I did not find a single story about how the drugs moved inside the United States, something that I found absurd, because people don’t buy the drugs off trucks at the border. I could not find one story detailing what happened after a drug shipment crossed the border, how those shipments were split, repackaged and transported from El Paso, Laredo, or San Diego to hundreds of American cities and into the hands of drug users. There wasn’t a word about the corridors used to move the drugs, or about the trucks or planes delivering them to the local dealers.
Ten years later, the pattern has stuck. But my surprise is greater now because in the past four years the war on drugs in Mexico has left a trail of violence, horror, and pain that has been a fixture in American media outlets. Correspondents from major American papers in Mexico have done a great job covering the drug cartels and sometimes exposing stories that are too dangerous for the Mexican press to report. But local coverage inside the United States is still absent. In any American paper, we are more likely to find details of the latest massacre in Ciudad Juárez than a story on how drug gangs operate in any American city.
Fortunately, there is not a wave of violence in the United States like the one ravaging Mexico, but that doesn’t mean there is not a problem. As noted in a recent report by the National Drug Intelligence Center of the Justice Department, Mexican drug cartels run operations in more than two hundred cities in the United States. According to the report, the Sinaloa cartel has presence in seventy-five cities, the Gulf cartel in at least thirty-seven cities, the Juárez Cartel in over thirty cities. And yet the American public knows very little about those networks.
To be fair, there are notable exceptions to the lack of coverage. CBS News recently revealed how an operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to monitor the sale of weapons to Mexican cartels lost track of more than 2,000 weapons and put them in the hands of drug lords.
Last March, a series in The Dallas Morning News exposed how the Zetas cartel operates in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, relying on immigrants that keep their ties to Mexico, and carrying out killings using the same methods employed south of the border.
Last year, The Washington Post detailed the disguises couriers used to move drugs from the border.
Two years ago, The New York Times ran a detailed story about the “black tar” heroin trade in the American heartland, where cartels used immigrants to move the drugs. That was followed up a year ago by the Los Angeles Times in a series detailing how Mexican immigrants successfully opened a market for “black tar” heroine in Los Angeles, setting up a distribution network that is hard to track.
The San Antonio Express-News has closely followed investigations into drug trade and money laundering in Texas, and other papers in the state have dealt with this issue because of their proximity to Mexico and the fear that violence might spill north of the Rio Grande.
But these are the exceptions. It seems that local papers are missing a very important story in their communities, one that could shift the policy focus and get the American public more interested in how drugs are flowing into their neighborhoods. What is it that keeps most editors from confronting the reality of the drug trade in their cities?
Is it lack of resources? Is it fear of letting loose the criminal forces that will threaten the media?
Or is it something suggested by investigative journalist Lowell Bergman last year during an academic conference, when I posed these same questions: “The response of reporters and editors in the United States is frequently, ‘Who cares?’”

These are good questions. It does appear that mainstream dailies see the drug trade through routine "crime story" eyes rather than as part of an economic and sociological system. I think it's just habit.
It is also difficult to trace these networks, particularly since law enforcement often stops at tracing the drugs, leaving the money trail untraveled.
Several years ago Baltimore City Paper tried to examine the business of drugs in our city, following the money to real estate, car dealerships and non-profit organizations that, in some cases, had ties to local politicians. The trail lead south and west, to Texas, Arizona, California and Mexico.
The series continues ( http://citypaper.com/news/corner-cartel-1.1108703 ) and it is clear that keeping the players straight even in a mid-sized city like Baltimore is more than a full-time job for more people than we employ.
Worth a look, though, for larger news organizations.
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Fri 10 Jun 2011 at 01:40 PM
The War on Drugs failed Billions of dollars ago! This money could have been used for outreach programs to clean up the bad end of drug abuse by providing free HIV testing, free rehab, and clean needles. Harmless drugs like marijuana could be legalized to help boost our damaged economy. Cannabis can provide hemp for countless natural recourses and the tax revenue from sales alone would pull every state in our country out of the red! Vote Teapot, PASS IT, and legalize it. Voice you opinion with the movement and check out my pro-cannabis art at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/01/vote-teapot-2011.html
#2 Posted by Brandt Hardin, CJR on Fri 10 Jun 2011 at 05:06 PM
I think that the immigration debate has some influence over this topic. Many of the mainstream media outlet have a "liberal" slant. I think that if they are pro open borders types, they do not want to shed light on these immigrant communities as import points for the cartels, as that would turn public opinion even more against illegal immigrants.
#3 Posted by challenger, CJR on Mon 13 Jun 2011 at 12:38 AM
Some simple facts:
* A rather large majority of people will always feel the need to use drugs, such as heroin, opium, nicotine, amphetamines, alcohol, sugar, or caffeine.
* Due to Prohibition, the availability of mind-altering drugs has become so universal and unfettered, that in any city of the civilized world, any one of us would be able to procure practically any drug we wish within an hour.
* The massive majority of people who use drugs do so recreationally - getting high at the weekend then up for work on a Monday morning.
* A small minority of people will always experience drug use as problematic.
* Throughout history, the prohibition of any mind-altering substance has always exploded usage rates, overcrowded jails, fueled organized crime, created rampant corruption of law-enforcement, even whole governments, and induced an incalculable amount of suffering and death.
* It's not even possible to keep drugs out of prisons, but prohibitionists wish to waste hundreds of billions of our money in an utterly futile attempt to keep them off our streets.
* Prohibition kills more people and ruins more lives than the prohibited drugs have ever done.
* The United States jails a larger percentage of it's own citizens than any other country in the world, including those run by the worst totalitarian regimes.
* In 'the land formally known as free', all citizens have been stripped of their 4th amendment rights and are now totally subordinate to a corporatized, despotic government with a heavily armed and corrupt, militarized police force whose often deadly intrusions into their homes and lives are condoned by an equally corrupt and spineless judiciary.
* As with torture, prohibition is a grievous crime against humanity. If you support it, or even simply tolerate it by looking the other way while others commit it, you are an accessory to a very serious moral transgression against humanity.
* America re-legalized certain drug use in 1933. The drug was alcohol, and the 21st amendment re-legalized its production, distribution and sale. Both alcohol consumption and violent crime dropped immediately as a result, and, very soon after, the American economy climbed out of that same prohibition engendered abyss into which it had previously been pushed.
#4 Posted by malcolm kyle, CJR on Mon 13 Jun 2011 at 08:00 AM
Totally endorsing Kyle here, and furthermore
--Wait, what? Sugar is a drug? And prohibition caused the Great Depression?
#5 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 13 Jun 2011 at 03:49 PM
Chalk it up to the fact that the drug trade in America is predominately seen from the recreational user's point of view. People like sausage, but don't want to now how it's made.
#6 Posted by Ronald, CJR on Tue 14 Jun 2011 at 11:33 AM
I think it's pretty simple: US newspapers are just giving people what they want.
People don't like hearing about how their country is riddled with drug dealers. They're interested in the story, just they don't want the drug trading to be going on near their cities (almost like NIMBY-ism). So the media give people what they want.
#7 Posted by Kevin C., CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 12:17 AM