Cultural Studies Theory and Agenda Setting Theory of the Mexican Drug War
Sarah Berger, Thanh Pham, Lauren Benner, Alexandra Gardner
Research Question: How has the media coverage of the Mexican drug war shaped power relations, attitudes and perceptions between the Mexican and U.S. governments, the media, the drug cartels, and the general public?
Summary of Background: Mexico has seen escalating violence and censorship as a result of the battle between seven major drug cartels and the government in a conflict, which has been developing since President Calderon’s frontal assault on the cartels in December 2006. The worsening situation has garnered media and policy attention abroad, with the United States most directly implicated since it is U.S. drug consumers who fuel demand and American guns which are being used by the drug gangs. Additionally, US has given a $400 million package to support Mexico’s fight against drug cartels, which could have negative or positive implications as the efforts towards a solution progress.
To date, over 28,000 people have been killed (over 7% have been police officers), and media censorship is on the rise after several journalists have been kidnapped, threatened and/or murdered by the drug cartels. In March 2010, after over three years with little progress, Mexico and the US have refocused their counternarcotics strategy away from heavy military assistance and instead toward strengthening civil law enforcement and rebuilding communities crippled by poverty and crime. In August 2010, after a spike in drug-related killings, Calderon called for a series of high-level forums of Mexico’s entire political establishment to evaluate the current state of affairs and to discuss new proposals on how to win the drug war. In October 2010, the government announced a strategy to unify the local and federal police forces in an attempt to weed out corruption in the enforcement agency. Recently, ‘El Diario,’ the biggest newspaper in the city of Juarez published a front-page editorial asking the cartels how they should avoid further violence towards journalists. This pivotal event was soon followed by the US granting political asylum to a Mexican journalist for the first time since the cartel war exploded. The stress on the mainstream media has brought about a growing reliance on social media in spreading knowledge about the violence. These events have put issues surrounding the Mexican media in the international spotlight.
Brief Description of theoretical approaches:
Cultural Studies seeks to understand the creation of different meanings understood by and assigned by different subcultures that make up the producers and the audience, by analyzing how cultural texts are variously produced and subsequently consumed. In the case of Mexico’s drug war, we aim to understand how perceptions and attitudes of the war, in addition to power relations between major actors, are shaped by the different ways in which news articles, editorials, videos, blogs, tweets and announcements related to the war are encoded by editors, federal government , citizen journalists, and even cartel members. Furthermore, we aim to understand how the decoding, or consumption, of these cultural artifacts has influenced the “meaning” of the war locally and internationally.
The concept of agenda setting in our society is for the press to selectively choose what we see or hear in the media. The media determine our mental image of the larger world of public affairs that we never directly experience. We don’t respond to the real world but to the limited pictures of the world that are constructed by the news media, often incomplete and distorted yet we come to regard them as true reflections of the real environment. Media is the bridge between the world outside and the pictures in our heads. When applying agenda setting theory to the case of the Mexican drug war, we seek to show how the media are not the only agents setting the agenda as there are many other agents (i.e. policy-makers, cartels, and public) who are determining the agenda in Mexico. The interaction among these agents has created an agenda-setting web where each agent’s actions affect the other’s agenda.
Discussion Questions:
1. What are some of the encoded values and ideologies evident in the news articles? To what extent are the interests of the government, cartels and the public expressed in these texts? Are any of these interests overlapping?
2. Who do you believe has the majority control of the agenda in the case of the Mexican drug war? Why?
3. What are other possible theoretical approaches that might be helpful in the analysis of this situation? Why?
Links:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130087939
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/mexico/drug_trafficking/index.html?scp=1&sq=mexico%20drug%20violence&st=cse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/26/twitter-blog-mexico-drug-wars
Hot topic.
ReplyDelete1.) I think who has control depends on what country you are in. Focusing specifically on America, I wonder if you think that our coverage of Mexico is suffering from "coup and earthquake syndrome" these days? Just a quick look at all the related articles on Mexico on the NY Times post painted a picture of a violent, corrupt, and completely out-of-control society in need of better governance and US aid. Blame has been pointed as US demand, yes, but it seems to me that most coverage focuses on the unstoppable power of the cartels.
I say "unstoppable" because the spate of stories in the NY Times all seem to point toward the inisidiousness of the cartels, highlighting tales about how they work from prison, by luring US tens, and by corrupting border guards and investigators. Can they be stopped?! The framing of the stories has an almost hopeless, "Mexico's a lost cause and it is spilling over to us because they can't get it together" tone. I question the lack of balanced/positive coverage about what Mexico is doing to change this (the stories I read mentioned failed polices and admissions of failure) and the Mexican people in general.
So back to the question, in America I think the American media is definitely controlling the agenda, while in Mexico it seems to be a complicated mixture of the state, local journalists, and the cartels, which exercise their power through intimidation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2. Like Anna mentioned it is important to consider the country when determining the control of the media agenda. According to the reports from the listed sources, Anna is correct and when she says, “while in Mexico it seems to be a complicated mixture of the state, local journalists, and the cartels, which exercise their power through intimidation. As for the media agenda in America when it comes to the Mexican drug war, I think most of the control is in the hands of the U.S. government. The U.S. government’s plans are prevalent in both of the U.S. articles listed. It is likely that much of the media coverage is filtered through the Foreign Service Officers at the U.S. Embassies in Mexico before it is reported on outside of Mexico. This gives the US government a chance to add their opinions, responses and “frame” before sending it off to be addressed within the country.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like in Mexico the media is really being dictated by the cartels, the military and local law enforcement. Based on the first article discussing the journalist who sought asylum in the U.S., in the past few months, journalists have censored themselves out of fear for their lives. It would be interesting to compare some of the articles written in El Diario at the beginning of the drug war and current articles to see how much the reporting has tapered off. The fact that people in Mexico are able to use social media to report what is really going on just goes to show the effective and innovative ways social media is changing the face of journalism and increasing the instances of citizen journalism.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Julie's "rant" in the previous comment. I think there has been all this focus on fighting the drug war from the supply side of things in Mexico, Latin America and South America, but there needs to be more focus and more of the budget spent on the demand side of the issue. The simple fact is that if you cut down on the demand it will cut down on the supply and hopefully curtail all the violence that comes along with drug trafficking.
3. Another theoretical approach that would be interesting to use in analyzing this conflict would be Dependency Theory. It is a particularly violent example of the application of the theory. Mexico grows the drugs and sells them to the US, we process them and sell a different product back: the War on Drugs (and the guns for both sides to fight it). The media plays a role in this by framing the War on Drugs in order to make it defensible from the US point of view. Rather than emphasizing the possible strategies for addressing the domestic demand for these products, the US mainstream media villainizes drug lords and the Mexican government for their role in the conflict.
ReplyDelete2. To me it seems that in Mexico, the cartels have the majority control of the agenda. I say this because they are pretty much controlling the media through intimidation and threats. In the article from the Guardian linked above, it talks about how news of the drug wars are now being covered by blogs and Twitter because news outlets “have become better known for what they do not publish than for what they do.” The cartels are very successful in maintaining control and setting the agenda in the media in Mexico.
ReplyDelete3. I think it would be very interesting to do a critical theory study on this topic to see the power shifting from the Mexican government and media to the drug cartels. While the researcher maintains a bias I think it is pretty obvious who now hold the power in Mexico. The violence against both media and government workers has quickly left them powerless, journalists are fleeing to the U.S and living in a foreign country in order to avoid begin murdered just for doing their jobs. This study would critique the drug cartels’ power and manipulation of the Mexican government and media, both groups are unable to communicate with the public in fear for their lives.
ReplyDelete2. At this point the drug cartels have control over the media agenda. Journalists have made attempts to report what is going on, which has only resulted in death threats and murder. It has gotten to the point that journalists and government officials are living in constant fear for their lives and as a result are surrendering to the drug cartels. The media is asking what they can do in order to save lives, their main concern has shifted from reporting the news to protecting their lives and their colleagues lives. At this point the drug cartels control what is communicated in the media.
ReplyDeleteSpiral of silence theory because journalists and citizens have to monitor what they say so that it does not upset the drug cartels. These drug cartels have control over the public opinion with the use of their weapons and strategy of killing if people do not abide by their rules. In the article from the Guardian, an editor said, "Sometimes the emotion of a story gets to me and I put it on Twitter…Especially when I know it won't get out otherwise." This might be an example that spiral of silence cannot account for, but the general trend (for Mexican citizens) seems to put most people in fear for speaking out. If drug cartels discovered who posted what on Twitter, would people still speak out?
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the drug cartels control the agenda in the case of the Mexican drug war. The fear that they instill in the media and the general public allows them to shape the information presented in media outlets. There will be several stories about fear of the drug cartel but specific stories on specific details of the workings and motivations of drug cartels won’t be shown because of the fear. These are the stories that need to be investigated and published in order to help fight against the drug cartels but it is the drug cartels that are preventing such media to transmitted.
ReplyDelete#1 The NPR article speaks to the values and ideologies of free speech, freedom from fear of speaking out, and asylum seeking and protection from the government. The government is not of top interest, nor really are the cartels but rather the public and most specifically the journalists are at the forefront of the piece. Significantly highlighting the views and feelings of Mexican journalists the article focuses on their plight as a “threatened group.”
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times article’s values and ideologies seem to differ massively from the NPR article with the NYT seems to focus more on “winning” the drug war. With a central focus on the Mexican and American government’s, and secondary focus on the cartels, the citizens (and journalists) voice is lost. This piece takes a more global or cross-national perspective, but also a more dependent and hierarchal tone comes through as Mexico is framed as this “failed state with no hope” and the U.S. as the big brother needing to (once again) come to the rescue.
The Guardian piece focuses more on citizens and those connected to social media with values and ideologies much like the NPR article – freedom to speak out without fear. Though this piece differs from the NPR piece in that it empowers the average citizen instead of placing the citizen and journalist as the “hopeless victim” as the NPR piece seems to frame. The Guardian piece suggests there is hope for the Mexican citizen (or blogger) and that their plight is not doomed to fail like the Mexican state strategies of the past or blockages against journalists. To me, the interests hardly overlap though I guess the NPR and Guardian piece do overlap with an interest in those speaking out.
2. Who do you believe has the majority control of the agenda in the case of the Mexican drug war? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe "narco-politicians", law enforcement, and drug cartels have the majority control of the agenda in the Mexican drug war. Apparently they are getting a kick-back of sales, are bought off, or live in fear for their lives, so choose to support or not act out against the drug cartels. And why speak out when you have seen what happens to the outspoken? Why speak out when you can't or won't be protected? The majority of control goes to those who are safe to speak. It is safe to keep it quiet or not protest. It is safe to report about the weather or something else that won't anger the powers that be. It's unfortunate that the powers that be are the drug cartels.
3. Another possible theoretical approach that might be helpful in the analysis of this situation is the spiral of silence theory. The spiral of silence theory assumes that people take into account the prevalence of topics covered in the media and that directly influences the likelihood to speak out on issues assumed to be in the minority.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that over 28,000 have been killed by the drug cartels has caused wide spread terror across Mexico. Of course there will be a negative correlation between rise of reporter deaths and drug war media coverage. The percentage of mainstream drug war media coverage has decreased therefore it is in the minority. This subject’s reduced coverage in the media keeps the public from speaking out because they feel they are in the minority.
Who do you believe has the majority control of the agenda in the case of the Mexican drug war? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican drug cartel absolutely has the majority control of the media in relation to the Mexican drug war. This has been made completely obvious by the El Dario basically raising the white flag and surrendering to the drug lords. The drug cartel has unfairly taken control of many aspects of the way things are being handled and ran in Mexico at the moment. They have used kidnap, torture, murder, and threats to get exactly what they want which is control of the media and further freedom to do exactly what they want to do. This situation is so sad and horrifying for anybody involved in journalism in Mexico. The journalists and newspapers have lost all control and have lost their abilities to speak freely. It is such a shame.
Critical theory might be helpful in addressing this issue since the mainstream media’s agenda setting has clearly been used to maintain the US’s innocence in all the lost lives. Rarely have I heard people in the media truly holding US citizens and government agents responsible for the role we play in this violence. Should our lawmakers ever make rational decisions concerning the social problem of drug use in the US, or the media seek to truly uncover the source of this terrifying problem and the ensuing violence, perhaps a realistic solution could be made. Until then the media and the government will continue to blame narcotraffickers and the Mexican government for problems the US has a hand in. Until the US stops funneling guns used to kill people in the “war on drugs,” and US citizens satiate or overcome our escapist mentality, the media will continue to wash its hands of real investigative practices, and instead uphold the existing elitist infallibility. As Marilyn Waring might suggest, its more profitable for the US to channel black market arms and keep people addicted drugs - people who we can then blame - while the media tells us it’s not our fault.
ReplyDeleteQ 2:
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican drug cartels hold the power. The journalists, asking the cartels how what to do in the paper, explicitly acknowledges that the cartels have the power. The cartels have money, which is one of the reasons why police officers often work for the cartels rather than the saftey of the public. Also, for their self preservation. The cartels also have control of information, to the point that mainstream media journalists are scared for their lives to write the truth of what's going on. Citizens are turning to blogs and twitter, however social media is also influenced and sometimes anonomously written by the cartels. Citizens are unable to trust either media.
Q 1:
Ideally, it is in the interest of government to come up with a plan to protect journalists.
However, people in the government are involved in the drug war. The Mexican government is corrupt as is the police force. The U.S. is finally staring to pay more attention to journalists, as people are being killed, murdered and kidknapped for covering the drug war. The interest of public is to be safe, and also want to be informed. These interests clearly overlap, as writing true information about the drug war is at risk of death. The public can't trust any information, which would help them to be safe. Considering the power structure of the situation, I think it would be very interesting to consider the role of fear.
Spiral of Silence (the role of fear) would be an interesting theoretical approach to this topic.
Also, uses and gratifications (how citizens attempt to gratify their need for saftey and knowledge with media, would be a great theoretical approach.
Like everyone has previously said, in Mexico it does seem to be the local leaders and cartels that control the flow of information. Anybody who potentially benefits from the bilateral illegal drug trade between the US and Mexico is a key stakeholder. Any stakeholder will not want to jeopardise his investment - so by that logic, anyone who even vaguely features in this money equation would have some control over the flow of information. So while the journalists are always looking over the shoulder, on the flip side, the citizen media in Mexico seems to be flourishing. It seems like a great outlet for people to use, including journalists, to express themselves and get the message out to the rest of the world. Uncensored and like it is. Does this mean that over a period of time the 'media' in Mexico will cease to exist because of all the control on it?
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, none of issues on which we are all basing our case studies on, are ever covered in India. I don't know what this means, but I would think it points to a really narrow world-view for Indian, including other Asian, citizens.
I think that the US government has a huge stake in how the messages about the drug war are encoded in the media. Think about it, the drug war creates thousands of jobs and receives large amounts of taxpayer money. By sustaining it (never winning the war), the drug enforcement agency has become an extremely profitable sector. The same approach has been applied to the war on terrorism with similar results. How can you win a war against an abstract enemy? The "coup and earthquake" syndrome Anna mentioned above helps fuel public support. It shifts an American problem (consumption and abuse of drugs) to Mexico. While never directly dealing with the underline cause the war will become perpetual and can never be won. A steady supply of drugs means that DEA agents will always have a job.
ReplyDelete2. Who do you believe has the majority control of the agenda in the case of the Mexican drug war? Why?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the cartels have an implicit majority share, not an explicit one. The media still sets its agenda (especially in non-drug war related issues) how it prefers. But because of pressure from cartels, it is beginning to prefer not covering their violence. The same is true with politicians. So the cartels do not have explicit control over the media agenda, but they influence those who do control it enough that they have a de facto majority.
But in regards to the causes of the drug-related problems in Mexico, I am going to play devil's advocate on this issue, and I am probably going to piss you off in the process. Yes, the US demand for illicit drugs fuels the ability of the cartels to continue making the exorbitant amount of money that they use to fuel this war. But I believe that the US policy of making drugs illegal is the real cause for why it this is a war in the first place. While it is true that if citizens of the US stopped doing drugs, the cartels might go out of business, to believe that this might one day happen is wishful and naive. Look at prohibition. When alcohol became illegal, that did not induce people to stop using it. Economic studies have shown that demand for alcohol and other abused substances is almost completely inflexible. No matter how expensive they are or how dangerous it is to obtain them, people will still want them. Period. Prohibition only forced those who wanted to use alcohol, and those who wanted to make money providing it, to do so illegally. This spawned the famous gangsters of the 1920's who, because their highly lucrative businesses were illegal, had to use violence and corrupt officials to continue making their huge profits (which are arguably more addictive than any drug out there). They engaged in many of the same practices that Mexican cartels use now to protect and enlarge their enterprises. But when prohibition was struck down, the gangsters went away and were replaced with legitimate companies who are subject to laws, regulations, and safety standards for the products they sell, and whose huge profits are taxed by the government and turned into real benefits for the society once scourged by the consequences of their product's illegality.
What is the difference today? We are kidding ourselves if we think people are going to stop wanting or buying drugs. The War on Drugs' stated purpose is to decrease the availability and demand for illegal drugs, but it is obvious after 20 years that it has failed on its own terms. And in Mexico, with its crippled economy, there is no business in which to make better money than in the drug business. So the drug cartels will keep fighting their war because, economically, it's worth it for them and that won't change.
Still playing devil's advocate, one viable way to change the course of the war is to legitimize the drug industry, as we did with alcohol and prohibition. Make it legal to provide drugs, but regulate their production, transportation, and distribution, and *tax the hell out of them* to make money for repairing the damage the war has done. It will no longer be necessary for cartels to use violence and corrupt governments to make their profits - which after all, is the only thing they really want. Of course, this will have to be accompanied by building capacity in drug addiction treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention education. But there would no longer be blood in the streets and journalists in fresh graves. It would no longer be war, it would just be business.
Gracias a todos por sus commentarios!
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate all of your thought provoking and insightful comments. I would like to address some of them to pose some questions, point out some things I found particularly interesting and to give some other stats.
Danielle’s suggestion to look at the reporting in El Diario at the beginning of the drug war and compare it with today to see how the covering has changed and has tapered off is a great idea. I would imagine that even before the drug war started there was coverage on the corruption in Mexico with the brutality of the cartels and untrustworthiness of police and government. I would like to look further as to know how much of a change has occurred in how much coverage is done know compared to the beginning of the war. I also think the cartel has always been going out and torturing, killing, kidnapping people who they see as a threat. This may or may not have risen, maybe it is being given more attention now because of the drug war, but I am sure they have been at it for a long time.
As to who has the power in the US? Some of you have said the government, which I think is true. I think it would be interesting for a similar truth test to be done in the US with government official and police force, maybe even DEA to see what kind of corruption we have on our side. It would also be interesting see what power Mexicans living in the US have in reporting or if they still live in fear as they might think the corruption is on both sides of this border battle.
Tess commented that the US have villainized the drug lords and the Mexican government for their role in the conflict. But what I am unsure of is whether or not she thinks this is a good or bad thing. Aren’t they villains? Is it bad to portray them as such. If they were not portrayed this way, would it cut back on the violence? How else should they be labeled?
As bbybee stated, ‘the violence against both media and government workers has quickly left them powerless.’ Is this absolutely true or could one say that in a way the some people in media and government have sought out a different type of power by being in cahoots with the cartels?
I really enjoyed how Brooke dissected the three article our group posted. She provided a different outlook and really made me look at the differences of the articles in a different way. I think the statement that the interests do not overlap is interesting. Is she referring to the articles or to the agenda of the cartel, police, policy makers, and public?
Leanna love the term you used: narco-politicians. Did you read this somewhere or come up with it yourself. I think it is a great way of describing what these people really are.
Jean-Pierre I really appreciate this perspective on the issue. I had not looked at the US government’s involvement in this way. So, would you say the US is really making a conscious effort to keep the war going? Does this mean it won’t ever end? And if it does what does this mean for DEA? Will look elsewhere to stir up problems, even a war, to keep their jobs?
ReplyDeleteRoshan I think you make many valid points. I am interested with what you had to say about when prohibition ended and the gangsters were ‘replaced’ with legitimate companies. I brought up our class projects tonight at dinner with my family. We began to discuss the legalization of drugs. My father said he read in an article, maybe in the Economist although I was unable to find it, about this. They have published many articles about Mexico and the drug war and the legalization of drugs. However, the particular article we discussed said that when drugs are legalized it does somewhat ‘replace’ these gangsters, but also has effects not mentioned in your comment. He said that there has been evidence that even when a drug is legalized the street aspect of it is NOT replaced. It has actually been shown to RISE. I will continue my search for this article and let you all know.
I apologize I did not make a comment for everyone’s feedback, but I truly appreciate your thoughts.
Here is a link to Blog del Narco. It can be translated into 52 languages and it a rare type of coverage amidst the violence towards the mainstream media journalists. It does state on the site that it is 100% anonymous. There has been speculation in mainstream articles as to who is sending in the information posted on the blog. Some argue that it comes from the cartels. We cannot be sure who it comes from. I think it comes from all walks of life. Regardless, it offers some fascinating, yet gruesome, coverage.
http://www.blogdelnarco.com/
2. Who do you believe has the majority control of the agenda in the case of the Mexican drug war? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe US is the primary culprit because if we simply legalized drugs, there would be no demand. Prices would drop allowing for a fair market to emerge and a legal trade. I agree with Roshan, that there will always be a demand for drugs, and the easiest way to get rid of the Cartels is to make the business they are in legal. I think honestly, this is the obvious easy way, which scholars studying the issue would agree is the best solution. Roshan explained the details so repeating it will sound redundant but I do think this is the obvious way to solve the problem. The US is demanding this product, so legalize it. Once that happens the Cartels and their business will automatically die. I doubt this will ever happen. It won't because the US drug war is one US citizens are 'morally' invested in and the solution the smartest people give -legalizing the trade- is one message American citizens don't want because it goes against the image of the morality of the US people. There is no President who would get elected on that ticket, 'legalize the drug trade.' So, instead we perpetuate the cycle, perpetuate and fuel violence and kill 28,000 people in the long run.
3. What are other possible theoretical approaches that might be helpful in the analysis of this situation? Why?
I think both the critical theory and the spiral of silence used in our US kill team articles would apply here as well. In that sense I’m in agreement with ‘bbybee’ who also suggested both. The spiral of silence would apply to the Journalists who increasingly become silenced from fear for their lives, as Lynn and Jenn point out.
Critical theory, as Danielle points out, would speak of the power dynamics underlying the realities. I we use critical theory, which states that different groups have different powers, we would see who sets the stage for a Cartel to run an illegal business and a country. Again, not to sound repetitive in all my answers, I have to say it's the US. So I disagree with so many of you who say it's the cartels. Yes, 'technically' they have the power. But the US and its citizens set the agenda, and everyone else, just responds to it. The US plays the fiddle, while Mexicans dance to the tune.
Finally a comment to Dhvani's thought that social media could take over the media scene in Mexico. Governments are heavily invested in self-propaganda. Generally their mainstream news is a lifeline and blood. We will never see mainstream media go away, regardless of the little demand a culture will have on it. It's a very valuable tool for governments to use. I doubt they will relinquish it any time soon.
Dhvani it’s also not a bad thing you don't know about this issue. You have a neighboring country going through very similar things and you are possibly regionally more aware of that. Afghanistan and the poppy seed trade. I wonder if you don't know about that problem, and if you don't then I would be a little disturbed the Indian government does not speak of things relating to it's region.