A particularly good example of how this is done appeared on the front page of The New York Times last May. “In Heartland Death, Traces of Heroin’s Spread” focused on a spike in heroin overdoses in small-town Ohio. Rather than investigate the local conditions that might have caused this problem, the Times focused on one particular culprit: Mexico. Beginning anecdotally (as such stories inevitably do) with the death of Arthur Eisel IV, a thirty-one-year-old in Grove City, Ohio, reporter Randal C. Archibold observed that,
To the federal government, which prosecuted the heroin dealers for Mr. Eisel’s death, it was a stark illustration of how Mexican drug cartels have pushed heroin sales beyond major cities into America’s suburban and rural byways, some of which had seen little heroin before….
Federal officials now consider the cartels the greatest organized crime threat to the United States. Officials says the groups are taking over heroin distribution from Colombians and Dominicans and making new inroads across the country, pushing a powerful form of heroin grown and processed in Mexico known as “black tar” for its dark color and sticky texture.
Actually, Mexican black-tar heroin has been around for years. In drug-war reporting, however, the drugs themselves must always be made to seem new and exotic. “The case of Arthur Eisel and the men arrested for selling him heroin,” we’re told, “shows how the traffickers pushed their product and how in Mr. Eisel, already addicted to expensive pain killers because of a back injury, they found a ready customer for heroin, which was cheaper.” We’re then off into the world of drug cells, gangs, pipelines, smugglers, and all the rest.
But wait—the fellow was already addicted to painkillers. And, it turns out, his two brothers were similarly hooked. It was only after their supplies of OxyContin dried up and their dealer suggested heroin that they tried it and “quickly developed an addiction.” Given their prior dependence, it would seem worth exploring what was taking place in the Eisel family, and in Grove City, to have caused such dysfunction. Doing so, however, might undermine the presumption—unquestioningly accepted by journalists—that Mexico is a pusher nation forcing drugs on unsuspecting Americans. For the U.S. press, the fault is never in ourselves, but always south of the border.
In all this, it’s remarkable how rarely the Times, NPR, and other U.S. news organizations examine the truly serious challenges facing Mexico, from its severe economic problems, to its crushing poverty, to the stranglehold that the country’s oligarchy has on the nation’s wealth. Even rarer are mentions of the fact that this desperately poor country is home to the world’s third richest man (according to Forbes magazine), who, it should be noted, earlier this year helped bail the Times out from its financial woes by extending it a $250-million loan.
Some readers will no doubt disagree with my decision to award Mexico top honors in the misreporting sweepstakes. I welcome other nominations.
Michael, you are absolutely correct. Ever since I moved to Mexico City - which feels very safe, clean and downright vibrant to me! -- I have been frustrated at the news coverage. Especially how little mention is given to American demand for illegal drugs, or what I call the "fuel for the fire."
I feel legalization is the only answer to stop the violence. I don't know if I'm right, but what we're currently doing is not working (nor honorable) -- and that includes most of our media coverage.
And, as a former journalist turned blogger, I often believe the truth lies in what the 'little guys' are saying -- those of us who are truly independent of the big media pressure to produce dramatic, dumbed-down reports.
For example, I expressed a similar viewpoint to you in this post several months ago after a major drug-related gunfight in Michoacan. It's not a great work of writing, but it shows you what the real people are saying/feeling. I've got to give some props to open-source blogging software, which makes this new form of publishing possible.
http://joyvictory.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/a-sad-turn-of-events-in-michoacan-aka-how-to-survive-a-gunfight/
Anyway, thanks so much for the spot-on essay. Next time, aim to publish the names of the editors and producers behind these stories, too - they're just as culpable.
Can't wait to share this on Facebook!
~Joy Victory, Chilanga since '07
#1 Posted by Joy, CJR on Wed 7 Oct 2009 at 05:00 PM
Thanks. I was a reporter at the El Paso Times in the 1970s. Every time I hear one of those reports on the Mexican cartels, I wonder, "What's really new?"
Here's what's new: political instability. The old PRI regime kept the violence down to a dull roar, probably controlled the drug trade and everything else worth controlling. Those days are over, and rival factions--many of them--are shooting at one another. There wasn't as much shooting in those days--and when shooting did occur, the regime was often able to keep it out of the public eye.
Here's what's not new: the insatiable appetite for drugs. You have a good sense of the absurdity involved in blaming Mexican cartels for the death of a heroin addict in Ohio.
#2 Posted by John Stark, CJR on Wed 7 Oct 2009 at 05:31 PM
Michael,
Some of what you state is true, journalists do engage in hyperbole in Mexico and can't get enough of the cartels.
As one of those journalists, in fact, I've made a career of covering organized crime on the Mexican border, I'll disagree with you on some of those points. The reality is that Mexico is facing a situation unseen since the Revolution. Northwestern Mexico is actually in a far worse state than the American media can understand. Much of that has to do with the corruption issues of both countries in the management of the border. This is a point American journalists shy away from. The result is that they focus on bodycounts and one-ups. New journalists also don't give credence to the political history behind much of the warfare today. I'm speaking specifically about the murders of Arturo Guzmán and Rodolfo Carrillo Fuentes in 2004, when these wars began. Instead, the master narrative has become "the successes of U.S. and Mexican law enforcement has driven traffickers to new levels of violence over drug routes."
An utterly stupid and myopic explanation and one that prevails in The AP, The Times (both NY and LA), NPR and Reuters.
Since you focused on NPR, I'll finish with an NPR story about a literary center that opened in Nuevo Laredo late last year. It was a story about the declining murder rates and the new hopes growing in the city. I'm assuming you forgot this story in your review of NPR's archives of news coming out of Mexico.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99742620
#3 Posted by Michel Marizco, CJR on Wed 7 Oct 2009 at 05:35 PM
When I wrote about Mexico in the mid-1980s for The Houston Post, the stories were about tourism, oil, and the then-looming fall of the ruling PRI political party. Mexicans were - and would be for some years - merely "mules" for the South American druglords. Today, Mexico is Number 1. About that, there is no question. The country is corrupt and the drug-related killings are real. Maybe the price of tortillas goes unreported these days, but Mexico is a growing problem...
#4 Posted by Eduardo Paz-Maratinez, CJR on Wed 7 Oct 2009 at 07:46 PM
I sooo agree with you. I have lived in Mexico City for 36 years and am tired of Mexico always having such negative coverage. You must be careful like living in any large city and be careful visting areas outside of the city, Mexico has so much and the people are so gracious and kind.
#5 Posted by Christina Cruz, CJR on Wed 7 Oct 2009 at 08:31 PM
Octavio Paz once wrote, "In general, Americans have not looked for Mexico in Mexico; they have looked for their obsessions, enthusiasms, phobias, hopes, interests -- and these are what they have found. In short, the history of our relationship is the history of a mutual and stubborn deceit."
What was true in 1979 is even more true today. North of the Border journos are NOT looking at the "price of tortillas (which has a hell of a lot to do with the "cartels" in rural Mexico, much more than some intangible like "corruption"). As it is, I can't think of any major U.S. media outlet that has an agriculture reporter, let alone one in Mexico.
That the United States is a narcotics addicted society is not Mexico's issue, but it is your obsession and phobia... and one more you've "found" here in Mexico.
As "Joy Victory" notes, there are several of us who -- more out of frustration than anything -- have turned journo in our own small way. I was, at least, a quasi-reporter at various times in my life (alternative papers, local border weeklies, etc.), but I don't pretend my own site reflects anything other than my own " obsessions, enthusiasms, phobias, hopes, interests". However, at least I actually live here, and my obsessions, etc. are Mexican culture, history and economics. The drug trade is interesting, but not all that important to us.
#6 Posted by Richard Grabman, CJR on Thu 8 Oct 2009 at 04:29 PM
well, yes, poor Mexico: so far from God, so close to the United States. "In general, Americans have not looked for Mexico in Mexico; they have looked for their obsessions, enthusiasms, phobias, hopes, interests .." Lucky for Mexico, Michael, that you spent a year there after you 'graduated [from] college.' But I wonder which country you feel is well reported on in the US press? Maybe the US? No? well then, please do name at least one. (Don't tell me it's Venezuela or Russia or China... no? Congo? France?...)
#7 Posted by artista, CJR on Thu 8 Oct 2009 at 06:31 PM
Why not take this a step further: what country's media most miscovers the US. Are we allowed to think that way? For those who can, what are your nominations?
#8 Posted by Stewart, CJR on Fri 9 Oct 2009 at 12:02 PM
A small but important nitpick: the billions the US has sent to "countries like Mexico and Colombia" are in fact more like "billions sent to Colombia and a few millions to another countries".
#9 Posted by Lazlo, CJR on Sat 10 Oct 2009 at 12:00 AM
My husband and I have visited Mexico for over twenty years and have lived in a very non-Grino, not rich town in the state of Veracruz for over 3 1/2 years. Even you get it wrong. While there is much poverty, much of Mexico is not filled with desperate people living horrible lives. Indeed, I would venture to guess that in our colonia, on the whole people are not necessarily more unhappy than they are in many places in the US. In fact, in some at least are probably less unhappy. Many are much better off than the poor in the US not only in terms o social support but in terms of having basics and in terms of having school and some basic medical care available. At least up to now, drugs are really not the problem they are in the US. I fear that globalization which has lead to loss of liveihoods and continues to in smaller communities and rural areas and causes migration to cities is creating a large class of unemployed younger people (and not so young) who will join the hopeless and increasingly violent young peope in bigger cities and in drug dominated areas, just as happens in Brasil, Colombia, Afghanistan, India and the suburbs of Washington DC, among countless other places.
We are happy living where we live and do not live in fear. Neither do the other people in our area. It is not crime-free, but it tends not to be violent crime that occurs. And the US could sure learn a thing or two about good manners in public settings.
The wealth is indeed concentrated, but the US feeds this, too, through its incredibly tight connections with the upper crust of the Mexican economy. And Mexico's current crisis is more tied to the US crisis than all but I think Colombia in Latin America. It is unfortunate that the country continued for too long to think ties with the US would help more than they woud hurt. Other countries in Latin America have succeeded (with their more leftish goverments) in establishing more ties with Europe and China which have provided them with more of a cushion than Mexico has.
In any event, horror stories aside, it is still a wonderful and safe place to visit. I would imagine it is as safe as most places for tourists who exercise a modicum of common sense.
#10 Posted by Esther Buddenhagen, CJR on Sat 10 Oct 2009 at 01:43 PM
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=345471&CategoryId=14091
Read this recent LATimes story and you get both sides. Too much violence reported. So many horrible violent acts happening.
My own bittersweet experience with Mexico began in 1968. Accosted for a bribe by federal officials while entering by auto. Paid, of course. The infamous "mordida." Accepted and tolerated.
A month or so later, I was robbed on the beach at Acapulco...by five policia. Watch and ring taken. Report made, no investigation.
It seems that there has always been a corrosive thread in the Mexican culture. But it now riddles the society's entire fabric.
That truly saddens me. And has forced me to change my plans.
I longed to retire in Mexico. I scouted the country by bus and had picked out a city, Morelia.
But that once quiet little university town is now narco-infested nest.
Now, instead of robbery, I fear ransom or murder.
It happens to Mexicans. Don't tell me it doesn't happen to gringos!
Austin, Texas
#11 Posted by Lex Wadelski, CJR on Sat 10 Oct 2009 at 06:20 PM
So is there any feeling in the US that the fatuous "War On Drugs" is a total failure because Americans continue to want to get off their heads? If you can;t persuade people not to take drugs you might as well manage the supply. By criminalising drugs and users, governments effectively push the huge business underground, leading to the creation of huge criminal empires that are then difficult to dislodge. Still, I suppose it also makes for a good opportunity to arrest and convict thousands and thousands of poorer people who sell and consume drugs, thus ensuring they don;t have much chance of improving their lot at the expense of the elite.
#12 Posted by tom s, CJR on Sun 11 Oct 2009 at 04:51 AM
So is there any feeling in the US that the fatuous "War On Drugs" is a total failure because Americans continue to want to get off their heads? If you can;t persuade people not to take drugs you might as well manage the supply. By criminalising drugs and users, governments effectively push the huge business underground, leading to the creation of huge criminal empires that are then difficult to dislodge. Still, I suppose it also makes for a good opportunity to arrest and convict thousands and thousands of poorer people who sell and consume drugs, thus ensuring they don;t have much chance of improving their lot at the expense of the elite.
#13 Posted by tom s, CJR on Sun 11 Oct 2009 at 05:06 AM
A story long overdue. I hope a lot of newsbosses in the U.S., and elsewhere, read this, and reconsider staffing Mexico more.
#14 Posted by Mike McIlvain, CJR on Sun 11 Oct 2009 at 07:13 PM
Great story. I go to Mexico's major cities on business at least 3 or 4 times a year and it's seldom what I'm supposed to expect when I'm there. Yes, there's drug trafficking, but that's not the story I see when I'm there. There's more to the country than is being reported - and accurately - see the New Yorker's article on Carlos Slim as an example. He alone affects more of what goes on in the US than what is traditionally mentioned in the daily press.
#15 Posted by Juan Jose Villarreal, CJR on Sun 11 Oct 2009 at 08:38 PM
I beg to differ as you might expect from one of the people who’s being criticized in this article.
I’m only going to try to talk about my own reporting as NPR’s Mexico City correspondent but I think my coverage of the Mexican drug cartels is reasonable, balanced and important to a U.S audience.
The purpose of the two-part series on the Zetas and La Familia was to look at two of the most influential (and yes, interesting) cartels operating in Mexico right now.
La Familia is important in that it’s destabilizing parts of the country. To understand the Mexican state of Michoacan in 2009, you have to understand La Familia. The drug war is dominating President Calderon’s term in office, and I believe I should try to explain who are some of the actors in this conflict.
La Familia isn’t just a re-incarnation of the Juarez Cartel under Amado Carrillo Fuentes or the Medellin Cartel under Pablo Escobar. It’s a very different organization. It operates differently. Its goals are different.
You say, “why La Familia merited such attention, Beaubien never said.”
But I do mention that the mayor of Lazaro Cardenas is in prison accused of working for the cartel. The city’s congressman is on the lam accused of the same thing. The editor of a local paper is dead and people believe he was killed by La Familia. Tamale vendors are getting kidnapped. The streets are full of federal police in ski masks, toting automatic rifles and a local priest says people are afraid to go out at night. This is a huge social problem. And it’s a social problem that the Mexico government can’t seem to get a handle on. It’s a legitimate story.
And it’s not just Michoacan. Juarez is a nightmare. The atrocities in Juarez at times occur a stone’s throw from El Paso. And despite the Army taking over the police force, the number of killings in the border city this year has already surpassed the bloody record set in 2008.
I don’t think I’m being sensationalist. Does Juarez reflect what’s happening in all of Mexico? No. Just as in Iraq there are people falling in love and tending their crops and building new mosques. But when a bomb rips through a crowded market in Fallujah it’s news. When 17 people get gunned down in Juarez in a drug rehab center, it’s not misreporting the country to report it. When a guy in Tijuana gets arrested and claims he was on a weekly retainer for the local cartels solely to melt bodies in vats of acid, that’s noteworthy. And when La Familia is stacking Federal Police like cordwood by the side of the road, it illustrates the ability of these criminal groups to undermine the power of the state.
These stories tell us something about Mexico.
But my coverage of Mexico goes beyond the drug cartels. I just did quick searches for La Familia and Carlos Slim on our website and there are a lot more hits for Carlos.
Countries are complicated. News reports by their very nature are simple. They hone in one subject. I’m not denying that there’s been some terrible coverage in some U.S. media of the drug war but I don’t think it’s fair or accurate when you say that my reporting is a “textbook case” of this…“Journalists promiscuously quote DEA agents, eagerly accompany undercover cops on ride-alongs, descend daringly into drug-infested neighborhoods, and intrepidly interview members of the drug trade.”
Jason Beaubien
Mexico City Correspondent
National Public Radio
#16 Posted by Jason Beaubien, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 11:54 PM
I appreciate Jason Beaubien’s comments. It’s never fun to criticize a colleague by name, and I’m glad he’s responded. And he makes some good points. They give me an opportunity to elaborate on my posting. I don’t think the cartels should be ignored. Rather, I think that the reporting about them should come with more analysis and context. Two key questions I’d like to see receive more attention is why these cartels have become so powerful and what should be done about them. The drug war has been waged for decades now and yet the traffickers seem only to get more powerful. That policy is clearly ineffective. What other approaches might be taken? Should more dollars be put into trying to reduce demand rather than squashing supply? Has the recent escalation of the drug war undertaken by Calderon accomplished anything? To me, it seems more of the same failed approach. In fact, some people think that the crackdown on the cartels has itself produced more violence, but no journalist ever seems to explore this. And I differ with Jason about whether these cartels represent something genuinely new. The Medellin Cartel engaged in all these same horrible activities. In fact, they killed far more political figures than the Mexican cartels have. Furthermore, it was the crackdown on that cartel and other Colombia drug organizations in the 1980s and 1990s that led to the rise of the Mexican cartels. If the Mexican cartels were somehow dismantled, the problem would simply shift to another country. As long as the demand is there, organized gangs are going to find ways to supply it. Also, Mexico recently adopted legislation decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs. Surely this deserves more attention from journalists.
Ten years ago, American journalists swooped into Ciudad Juarez to report on the discovery of scores of bodies buried in the surrounding desert—victims of the drug trade. We got weeks and weeks of sensational coverage—again with almost no analysis. Here we are back again, facing a new round of appalling brutality—and again with no real analysis. It's a never-ending cycle. Wouldn’t it be great if journalists devoted as much energy to assessing the drug war as they do to covering the drug traffickers?
#17 Posted by Michael Massing, CJR on Wed 14 Oct 2009 at 05:15 PM
I am the president of a non-profit organization based out of Mexico City at
www.securitycornermexico.com
I am trying to reach Jason Beaubien, Michael Massing or anybody in the US media about a story concerning a US citizen who works as a United Airlines contractor for Randolph's USAF Base in San Antonio.
He has been systematically discriminated against by the US Government since January 30, 2009 when 4 of his siblings were kidnapped in Cuencame, State of Durango.
In the center of this tragedy are 8 kids (5 of these US nationals), their mothers and grandmother.
His 3 kids and spouse- all US nationals- wrote to Pres., Mrs. Calderon but more importantly to Pres. & Mrs. Obama, to no avail. The whole story in English, here
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/02/2009227193249767508.html
Every ttme reporters concentrate on the issue of Mexico, a Failed State, NEVER on the fact that American citizens of Mexican descent are systematically ignored by the White House, US Congress, Department of State and American Embassy here despìte desperate, numerous, urgent calls for help.
My cellular phone no. in Mexico City is (55) 5436-5137. Would love to hear from you.
Best regards,
Mario
#18 Posted by Mario González-Román, CJR on Sat 22 May 2010 at 03:58 PM
In case anyone actually took this article seriously in the first place, recent events in should make it clear that the U.S. media emphasis on drug running in Mexico was not just appropriate but prophetic.
As much as it might pain Massing -- whose knowledge of the situation is so obviously dated that it seems like he stopped paying attention a decade ago -- the reality here in Mexico is that the fighting between cartels scares all of us. It's hard to find a person these days that doesn't have a story about it. Hey Massing, 28,000 people have died in this thing, and you're asking the media to stop reporting on it? Long live the free press.
J. Hernandez, Mexican-American who has lived in Mexico since 1990.
#19 Posted by Julio, CJR on Thu 23 Sep 2010 at 05:33 PM
Interesting argument - though it is somewhat undermined by a glaring factual error: according to Forbes, Mexico is home to the richest man in the world, not the third richest. I know that seems like a small detail, but when you go on a crusade to criticise journlalists for misreporting etc. you should probably make sure that your own reporting is in order.
#20 Posted by dogwooddave, CJR on Mon 6 Dec 2010 at 07:49 PM