clear: that the drug problem is not just a Mexican issue but one that is inexorably linked to the well-being of the U.S. too. His story, in my opinion, provides readers with a broad perspective of the complexities of the drug trade that is funneling into the States across the border (involving even states as far up as Alaska and as far out as Hawaii, among others), who the main players are in the ongoing cartel feuds, and also provides a look into the deep price that Mexican forces are paying in order to rein in the cartels on their end. Johnson's overall slant is understandably somewhat alarmist, given the talk about Mexico potentially becoming a failed state and how officials in Texas and Arizona are crying out for the infusion of thousands of federal troops to patrol the borders.
Nevertheless, one matter that I think Johnson could have addressed more clearly is how drug demand in the States is fuel for the fire in Mexico (a fire that is now spreading northwards). I thought he gingerly touched on this early on in the story - 8th paragraph from the top - but failed to pin the issue down with any clarity. In failing to do so, he may have inadvertently perpetuated the perception of the drug issue as a 'fault' of the Mexicans instead of showing it up for the complex situation that it is. So, read this story with some perspective, and make your own judgments!
Alex Johnson, MSNBC
9 March 2009
Article URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29516551/
I really wonder if this story is the start of a brand new discussion thread in the wide expanse of the theme regarding Mexican cartel-related violence, but also one that marks the shift in the narrative from just being confined as an issue south of the border to one that is beginning to take root in mainstream US society.
A 25 Feb 2009 news release from the US Drug Enforcement Agency about Operation Xcellerator, which is one of the anchors of this MSNBC story, talks about the culmination of a successful 21-month operation between anti-narcotics and law enforcement units in Mexico, U.S. and Canada that landed a crushing blow to the Sinola Cartel by snagging some 750 individuals on drug charges and seized some 23 tons of dope. But equally eye-catching is the paragraph third from bottom of the news release, which hints at the breath of the cartel's operations in the country: from California in the west to Minnesota in the north and Maryland in the east.
In fact, Alex Johnson's story talks about how Mexican cartels have come to be rooted in a staggering 230 cities across the U.S., and flooding its markets with a buffet spread of both designer and organic drugs. This has led the US Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center to list the Mexican cartels as one of the greatest urban threats to American safety and security. As President Felipe Calderón continues to wage war against the cartels in Mexico, are the drug organizations shifting their main operations to the States? One must question how this will affect the ongoing state of violence in so many of the Mexican border towns.
Johnson's article makes one thing unequivocally clear: that the drug problem is not just a Mexican issue but one that is inexorably linked to the well-being of the U.S. too. His story, in my opinion, provides readers with a broad perspective of the complexities of the drug trade that is funneling into the States across the border (involving even states as far up as Alaska and as far out as Hawaii, among others), who the main players are in the ongoing cartel feuds, and also provides a look into the deep price that Mexican forces are paying in order to rein in the cartels on their end. Johnson's overall slant is understandably somewhat alarmist, given the talk about Mexico potentially becoming a failed state and how officials in Texas and Arizona are crying out for the infusion of thousands of federal troops to patrol the borders.
Nevertheless, one matter that I think Johnson could have addressed more clearly is how drug demand in the States is fuel for the fire in Mexico (a fire that is now spreading northwards). I thought he gingerly touched on this early on in the story - 8th paragraph from the top - but failed to pin the issue down with any clarity. In failing to do so, he may have inadvertently perpetuated the perception of the drug issue as a 'fault' of the Mexicans instead of showing it up for the complex situation that it is. So, read this story with some perspective, and make your own judgments!
Mexican resorts still 'safe' for travel
Travellers should use caution in area near U.S. border
Alysa Noel, Sun Media
3 March 2009
Article URL: http://sherwoodparknews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1458737
This article is a news piece by Alysa Noel of the Edmonton (Alberta) Sun, printed here in the local section of the Sherwood Park News. The reporter appears to take a rather measured approach in presenting the situation in the Mexican border cities. Issues of violence are reported matter-of-factly by riding on a Department of Foreign Affairs travel alert that warns Canadians traveling to the border cities for a break to exhibit a high degree of caution. The report does not mask the fact that firefights may break out between Mexican Federales and cartel members in broad daylight.
The 'balance' here is provided by representatives from two travel agencies, who try to assure the readers that traveling to Mexico continues to be safe so long as tourists do not venture too far beyond the boundaries of their resorts. There is a strong emphasis on the themes of ethics and responsibility as the travel agents are quoted as saying that they take the safety of their clients very seriously, and would never make any deals that would endanger the travellers. Seemingly to add some depth, as well as a different perspective to the story, the article cites the position taken by the US where diplomatic staff and citizens have either been asked to avoid non-essential travel down south, or exercise great caution. The irony to this is that tourism numbers from Canada to Mexico in 2008 have actually increased, and there seemed to be a hint that the bark may be worse than the bite when this statistic is put against the casualty figures that the Mexican authorities have declared at the end of the article.
It is necessary to point out that because the Sherwood Park News is a local paper that serves this neighboring hamlet of Edmonton, Alberta (Canada), it may be fair to assume that the overall thrust of the article is angled towards protecting the interests of local travel agencies (or otherwise, not to cause too much hurt to them). It certainly helps that Canadian tourists may not have suffered any scarring from the ongoing violence, which is key in building the generally positive narrative taken in this account.
Alysa Noel, Sun Media
3 March 2009
Article URL: http://sherwoodparknews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1458737
This article is a news piece by Alysa Noel of the Edmonton (Alberta) Sun, printed here in the local section of the Sherwood Park News. The reporter appears to take a rather measured approach in presenting the situation in the Mexican border cities. Issues of violence are reported matter-of-factly by riding on a Department of Foreign Affairs travel alert that warns Canadians traveling to the border cities for a break to exhibit a high degree of caution. The report does not mask the fact that firefights may break out between Mexican Federales and cartel members in broad daylight.
The 'balance' here is provided by representatives from two travel agencies, who try to assure the readers that traveling to Mexico continues to be safe so long as tourists do not venture too far beyond the boundaries of their resorts. There is a strong emphasis on the themes of ethics and responsibility as the travel agents are quoted as saying that they take the safety of their clients very seriously, and would never make any deals that would endanger the travellers. Seemingly to add some depth, as well as a different perspective to the story, the article cites the position taken by the US where diplomatic staff and citizens have either been asked to avoid non-essential travel down south, or exercise great caution. The irony to this is that tourism numbers from Canada to Mexico in 2008 have actually increased, and there seemed to be a hint that the bark may be worse than the bite when this statistic is put against the casualty figures that the Mexican authorities have declared at the end of the article.
It is necessary to point out that because the Sherwood Park News is a local paper that serves this neighboring hamlet of Edmonton, Alberta (Canada), it may be fair to assume that the overall thrust of the article is angled towards protecting the interests of local travel agencies (or otherwise, not to cause too much hurt to them). It certainly helps that Canadian tourists may not have suffered any scarring from the ongoing violence, which is key in building the generally positive narrative taken in this account.
Want to go to Mexico? Think Again.
Kelsey Bernius, Montana Kaimin
3 March 2009
Article URL: http://www.montanakaimin.com/index.php/opinion/opinion_article/want_to_go_to_mexico_think_again/3467
Editorial blog by Bernius on the University of Montana student daily providing commentary on the deteriorating situation in most Mexican border towns. Editorial essentially revolves around a travel advisory issued by the US State Department to warn spring break revelers about the potential hazards when visiting the towns, as well as tips to stay safe. While the State Department advice clearly states that a generally safe holiday in Mexico is possible by following a couple of simple smart-travelling guidelines, the overall slant of the article is one intended to convey a sense of alarm about the violence there, due to the impact of the cartel activities.
Some elements of the editorial tries to portray a sense of balance by including interviews with holiday-goers like Chelsey Bigler, and also University President Dennison, whose main narratives are that while there is violence, its concentrated enough not to disrupt plans or retuire the University to issue its on travel warnings. However, the other anecdotes have been selected to convey a clear and unambiguous message of danger, such as making references to CNN's Anderson Cooper and his coverage about the Mexican violence where victims heads were sawn off with saws bought from US departmental stores. This example certainly makes the two other interviews pale in comparison.
The other subtle but unmistakable narrative throughout the editorial is how the drug cartel problem is seemingly a Mexico-only problem, and because the Mexican authorities have so far done a poor job of managing it, the violence is slowly spilling into the States. There seems to be a hint of the US having to 'clean up Mexico's problems' with the remark about seven hundred individuals were recently arrested in the United States for connections with just one of the major drug cartels. An oblique reference to the US's role in the issue seems to be made with the statement about how 90 percent of the firearms used by the cartels were purchased in the United States. But in my opinion, this is a slur that conceals the broader issue that Mexico's drug supply is due to demand in North America. This point is completely omitted in the editorial.
On the whole, I find her blog lacking in the needed objectivity to present the situation in Mexico. While the violence are probably facts, more could have been done to present the complexity of the issue and how US drug demand is a central aspect of the misery in the border towns. Perhaps, fairness was never part of the agenda, but to dissuade UM students from holidaying there instead.
Article URL: http://www.montanakaimin.com/index.php/opinion/opinion_article/want_to_go_to_mexico_think_again/3467
Editorial blog by Bernius on the University of Montana student daily providing commentary on the deteriorating situation in most Mexican border towns. Editorial essentially revolves around a travel advisory issued by the US State Department to warn spring break revelers about the potential hazards when visiting the towns, as well as tips to stay safe. While the State Department advice clearly states that a generally safe holiday in Mexico is possible by following a couple of simple smart-travelling guidelines, the overall slant of the article is one intended to convey a sense of alarm about the violence there, due to the impact of the cartel activities.
Some elements of the editorial tries to portray a sense of balance by including interviews with holiday-goers like Chelsey Bigler, and also University President Dennison, whose main narratives are that while there is violence, its concentrated enough not to disrupt plans or retuire the University to issue its on travel warnings. However, the other anecdotes have been selected to convey a clear and unambiguous message of danger, such as making references to CNN's Anderson Cooper and his coverage about the Mexican violence where victims heads were sawn off with saws bought from US departmental stores. This example certainly makes the two other interviews pale in comparison.
The other subtle but unmistakable narrative throughout the editorial is how the drug cartel problem is seemingly a Mexico-only problem, and because the Mexican authorities have so far done a poor job of managing it, the violence is slowly spilling into the States. There seems to be a hint of the US having to 'clean up Mexico's problems' with the remark about seven hundred individuals were recently arrested in the United States for connections with just one of the major drug cartels. An oblique reference to the US's role in the issue seems to be made with the statement about how 90 percent of the firearms used by the cartels were purchased in the United States. But in my opinion, this is a slur that conceals the broader issue that Mexico's drug supply is due to demand in North America. This point is completely omitted in the editorial.
On the whole, I find her blog lacking in the needed objectivity to present the situation in Mexico. While the violence are probably facts, more could have been done to present the complexity of the issue and how US drug demand is a central aspect of the misery in the border towns. Perhaps, fairness was never part of the agenda, but to dissuade UM students from holidaying there instead.
“I’m in the U.S. Why should I care about a Mexican problem?”
Who uses the product fueling the violence?
Answer: Americans. The demand for drugs keeps the supply line running strong from south of the border.
Source(s):
25-Feb-09 Only the U.S. Can Win the War on Drugs Brookings
Where does much of the high-powered weaponry and ammunition originate?
Answer: At least half of the military-style weaponry and high-grade ammunition used by narcotraficantes against Mexican government forces and each other are smuggled from the U.S. The drug cartels take advantage of U.S. gun law loopholes as Mexico has strict gun control laws. In fact, the latest official figures (15-Apr-09 U.S. Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels) report that about 90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles the Mexican authorities recovered from drug dealers in 2008 were traced back to dealers in the United States, most of them in Texas and Arizona.
Source(s):
15-Apr-09 U.S. Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels NY Times
25-Feb-09 Drug runners powered by U.S. guns NBC Nightly News
25-Feb-09 U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels NY Times
What city is the kidnapping capital of the U.S.?
Answer: Phoenix, Arizona.
Source(s):
24-Feb-09 Mexican Violence: Phoenix police vs. narco-gangs Fox News
Answer: Americans. The demand for drugs keeps the supply line running strong from south of the border.
Source(s):
25-Feb-09 Only the U.S. Can Win the War on Drugs Brookings
Where does much of the high-powered weaponry and ammunition originate?
Answer: At least half of the military-style weaponry and high-grade ammunition used by narcotraficantes against Mexican government forces and each other are smuggled from the U.S. The drug cartels take advantage of U.S. gun law loopholes as Mexico has strict gun control laws. In fact, the latest official figures (15-Apr-09 U.S. Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels) report that about 90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles the Mexican authorities recovered from drug dealers in 2008 were traced back to dealers in the United States, most of them in Texas and Arizona.
Source(s):
15-Apr-09 U.S. Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels NY Times
25-Feb-09 Drug runners powered by U.S. guns NBC Nightly News
25-Feb-09 U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels NY Times
What city is the kidnapping capital of the U.S.?
Answer: Phoenix, Arizona.
Source(s):
24-Feb-09 Mexican Violence: Phoenix police vs. narco-gangs Fox News
Viva Baja? No si los medios Americanos lo pueden evitar!
Daniel Seet, a graduate student in Communications at Emerson College, brings us this insightful look into the mediated realities and agenda setting as set forth by American media surrounding the Baja. The piece compares two different takes on the state of affairs in the Baja, one from ABC, and one from NPR. Here's a snippet:
For years, news reports, especially those in the southern part of California, have been replete with stories of gang and drug related violence in towns and cities south of the border. Grisly stories of drive-by shootings, decapitations, execution-style murders constitute a regular diet that the Americans public is being by the media fed regarding daily happenings in Mexican border cities and towns such as Ensenada, Nuevo Laredo, Rosarito, Tijuana and others. The issue of the violence is well known, and the Mexicans accept this as their current lot as well. As TijuanaPress.com journalist Vicente Calderon said during a 27 March 2008 interview on KPBS’s These Days program, there is no doubt that violence exists in Tijuana [or other border cities]. However, what Calderon finds disconcerting is the poor reporting practices by some U.S. media that is exacerbating the generic level of prejudice that he feels many Americans already have towards their neighbors (These Days, 2008).
The impact of the media’s agenda-setting impact is undeniable. According to Jamieson and Waldman (2003, p. xii), the reporter’s views of the world are the lenses by which the world will understand the events being reported. The news coverage that results from those lenses thus becomes the frame or structure by which the public reads, hears, watches, and ultimately understands the world around them. Unfortunately for residents in Baja California, this is bad news because the dominant narrative currently being pushed about Mexico is the raging violence due to the ensuing battle between the drug cartels and the security forces of President Felipe Calderon, as well as infighting among the cartels for domination of the trafficking routes. The persuasive power of these narratives is further magnified when one brings in mediums such as television or radio, whose formatting takes audience from the dreariness of text and still pictures on a broadsheet to the compelling world of the audiovisual. If a picture says a thousand words, then one can only wonder about the mark left by motion videos and audio recordings.
Download the full version here
For years, news reports, especially those in the southern part of California, have been replete with stories of gang and drug related violence in towns and cities south of the border. Grisly stories of drive-by shootings, decapitations, execution-style murders constitute a regular diet that the Americans public is being by the media fed regarding daily happenings in Mexican border cities and towns such as Ensenada, Nuevo Laredo, Rosarito, Tijuana and others. The issue of the violence is well known, and the Mexicans accept this as their current lot as well. As TijuanaPress.com journalist Vicente Calderon said during a 27 March 2008 interview on KPBS’s These Days program, there is no doubt that violence exists in Tijuana [or other border cities]. However, what Calderon finds disconcerting is the poor reporting practices by some U.S. media that is exacerbating the generic level of prejudice that he feels many Americans already have towards their neighbors (These Days, 2008).
The impact of the media’s agenda-setting impact is undeniable. According to Jamieson and Waldman (2003, p. xii), the reporter’s views of the world are the lenses by which the world will understand the events being reported. The news coverage that results from those lenses thus becomes the frame or structure by which the public reads, hears, watches, and ultimately understands the world around them. Unfortunately for residents in Baja California, this is bad news because the dominant narrative currently being pushed about Mexico is the raging violence due to the ensuing battle between the drug cartels and the security forces of President Felipe Calderon, as well as infighting among the cartels for domination of the trafficking routes. The persuasive power of these narratives is further magnified when one brings in mediums such as television or radio, whose formatting takes audience from the dreariness of text and still pictures on a broadsheet to the compelling world of the audiovisual. If a picture says a thousand words, then one can only wonder about the mark left by motion videos and audio recordings.
Download the full version here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
