Nicole
Eldridge
Extended
Essay #2
Writ
1122
News Metamorphosis
News:
it is like gossip, simple as that. Every news source, every reporter, every
commentator takes the piece of the news story that they want, emphasizes
certain elements, and sometimes either consciously or unconsciously adds their
own bias. Take the "Mexican Swine Flu Epidemic”, for example. I can
personally testify what actually happened; I lived in Mexico City when it all
went down. All of a sudden, I just remember hearing numerous news reports
saying that no one could leave their house. Vividly, I can remember literally
being confined to my home for weeks. No one was allowed to come celebrate my
birthday. School, stores, and many other places were closed. People were
swarming out of the city and the country, looking for somewhere safe. When I
would go out, I would see hundred of people with facemasks, even in their own
car. Buckets of hand-sanitizer were available and even mandatory for people to
use. All of my friends from Colorado were calling me, Facebook messaging me,
and texting me to make sure I was okay…they were worried that I was not even
alive! When I came back to school, everyone was obligated to put on
hand-sanitizer before and after every class. If one even coughed or sneezed
once, they were immediately sent home. Everyone was allowed to be absent, no
questions asked (obviously, everyone would skip class). What was happening? To
tell you the truth, I only heard of one person who was affected by the swine
flu, besides that I never heard of anyone who knew of someone who has died or
contracted the swine flue. Evidently, it was all blown way out of proportion by
the news, but why? Mexico wanted attention and publicity, so the news was the
perfect way to distort what actually was not as big of a deal as it seemed. Not
by any means am I saying that there were not people affected by the swine flu;
I am just saying that it was not as tragic, and that the extreme measures taken
were not necessary. When I visited Colorado Springs about a month after this
so-called “epidemic”, I was astonished by what I found out. Personally, I knew
of three girls from my high school and middle school that had gotten the swine
flu. My best friend, whose family sponsored several cadets, told me that many of
the Air Force Academy cadets had suffered from this terrible virus. Yet
everywhere I went, I was bombarded with questions about how I survived the
swine flu. How was it possible that in one day, I knew of more people that had
the swine flu in the city of Colorado Springs, than I ever knew about during
the entire swine flu incubation period in Mexico? Quite simple: the news.
Obviously, the Mexican press decided to take an event, distort it, and blow it
way out of proportion. Then, the U.S news sources would take that information,
and make it sound even more dramatic. In the end, the news of this “terrifying”
epidemic got larger and larger and scarier and scarier as it circulated.
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 information of the story travels
the version of the story varies. During
my time period in this writing class, I have been following two blogs:
“Borderland Beat” and “El Mundo del Narco”. They each give a perspective to the
narcotic drug trafficking issues in Mexico. “Borderland Beat” provides American
insight, whereas “El Mundo del Narco” provides the Mexican opinion. I would
like to focus on a certain topic mentioned in both blogs, and other news
sources: the Mexican presidential elections for 2012. Each story has a
different outlook and opinion. Presidential elections are a prime example of
how news stories have multiple lives and facets. It is fascinating to see how
each news source provides similar information on some topics of the election,
yet such radically different opinions on others. With regards to the
presidential elections in Mexico for 2012, this paper will focus on the opinion
of four sources. These sources
include “Borderland Beat”, el “Blog del
Narco”, The Washington Post, and the New York Times. Additionally, I will
explain how each source focuses on certain aspects of the 2012 Mexican
elections and sheds a certain light upon each topic depending on opinions.
Whether it be the PAN party and its respective candidates, the PRI party and
its respective candidates, or other aspects of the election each source has
presented its article in a way that addresses the reporter’s concerns, biases,
and focus points. Please note that I will be focusing on the two leading
political parties, PAN and PRI. Although there is another party in the running,
the PRD, I will not dedicate focus to the PRD.
After
the current Mexican president’s, Felipe Calderon, time in office there has been
much criticism towards the PAN party. Because of the fact that violence has
increased during this time, this party has been portrayed in an unfavorable
light. Many people are certain that the reason violence has increased is
because, unlike the PRI party, the PAN party is not secretly corrupt and does
not make pacts with the drug traffickers, like the PRI does. Others simply think
that this demonstrates what a poor ruling party the PAN is. Due to the increase
in violence and deaths, the PAN lost much favorability and support. Yet, the
new woman presidential candidate for the PAN party, Josefina Vazquez Mota,
seems to make people wonder if she is just what the country needs (although
some people believe that she will continue Calderon’s footsteps). The
“Borderland Beat” blog’s article “If PRI regains control: Withdrawal military
and return to a pact with the devil?” focuses very little on the PAN party, but
more on the PRI. Briefly, they mention Calderon being a harsh critic of U.S
policies (which demonstrates the fact that they are clearly blogging from the
U.S point of interest) and then go on to say that Vazquez Mota is rising in
popularity. Here, an example of Harris’ idea of forwarding comes into play; the
blog gives a link to a more in depth article on the woman candidate that sheds
an unbiased light on her. El Blog del Narco’s article, “Violencia costaria la
presidencia al PAN”, expresses how the increase in violence during Calderon’s
presidency is quite likely to cause the loss of the 12-year control by the PAN
party. Since “El Blog del Narco” is a Mexican blog with a sense of concern for
their people, this blog tends to focus on the country’s issues in a concerning
matter. After stating that the PAN party could be at a loss, this blog goes on
to address the main issues that could be problematic during the election. This
article never mentions candidate, Josefina Vazquez Mota, although several other
articles in this blog, portray Vazquez Mota in a positive matter. Also, this
blog uses lots of forwarding, for in many articles, including “Violencia
costaria la presidencia al PAN”, reference articles from the Washington Post.
The Washington Post obviously has similar stories to the one’s in “El Blog del
Narco”. Their article, “Mexicans want security, but candidates to succeed
Calderon vague on drug war policy”, basically states the same issues that El
Blog del Narco’s article did, in another language. To me, the most distinctive
factor was the title. One said that violence would cost the PAN party the
presidency, and the other said that Mexicans wanted security, but that the new
presidential candidates were vague on their drug war policies. Yes, it is
basically the same story, but the title gives a completely different feel to
each article. Frankly, it took me a while to realize that both of the articles
were so closely linked. Finally, the New York Times explicitly portrayed their
views on the Mexican elections in their article “Vazquez Mota Paves New Path in
Mexico”. Essentially, they showed their support for the PAN party, but in
particular the female candidate, Josefina Vazquez Mota. Stating that Vazquez
Mota 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”, the Times shows their
support for the female candidate. But the PAN is going to struggle in order to
keep the presidency this year, for they have been strongly challenged by the
PRI party, and their famous candidate, Enrique Pena Nieto. Indeed, the sources
had opinions on the PRI party as well.
Enrique
Pena Nieto, Mexico’s political heartthrob, and a member of the PRI party has
been leading the race in popularity for the presidency for quite some time. But
the PRI party has made their mistakes, and is also known for making corrupt
pacts with drug traffickers, to keep the violence rate lower. But making a deal
with a villain does not solve a problem: it only hides it. At least that is
what many Mexicans believe, which is why lately Nieto has been receiving lots
of negative press. Borderland Beat’s title says it all, “If PRI regains
control: withdrawal military and return to a pact with the devil? Obviously,
this U.S blog believes that Nieto is not the best choice for presidency, at one
point they even 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. Obviously, they are not too fond of them. Moreover, “El
Blog del Narco”, gives a more favorable depiction of Enrique Pena Nieto; this
is probably because Mexicans have idolized Nieto for years. The article, “Pena
Nieto pide proteger comicos del narcotrafico”, talks about how Nieto says that
the PRI party will not be involved in protecting or making negotiations with
the drug traffickers, and that they will not be involved in the so called
“dirty war” that could occur. Furious blog followers, use Harris’ idea of
countering, by commenting on this article their great rage and hatred towards
Nieto and the Mexican government. Interestingly enough, the Washington Post is
also favoring Pena Nieto in their article, “Mexicans want security, but
candidates vague on drug war policy”, seems to be in accordance with Pena
Nieto’s ideals. Why do I say this is interesting? Because this is the second
time where one can see that “El Blog del Narco” and the Washington Post have
similar views on a topic. This article goes into more detail about general
information on Pena Nieto and his standings on certain topics, saying that he
is ahead in the poles and that “he will probably enhance Mexico’s cooperation
with the United States”. For example, that specific piece of information was
not presented in the Mexican blog, probably because it was not as popular of an
interest for the Mexican population, as it is for the American population. To
be honest, at this point, Mexico is most likely to be concerned with internal
problems more than they are relationships with other countries. Finally, the
New York Times’ article “Vazquez Mota Paves New Path in Mexico”, once again
gives a radical perspective. Although this article focuses on Josefina Vazquez
Mota, Enrique Pena Nieto is mentioned “as the 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, rather than a presidential candidate, the Times leaves it
clear that their support goes to Josefina Vazquez. Evidently, the each
political party is portrayed the news source wants us to see it, there the PRI
gets criticized for being sneaky, but also is leading the opinion polls,
stories may differ, but the truth is only one.
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 also showed a
bias towards one side or another. Truly, there is only one story, but a million
ways of telling it. That is how the news world works.
