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!

The American Dichotomy and the Arms Puzzle

Wasn’t it just two days ago that I posted a blog touching on statistics about the downward trend in violence in Mexico’s Baja California?

Just yesterday, I was told by a colleague about a LA Times article on an abduction and murder case at Rosarito Beach, just two days away from the annual Rosarito to Ensenada Fun Bike Ride.

Such is the tentativeness and uncertainty that blankets the border Mexican towns and cities.

In that news report by Pete Thomas, a 16-year-old boy – son of a prominent Rosarito restaurant owner – was kidnapped a stone’s throw from his home the night before. He was purportedly practicing for the bike race when three heavily-armed hooded men swept in to capture him; a security personnel nearby who tried to intervene was also taken, and his decapitated body was found the next morning.

In the same article, this incident was confirmed by Ron Raposa, the spokesman for Rosarito Beach Mayor Hugo Torres. Raposa says that this is believed to be a kidnap-extortion bid as the cartels find their mainstream narcotic operations severely disrupted by the Federales. There is no known drug link in this latest episode, he says.

Mayor Torres has requested additional federal police to assist in the investigations, to have this happen just days before some 3,000 visitors are set to pour into the beach resort for the biking extravaganza must surely be a psychological setback of sorts.

One will expect Rosarito Beach, which has been at the forefront in terms of creative security initiatives to protect its visitors (see article on Rosarito Tourist Police Force) to step up the security presence to ensure that the Bike Ride proceeds smoothly.

But the troubling thought remains.

Even if the narcotic operations are disrupted as more and more government success stories against the cartels pour through, what happens if the cartels really do turn kidnapping into their next lucrative cash cow?

The challenge, therefore, is not just about stemming the flow of drugs, but also the dismantling of the cartels themselves because other forms of organized crime will continue to plague the local community.

And behind this is a far more complex web of issues that are feeding one another, such as government-wide corruption and a judiciary in need of reform (issues President Felipe Calderon has been accused of neglecting as he pushed for a military solution to the cartel operations).

A part of the equation lies with the U.S. side as well, with 90 percent of recovered arms in Mexico currently being traced back to the States (read Channel NewsAsia's 'Obama vows support for Mexico's Cartel Fight'; NY Times's 'U.S. Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels'). As long as American weapons continue to percolate into the hands of the Mexican cartels, it will provide the latter with the means and the methods to perpetuate their illicit activities, whether it is drug trafficking, kidnapping, or others.

President Obama has already admitted shared responsibility in the problem, but also concedes a far greater challenge of trying to get the lawmakers to vote through an arms-trafficking treaty that may help to stem the flow of guns own south.

To me, it seems absurd that the primary reason for not ratifying this treaty is fundamentally because of 2nd Amendment rights and the freedom to express oneself. 

Even if it means toting a gun? 

Even if it means that high-grade weapons, bullets and bombs are making their way onto Mexican streets and contributing to the carnage there that is part of the cartel’s activities to secure the supply of drugs up north?

Isn’t the U.S., which espouses liberty for all, the same country where women did not enjoy equal rights as men until national suffrage for women came about in 1920 because of the ratification of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Isn’t it because of cultural and societal norms that women didn’t enjoy the rights they do today back in the early 1900s? Where were the fundamentals about equality for all back then?

Looking at today, isn’t the ‘right’ to carry guns nothing more of a cultural or societal norm and not so much a fundamental liberty to be expressed?

Is the right to be able to buy a gun more important than the choice of not buying it just so that another person may live someplace else in Mexico? And isn’t the ability to make that choice without duress an expression of liberty in itself?

I could go on and on. And forgive me if I seem to be rambling, but something just doesn’t seem right.

America is indeed a land of many dichotomies.

I'm just saddened that countries like Mexico suffer the consequences for it.

Mexico's Execution-Styled Deaths Plummet in First Quarter

When I was in public affairs work about five years back, my boss once commented that in our line of work, say if we're told to sell oranges, we'd certainly do the necessary on the publicity and rhetorical front to try to get the fruits sold off. But regardless how hard we try, it's always going to be the quality of the fruit that dictates sales.

Words of wisdom, and something we all know intuitively.

So where am I going with this train of thought in the business about drug violence in Mexico and the U.S.? Well, the fruit in this case - at least south of the border - will have to be the results of the government's efforts to combat the cartels. (For the U.S. side, I think the new challenge is a highly political one of negotiating second amendment rights to set up controls about the sales of arms if the States ever hopes to ringfence the flow of American guns and weapons into the hands of the drug lords... but that's another story altogether, literally).

Back to this. I really read with gladness the 13 Apr 2009 CNN story 'Mexican official: Crime killings dropped 26 percent in first quarter' and all the positives that were carried in the report. If the figures are to be believed - and there's no reason not to since the Mexican authorities appear to have been very upfront with the casualty figures all these while - there's reason to be heartened as hitherto killing zones have seen an all round reduction in execution-styled deaths in the first quarter of this year as compared to the same period of 2008:

Chihuahua -> -26% (from 842 to 625)
Ciudad Juarez -> -39% (from 547 to 331)
Baja California -> -79% (from 515 to 108)
Sinola -> -49% (from 346 to 177)
Culican -> -45% (from 173 to 94)

There's still much work to be done, and this is certainly no reason for anyone to rest on their laurels. But to a Mexican population greatly fatigued by the sights, smell and sounds of violence in their streets, and wondering if the 'drug war' initiated by President Calderon is heading anywhere, the recent statistics should be a shot in the arm.

The war is far from over. But good news like this from time to time will never hurt!

A New Light is Dawning

Like a huge vessel that takes time to slow down long after the engines have long been cut because of the forward momentum, the largely condescending and biased narratives in the U.S. media about the violence in Mexico looks like it’s finally turning around.

At least as far as the more liberal media channels are concerned (I certainly can't speak for the agenda of the conservatives)... no more Mexico-bashing, or a delineation of an us and them issue... or a Burkean play on God and Devil terms, or the good guys against the bad guys.

Today it's a wider recognition that everyone in the continent is pretty much in the same boat... after all, pure and simple economics dictate that where there is a supply, it must be due to a demand, and the local media is increasingly painting an unequivocally clear picture about this situation for all to see.

One of the latest stories to move along this theme is Carol Costello’s story about cheap heroin from Mexico feeding the drug-lust of teens and youths in northeastern America. In fact, as if to emphasize the extent of the local drug demand and how far the Mexican drug industry has crept up north as a result, she reports a NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) statistic that over 50% of all heroin arrests made in the States happen in the northeast.

Whereas media stories used to play on the familiar narrative about the loss of civil control down south and a Mexico that’s potentially becoming a failed state, attention is now being paid to the silent decay that’s been largely unnoticed in most U.S. neighborhoods. Until recently at least. The evolution in the tone has much to do with the change in the US administration and the generally more reconciliatory and collaborative tone that President Obama brings into his domestic and international policies – which can only be good for the U.S. and the world at large (see also 'Clinton vows US backing in Mexican drug wars'). I believe that the sooner people see the issues for what they are, the sooner we’ll get to a common platform of tackling the drug scourge on the domestic front. No more finger pointing, but an acknowledgment of the problem, and moving forward towards a solution from there.

With that as the backdrop, I reckon we’ll continue to see more human element stories percolating through the media such as this particularly heart-rending tale about Doreen and Victor Ciappa, and how they lost their 18-year-old daughter Natalie to heroin earlier this year. Now they're on a mission to educate other at-risk teens and their parents about the insidious drug threat that's been around for years.

Theirs is a grassroots movement borne out of tragedy, but one that aims to prevent more of such tragedies in the future. As sad as this may be, we need to hear their stories, and that of countless other parents, husbands, wives, siblings and friends who've lost loved ones because of the cancer of narcotics. While this won't be the first (and neither the last for the considerable future), these tales about loss and the subsequent finding of strength in adversity need to be the new dominant narrative right now more than ever before.

With the executive leadership, the media, and the larger community all seemingly heading towards the same direction, perhaps it's a new light of understanding that is now dawning on everyone.

Indeed, we need to stop the finger-pointing and start moving forward. Our children and our children's children are depending on it!

The new mediated reality?

Came across this cartoon while skimming the 3 April 2009 print edition of the USA Today (page 9A) and can't help but wonder if the public's overall perception of the drug quagmire that affects both Mexico and a large part of North America is now starting to dominate public mindshare to such an extent that the media's coverage is also evolving as well.

Oh I love the symmetry of it! Makes you pause and think for a bit, doesn't it?