I am increasingly finding myself analyzing the Mexico narrative as it’s told by different media outlets. Just this past week brought us another ludicrous example with The Atlantic magazine publishing an article titled “A Planeload of Informants” with the subtitle: “The United States is intensifying its hunt for narcos within the Mexican government. Is this all prelude to an attack?”
I guess The Atlantic was feeling left out of the party by other large media outlets writing breathtakingly sensationalist articles about Mexico. If you remember, leading up to the World Cup, The Economist magazine informed its readers that: “The World Cup will test Mexico’s control over its territory.” The Wall Street Journal told us that the “World Cup puts Mexico’s Cartel Crisis on the Global Stage.” And the New York Times has written at length of experts confidently predicting Mexico would enter a period of increasing violence after the February government operation against CJNG leader Mencho.
But they have all been wrong. Totally wrong. The post-Mencho spiral of violence? It didn’t happen. In fact, Mexico has seen its homicide rates hitting lows not seen in over a decade. The “World Cup test” of Mexico against the cartels? There was no test. The world watched with envy as foreigners partied alongside Mexicans across the country. Not a single article has been written acknowledging getting things so wrong. And so now we have the media moving on to the next big story: A potential attack by the United States on Mexico.
Let’s be clear about the history here: Mexico has, for decades, genuinely struggled with cartel violence, and I am not arguing otherwise. But what these outlets consistently omit is the context of the last year. Cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico against cartels is, in the words of officials on both sides, at unprecedented levels — a shift I’ve tracked in real time (see my columns on the World Cup coverage and Mexico’s business community). The result of that cooperation isn’t more violence; it’s homicides down by almost 50% this year. Apparently good news doesn’t sell subscriptions.
Which brings me to two personal anecdotes from this past week that I want to share:
Cancelling a 30-year subscription
The first took place at a friend’s dinner party in Mexico City. A few hours into some good conversation, he (quite randomly) asked me: “Do you still read The Economist magazine?” To which I responded that I do. He then said: “I have been a loyal subscriber for over 30 years, but I am about to cancel it. I am done with them.” His reasoning was enlightening: “I am tired of the narrative of their coverage. By cancelling my subscription with them, I am choosing to not pay attention to the reality that they are presenting.” He went on: “The predictive power of their writers and editors has changed … and as a result they are just flat out wrong on many topics.”
The words stuck with me as I have been increasingly feeling the same about The Economist. In just the past few months, I have actually written twice about how intellectually lazy, disingenuous and downright wrong their coverage has been regarding Mexico. Increasingly, as I read their coverage on the country, I have found myself wondering, “Why am I reading this? It’s not accurate. It’s sensationalist. And it doesn’t represent reality. Why am I paying to read something that I think is just plain wrong?”
As my friend’s cancellation shows, his decision reflects a broader pattern I’m seeing: As irresponsible coverage piles up, readers simply stop trusting — and stop paying for — outlets they once considered essential.
The conversation went further with others at the party explaining that, in contrast, they read Mexico News Daily precisely because it “provides optimism by showing me the Mexico that I want to believe exists today and believe can exist in the future.” The comment wasn’t made out of ignorance or a lack of information, but rather in a way that reinforced the optimism they have for Mexico. Said differently, they are choosing to align with a narrative of informed optimism versus colonialist click-bait pessimism. It’s unfortunate to increasingly see people tuning out of legacy media, but it’s easy to understand why they are doing it. As many outlets increasingly present a pessimistic, dystopian, doom-and-gloom view of much of the world — one that increasingly is out of touch with reality — many people are choosing to tune out.
The Economist’s Elon Musk interview
The second anecdote came earlier this week when I watched The Economist’s editor-in-chief, Zanny Minton Beddoes, interview Tesla/SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. The nearly 90-minute-long interview went on fine for the first hour, but then turned decidedly testy. Ms. Beddoes at one point begins to take issue with Musk’s assessment of the current state of the U.K. (where The Economist is based and where she lives). She questioned his motives, repeatedly said he was incorrect, accused him of supporting “fringe” and “far right” parties and questioned when he had last visited the U.K. To be clear, the point here is not whether Musk’s take on the U.K. is right or wrong, that’s a separate debate entirely.
Here you have the head of The Economist, the British publication that has increasingly misconstrued, misrepresented and irresponsibly presented other countries around the world, getting extremely defensive about someone questioning the U.K. She repeatedly took offense to any of Musk’s critiques of her own country, claiming “People say that you’re racist,” “people loathe you,” “What is the motivation for [participating in tribalism]?” It was quite shocking to see the head of a publication that for decades has portrayed much of the rest of the world as dangerous, backwards and corrupt take so much offense to someone questioning the current state and future direction of her own country.
As she waged increasingly personal attacks against Musk, he finally had enough and responded with a dagger: “A lot more people hate you, the media — more than you realize. Do you realize the media is despised? Do you realize … the favorable view of journalists is like 15%? … They hate you.” It was a striking moment. Her defensiveness made her and her publication feel small, out of touch, aloof. It was a moment where I found myself even further questioning the true motives of The Economist.
Musk’s jab about journalism’s approval rating isn’t just a soundbite — it’s the direct consequence of the pattern I described above. When outlets choose sensationalism over accuracy, they erode trust in journalism broadly, pushing people toward sources — credible or not — that at least feel honest to them.
Is The Economist really trying to live by its founding mission from 179 years ago of taking part “in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress”? Or are they more likely contributing to the obstruction of progress with increasingly ignorant and biased journalism? If the latter is in fact the case, as I sadly suspect it is, they will likely experience more people like my friend moving on.
I strongly believe that the role of the media is more important than ever. But we in the media also needs to work harder than ever to earn your trust and respect — and many outlets seem to have forgotten that.
Thank you for reading and supporting MND.
Travis Bembenek is the CEO of Mexico News Daily and has been living, working or playing in Mexico for nearly 30 years.
