Nicole
Eldridge
Extended
Essay #2
Writ
1122
News Metamorphosis
News:
it is kind of like gossip, simple as that. Every news source, every reporter,
every commentator takes whatever pieces of a news story they want, emphasizes
certain elements, and sometimes either consciously or unconsciously add their
own bias. My point is this: a news story can be anything one wants it to be, it
can be the truth, it can be an exaggerated version of the truth, it can an
opinion on a topic, it can be persuasive, it can be factual, it can be
incorrect. A news story has many lives and many versions, for as the story
travels, the version of the story varies.
Take
the 2012 Mexican presidential elections, for example. Every news source,
interested in the topic, has something to say. But everybody says it differently;
depending on what content one wants their audience to receive and how they want
them to interpret it. While researching the elections, I realized how different
sources had different opinions and focuses. They portrayed political parties
and candidates in whatever light they pleased. As I researched the elections, I
was following two blogs: “Borderland Beat” and “El Blog del Narco”. Both give a
perspective to the narcotic drug trafficking issues in Mexico. “Borderland
Beat” provides American insight, in a “crime scene” manner. On the other hand
“El Blog del Narco” provides a Mexican opinion with concern for its people. In
addition to these sites, I read articles from the Washington Post and The New
York Times. I came to the realization
that presidential elections are a prime example of how new stories have
different lives and facets. Each news source provides similar information on
certain topics, yet completely opposite opinions on others. Because of the fact
that Mexico is undergoing a time of extreme violence, bloody horrors, and
constant fear due to the narcotic drug trafficking and other illegal activities
(such as female trafficking), the Mexican people are looking for a candidate to
help bring an end to this horrific era. Either way, news reporters are able to
find dirt about any candidate, which makes people’s opinions either be firmly
for or against a candidate, or sway from side to side. Borderland Beat, El Blog
del Narco, The Washington Post, and The New York Times each had a unique
opinion on the topic.
Before
I begin to explain how these elections have been portrayed by various sources,
I would like to give a bit of background information on the two parties who are
battling for the presidency: the PAN party and the PRI party. The PAN party is
currently in office, the country’s leader is Felipe Calderon. Ever since
Calderon entered office, violence has incremented immensely. Frankly, this is due
to his philosophy that one must not cooperate or make deals with the leaders of
this drug war in order to end it. Josefina Vazquez Mota, the first woman
presidential candidate, is the PAN party’s leading candidate who seems to have
a shot at the presidency. She is seen by many as “just what Mexico needs”.
Moreover, the opposing party, the PRI party, was in power for a long time before
the PAN party entered office. During the PRI party’s control, not only was
there less violence, but it was much more subtle. Due to the fact that the PRI
party made many deals and compensations with the narcotic drug traffickers,
violence could be kept on a leash…to a certain extent. Yet, many thought making
a pact with the criminals did not solve the actual problem: death, drug
trafficking, violence, etc. Additionally, for many years, the PRI’s
presidential candidate, Enrique Pena Nieto, has been Mexico’s political heartthrob.
Everyone always believed he was the solution to the country’s problems and was
going to be the future president of Mexico…until Vazquez Mota came along. Also,
after many recent scandals and demonstrations of his ignorance, many have
questioned if Pena Nieto is actually as great as he seemed. Is he going to
continue the footsteps of his predecessors? Will he continue to make pacts with
the narcotic drug lords? News sources can have either wonderful and/or awful
opinions about the parties and candidates.
What
did the four sources that I researched from have to say about each party?
Borderland Beat’s title says it all: “If PRI regains control: Withdrawal
military and return to a pact with the devil?” Obviously, this blog does not
think that PRI party is suited for the presidency. In part of the article they
state, “they made pacts with criminals and now Pena Nieto, when the time comes
is going to say ‘I don’t know anything…” This demonstrates that Borderland Beat
believes that the PRI party hides their involvement in deals with drug
traffickers. Vazquez Mota’s rising popularity is only briefly mentioned, which
demonstrates that Borderland Beat had a larger concern with the PRI party being
elected. El Blog de Narco focused on different topics and took a different
approach to the elections, for their article “Violencia costaria la presidencia
al PAN” expresses how the tremendous increase in violence during Calderon’s
presidency might cause the loss of control by this party. Here, Vazquez Mota is
never mentioned. Additionally, El Blog del Narco’s article, “Pena Nieto pide
proteger comicos del narcotifico”, talks about how Pena Nieto says that he will
not be involved in Mexico’s dirty war and making pacts with the drug lords.
Even though this may be untrue, Mexico wants to believe it; Mexico wants to
believe this primarily because they want to believe that corruption within the
government is not as bad as it is said to be and that Nieto has the will defy
his political party’s old ways. I found it quite interesting that the The
Washington Post had extremely similar articles to El Blog del Narco. But the
titles were so different that I could not tell that they would be about the same
topics and share the same opinion. Later, I realized El Blog del Narco
implemented a lot of Harris’ idea of “forwarding”, and quoted many of its
articles from the Washington Post. The Washington Post’s article, “Mexicans
want security, but candidates vague on drug war policy”, supported Pena by
saying “he will probably enhance Mexico’s cooperation with the United States”.
Although The Washington Post and El Blog del Narco both have similar ideas and
opinions, they provide different reasons to explain why Pena Nieto is a strong
candidate. Both sources know who their audience is and what culture they belong
to. Indeed, news sources know what aspects of a story will make their certain
audience be convinced by their argument. Finally, the liberal New York Times
explicitly expressed their views on the presidential election in the article,
“Vazquez Mota Paves New Path in Mexico”. Essentially, the Times showed their
support for the female candidate, Vazquez Mota, by stating she could be “offering
a fresh approach for a party that has been mired in a bloody drug war” and that
“she’s being put forward as the nurturing, soothing, national caretaker who
will put the house back in order”. Admiration was far from the adjective that
the Times used to describe Vazquez Mota’s opponent, Pena Nieto. He is portrayed
as a “telegenic former governor of Mexico State . . . married to one of the
country’s biggest soap opera stars . . .. Despite some gaffes, and the recent
acknowledgement of two out-of –wedlock children, he still leads . . . in
opinion polls.” Making him sound more like a scandalous pop star than a
presidential candidate, the Times leaves it clear that they support the
Josefina and the PAN party. As previously read, political campaigns, especially
presidential elections, are the perfect way to exemplify the multiple lives of
a news story. Each source wrote about the topics that were convenient for them
and pertinent to their desired audience. Not only did it focus on certain
topics or parties more than others, but it showed a bias towards one side or the
other. Drug trafficking and violence is a main concern during these elections,
so choosing the candidate who will help Mexico in changing for the better is a
main priority.
During February of
this year, current Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, pulled a scandalous
stunt. Brady Campaign explains Calderon “unveiled a giant billboard, made with
three tons of crushed firearm used in drug violence and visible from the
American side (El Paso, TX) of the border, exclaiming, “No More Weapons!” This
controversial sign has caused many people to report the story, each in their
own way. Some people praise Calderon for his bravery, whereas others are
furious that he would ever dare. This essay will talk about four different
sources, Brady Campaign’s opinion article, El Mundo Narco (a Mexican blog),
CNN, and a local, Mexican newspaper from the city that the sign was put in, El
Diario from Juarez.
One of the most
controversial articles posted on the subject, was surprisingly posted by an
American, Brady Campaign. His opinion piece, “Brady Campaign on Felipe
Calderon’s ‘No More Weapons!’ Sign”, has created an outrageous, angry audience.
After explaining what happened, he went on to agree with the Mexican
president’s controversial move. He said it was the United State’s fault for not
having strong enough federal gun laws. Criticizing the gun laws, he began
giving more details about how these gun laws should be changed. His most
impactful sentence was: “Trafficking of assault weapons and handguns out of
American gun shops is not just a Mexican tragedy. It is an American tragedy as
well”. You can only imagine how furious Brady’s fellow Americans were about the
fact that he would agree with Calderon’s astounding sign. Harris’ idea of “countering” was perfectly
exemplified by all of the raging commenters. An example of this was a comment
“We should put up a sign that says No More Mojados! and face it towards the
Mexican border”. Most people agreed with this comment, stating that Americans should
make a sign that was pleading illegal immigrants to stop coming in.
Mundo Narco, a
Mexican blog, had an article “Pediran retiro el letrero vs. armas” took a
completely different turn on the issue. Surprisingly enough, many Juarez locals
were quite upset that the sign was put up, but they were mainly upset because
it was put up in Juarez. Actually, petitioned for the sign to be erected. They
said that creating that sign and placing it in Juarez instead of any other
border town epitomized the fact that Juarez is filled with danger. Juarez
locals do not want to be known as a city of blood, terror, and despair. Instead
they would like to be known as a city with hope and other positive factors, for
they feel that this can help the city move forward. In the end, they did not
disagree with the fact that the sign was put up, but the fact that the sign was
put up in their city.
In terms of a more
formal news source, CNN, gave a much more factual account about the story. It
did not present a bias; it just gave facts. The article, ‘Mexican President to
US: No More Weapons’, Calderon gave a speech in which he explained how violence
in Mexico has skyrocketed and the easy access to high powered weapons in the
U.S has made it easier for drug traffickers to provide weapons to carry out
their violent actions. Calderon acknowledged and thanked President Obama, for
his efforts to deal with the issue, but believed it was not enough. “More than
47,000 people have been killed in Mexico due to drug related violence since
December 2006” states the article.
Calderon is quoted in the article: “We need your help to stop violence,
We need you to reduce your consumption of drugs and to dramatically reduce the
flow of money to criminal organizations of Mexico . . . but beyond the topic of
drugs, the best way that you, the American people, can help reduce the violence
in Mexico is through legislation that has already been in force in the United
States, blocking the inhumane weapons trafficking into our country”. To be
honest, this statement made people furious. Countering was once again demonstrated;
furious article commentators once again went wild about the issue of illegal
immigration and how Americans should start telling Mexico: Stop Illegal
Immigration! Although the article was meant to be unbiased, it caused lots of
commentators to go furious and form strong opinions.
Contrary to the
formal, American newspaper, the formal, Mexican newspaper was filled with bias
and opinions. Juarez’s local newspaper, El Diario, did not restrain themselves
on their opinion. The reporter even said, the U.S should make signs facing the
Mexican border that make the Mexicans reflect about the violence in their country,
and how their problems were not just the United State’s fault, they were mainly
Mexico’s. El Diario said the Mexico’s violence issue was not necessarily going
to be fixed with more armed police, but by giving the citizens opportunities to
be exposed to art, sports, culture, education, etc. Less violence and weapons
was they key. The newspaper said that although the president’s sign did not
have a bad intention, signs should also be created to face Mexico and remind
the Mexicans of their issues. Truly, it is interesting to see how an American
newspaper tries to stay unbiased, whereas as the Mexican newspaper openly
scolded its own people.
After researching
this story, it was plain and simple. Events only consist of one, true story,
but many versions. Blogs and opinion pieces tend to have more extreme, explicit
views on topics. But even newspapers feel free to speak their minds. News
sources do what they want. Some will state strictly facts. Some will agree and
try to make others agree with them. Some will disagree and try to make others
realize why they disagree. It all depends on who the audience is and what
purpose the article serves. The way a news story is portrayed tends to have a
drastic effect on how people interpret, or receive their story. Imagine the
difference of opinion and perspective that the person who only read Brady
Campaign’s article has versus the person who only read El Diario’s article.
Yes, it was the same story, but presented in completely different angles.
Indeed, news stories have many lives, many versions, and this all affects the
audience’s way of receiving the story.
References
ARCHIBOLD, R. C. (n.d.). Vazquez Motas Nomination Paves New Path in Mexico - NYTimes.com. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Retrieved February 28, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/world/americas/ruling-party-in-mexico-picks-woman-as-candidate.html?pagewanted=all
Chivis, B. B. (n.d.). Borderland Beat: If PRI Regains Control: Withdraw Military, and Return to a Pact with the Devil?. Borderland Beat. Retrieved February 29, 2012, from http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2012/02/if-pri-regains-control-withdraw.html
Gallardo, J. I. (n.d.). No más armas | Opinion | Diario.com.mx. Diario.com.mx: Edicion Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua. Retrieved March 6, 2012, from http://www.diario.com.mx/notas.php?f=2012/02/19&id=01741902ef8ad76724397b622ff9f52e
Henigan, D., & Campaign, B. (n.d.). Brady Campaign on Felipe Calderon's "No More Weapons!" Sign. Opposing Views | Issues, Experts, Answers. Retrieved March 4, 2012, from http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/brady-campaign-felipe-calderons-no-more-weapons-sign
Miroff, N. (n.d.). Mexicans want security, but candidates to succeed Calderon vague on drug war policy - The Washington Post. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. Retrieved February 29, 2012, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexicans-want-security-but-candidates-to-succeed-calderon-vague-on-drug-war-policy/2012/02/07/gIQALzhhJR_story.html
Pedirán retirar el letrero vs armas - El Blog del Narco. (n.d.). El Blog del Narco. Retrieved March 3, 2012, from http://www.mundonarco.com/2012/02/pediran-retirar-el-letrero-vs-armas.html
Scholcet, C. E. (n.d.). Mexico's president to U.S.: 'No more weapons' - CNN.com. CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Retrieved March 4, 2012, from http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/world/americas/mexico-us-weapons/index.html?iref=allsearch
Violencia costarÃa la presidencia al PAN - El Blog del Narco. (n.d.). El Blog del Narco. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.mundonarco.com/2012/01/violencia-costaria-la-presidencia-al.html
