EXTENDED ESSAY #2

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 wished. 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, making it hard for people to be certain of the right choice. 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 and the president currently in charge of the country 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”. Furthermore, 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. 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; primarily Mexico wants to believe this because they want to believe that corruption is not as bad as it seems and that Nieto has the will to change his party’s 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 with 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 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 good candidate. Both sources know their cultural audience and what will convince the audience to believe what that news source believes. 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 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 also showed a bias towards one side or another. Drug trafficking and violence is a main concern during these elections, so choosing the candidate who will change the country 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 five 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.

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, they are petitioning 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 your 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. Although the article was meant to be unbiased, it caused lots of commentators to go furious and form 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 give the citizens opportunities to be exposed to art, sports, culture, education, etc. The newspaper said although the president’s sign intention was not bad, but that signs should be created to face Mexico. Truly, it is interesting to see how an American newspaper tries to stay unbiased, whereas as the Mexican newspaper openly spoke its mind.

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 the 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 is vs. 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 receiving it.