Man Bites Dog
"Man Bites Dog" is a journalism aphorism describing how news publications favor out-of-the-ordinary events over more common ones. It is an apt description of how the U.S. media in particular reports on events in Mexico.
The singular focus of the U.S. media
Cartel violence in Mexico is a real thing: it is a chronic and consistent criminal activity, and it impacts components of Mexican society in cruel and insidious ways. It should not be glossed over or trivialized. And the U.S. media loves to report on it. It is sensational. It is gruesome. It invites readers to click on headlines. Cartel violence owns such a large mindshare of U.S. reporting that, seen through the lens of the media, Mexico appears to be a place of constant brutality and bloodshed.
But there are important characteristics of cartel violence that the media ignores. Characteristics that are irrelevant to the click-bait nature of modern journalism. These characteristics include:
Cartel violence rarely targets people who are not engaged in cartel activities 1
Cartel violence even more rarely involves tourists or U.S. and Canadian immigrants 2
Cartel violence is somewhat localized to particular areas in Mexico, with a larger and more entrenched presence in some U.S./Mexico border cities and towns
The upshot of the news media's reporting on Mexico is that many (most?) people in the U.S. and Canada think of Mexico as a profoundly dangerous place. Many of the reactions I get when I tell people about my travels in Mexico are along the lines of "Mexico? It's so dangerous there! Didn't you read about [insert latest sensationalist news item]?"
But let's reverse the perspective: let's look at the United States through the lens of a foreign press that is focused on violent and sensationalist events in that country. It is easy to paint a portrait of the United States as a place where there is a constant threat of being killed by mass shootings, targeted hate crimes, road rage, racist law enforcement officers, etc. From the outside-in (and for some communities, from the inside-in), the U.S. looks like a lawless free-for-all of gun-wielding lunatics. And of course, sometimes it is. But that is not a complete portrait of life in the U.S., is it? Similarly, what you read about Mexico is not a complete portrait of life in Mexico.
The news media's primary job is not to inform you, but to demonstrate value to its advertisers so those advertisers will keep advertising. It does this by driving eyeballs to articles. And our innate fascination with the extreme, with the unordinary, is the template by which the media defines its front page.
While the economics behind today's journalism isn't the focus of this article, it is critical in understanding why so many people in the U.S. have a negative perception of Mexico, and why that perception is warped.
Don't ignore the news, but understand it for what it is, and what it isn't. And definitely what it isn't is a fair and accurate portrait of Mexico, or anywhere else.
Meanwhile, back in the real world
Mexico is by far the most popular destination for U.S. immigrants 3. According to 2019 statistics, three times as many people from the U.S. have immigrated to Mexico than to the second most immigrated to country (Canada). The same is true for tourism: Mexico is the most visited foreign country by people from the U.S., again by a factor of about 3 over the next most visited destination (Canada again). In 2019, 41 million people from the U.S. (about 12% of the population) visited or lived in Mexico.
We humans don't tend to rush toward danger, let alone buy airplane tickets to it by the millions. There must be something else at play here - and there is: namely, that for most people most of the time, Mexico is not a dangerous country. For most people most of the time, the U.S. is not a dangerous country 4. The boring truth is that there are bad actors everywhere. They are not unique to Mexico, or Latin America, or wherever. And those bad actors are a small enough subset that us good (or benign or not quite so bad) actors don't have to hole up in caves to avoid them, despite what The New York Times might tell you.
["Newspaper" by rnv123 is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.]
"engaged in" here refers to both those working for cartels and those working against it - such as politicians, journalists, law enforcement, etc. This is an important clarification, as cartel violence does target non-criminals. ↩︎
Again, unless these people are engaged in cartel activities either directly or indirectly ↩︎
I use the term "immigrants" when most publications would use the word "expat". Functionally in the context of my writing, the terms are synonymous. I prefer to use "immigrant" because that term is more universally accepted for describing a person who moves from their country of birth or citizenship to a different country. In the U.S., however, the term "immigrant" is commonly used in a racially divided manner: for example, Mexicans who relocate to the U.S. are commonly referred to as "immigrants from Mexico", and Britains who relocate the U.S. are commonly referred to as "British expats"; similarly, people from the U.S. who relocate to other countries commonly refer to themselves as "expats" and not "immigrants". This racial and geographic distinction carries the baggage of privilege, especially when seen through the eyes of those whom we tag as "immigrants". Thus I will endeavor to avoid the term "expat" in favor of the more accurate term "immigrant". ↩︎
This statement might be less true for some demographic segments of the U.S. population ↩︎