Final Assignment (Thanks Jason!)

NY TIMES

• I had a hard time coming up with an alternative title for this article. My problem with it, is that upon first reading the headline “Mexican Violence Leaves Behind Trail of Doubts” it doesn’t state who is doubting, or what they are doubting. The article revolves around the idea that friends, neighbors, and sometimes the national government grow suspicious about the victim’s legitimacy. Now if we were to make a headline that stated suspicion of legitimacy for victims, it would undoubtedly inspire a public dispute especially from those that have suffered a loss due to the drug war. The best attempt I can give is this: “ Victims of Mexican Drug War Leave Behind a Trail of Suspicion” This most accurately represents the information that is given: that sometimes even family members are reluctant to keep contact with the victim’s close relatives.

• The NY Times does a good job in steering clear from politically-charged vocabulary, but I did find two instances of words that were either insensitive to the gravity of this article or misused. For one, “done in” is a terrible way to describe a murder. It is very insensitive to the families of the victims who might read this poem. Also, the headling of “Mexican Violence” is quite misleading. Putting those two words together might give the illusion that Mexicans are a violent people. “Violence in Mexico” or “Drug War Violence” would be a more accurate use of words.

• This article is more of a feature article than a news one. For this reason I feel it is balanced. The author even made an effort to speak to the Mexican authorities who declined to comment. They covered all the sources they possibly could and even added the part of the article that spoke about Alfredo Carrillo’s cockfighting hobby that may have been connected to his murder.

• If we were to rearrange the article so that the part about Alfredo’s cockfighting hobby was at the top of the story, the article would have a different tone to it. It would seem that Alfredo was indeed involved in illegitimate affairs and the rest of the article would be interpreted as the family trying to defend his reputation.

• Seeing as this article is about Mexican victims, all of the sources for the story are of Hispanic descent. This question doesn’t really apply to this article. As for the female perspective, the article briefly talks about Alfredo’s mother but never directly quotes her. It is very difficult to judge this article based on this question because it is an extremely delicate topic that many people have been killed over. People aren’t willing to openly give their opinion about organized crime in Mexico, in fear of being retaliated against.

• The NY Times provides a great variety of photographs for this story. It provides some context to the issue of organized crime (by showing a map of Mexico and where Colima is) and also has two pictures of the victim’s mother and brother.

• All of the claims in this article are logical. People are afraid to reach out to the families of victims because they fear they might get involved in some type of criminal affair. I also think it provides a great inside look into the psyche of the victim’s family. I haven’t read another article on this subject.

• The article doesn’t provide many statistics other than the fact that over 50,000 murders have been connected to the Mexican Drug War.  They provide a previous article they wrote on this subject as a reference for this statistic. Either way, I think this is a great article because it zooms in on one family that is affected by this widespread Drug War.

Summary: This article really hit home with me. I was born in Manzanillo, Colima and most of my family is from Jalisco, one of the more violent states in Mexico. In December of 2010 my cousin was shot in the head, presumably he was caught in the middle of Drug Cartel violence. I heard from my devastated aunt how almost no one attended the funeral. The NY Times did a great job in providing some context for the issues that the families of victims are facing.

EL AGORA

• When I read the article El Agora wrote for this story, I thought it was going to be about young drug dealers 20-30 years old who are equipped with old weapons. The headline is also misleading because it doesn’t specifically talk about drug dealers, it talks about organized crime in general, some of which includes the trafficking of drugs. Another thing that seemed odd to me was the mention that most of the weapons confiscated by Mexican officials were from the United States, This is an extremely controversial claim that should have been in the title of the story. For this reason I came up with this alternative headline: “Old, Customized Weapons Used for Organized Crime, Some From U.S”

• This article is filled with politically-charged labels and statements. The most controversial one is the claim that most of the weapons come from the United States. Here is a list of politically charged labels I found:

“come from United States”

“many of them”

“most commonly used”

“Mexican Army seized”

“cop-killer sized”

            It seems like the article is taking a stab at the United States without backing up the sources that indicate that the weapons originate from the US. It also glorifies the efforts made by the Mexican armed forces.

• This article nonchalantly states that many of the weapons that have been confiscated by the Mexican Army have come from the United States. They don’t cite a source for this statement. The article then goes on to praise the Mexican Army’s efforts in confiscating the weapons. There is a lot of bias in this article needless to say. I also tried to find out where the author got the facts he states but I couldn’t find it on SEDENA’s website or anywhere else.

• This article is very repetitive in the first place. It can be condensed into two paragraphs at most. It is poorly organized, many of the facts and figures they have are very similar to each other.  One paragraph, however, doesn’t exactly correlate well with the rest of the story. The author states that the idea that the cartels are better equipped than the department of defense is a myth. He then goes on to state some facts about how many weapons they have seized. If we were to remove this paragraph the article would be stronger, but if we were to move it to the top of the story it would enforce the bias in this article even more.

• Seeing as this article comes from a Chihuahan news organization, I can flip the question around and look for non-Mexican perspectives. I found none. All of the perspectives displayed in this story are from Mexican government agencies, which not only affects the credibility of this article (Mexican media is “Not Free” according to Newseum’s press freedom map.)

• The photograph for this article doesn’t complement the headline. The headline talks about drug dealers using old weapons, not how many weapons were seized. The photograph shows the Mexican authorities standing behind a large amount of weapons that have supposedly been seized over the past few years as the Drug War continues. The picture should have been of an old weapon, perhaps visibly customized or repaired. Also, the caption doesn’t relate to the headline. “Most of the weapons from the US, that the armed forces have seized” This again, is a controversial claim because they don’t name the source that they are basing that claim off of.

• Many of the facts contradict each other in this article. The facts about the number of weapons seized don’t add up and in my opinion, are irrelevant to the headline and main topic of this story. Although other news sources have covered the fact that many of the weapons being confiscated come from the United States, this article does a very poor job in providing any proof.

• I was very confused with the number of weapons that the Mexican authorities have seized. Towards the end of the article it states that 137,000,568 firearms have been seized. Then it says in broken English that 55,000 have been seized 48 rifles. Not exactly sure what this is referring to especially because it then states that 80% of those weapons have been confiscated by military personnel. The numbers don’t add up.

Summary: This article was very difficult to rad. The facts are scattered and unaccounted for. I read the Spanish version of this article and it made much more sense in terms of the grammar, however, the statistics they state aren’t proved by any outside source. This was poorly written, and it sounds like government propaganda. This is a terrible attempt at providing an in-depth look at the Drug War and the weapon use. In fact, I think it is pointless. It doesn’t matter how long these weapons have been in use, it matters that they are they taken off the street. However, they make a weak attempt at trying to prove that the Mexican Armed Forces are winning the Drug War. The truth is, nobody wins as long as these drug cartels are still on the streets.

June 6, 2012 | Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment