PressEthic

Admittedly, Lopez Obrador is more controversial, more flamboyant and has provided the circus sideline which creates news more juicy than routine election coverage. Felipe Calderon, in contrast, is politically and visually more conservative to the camera and the pen.

In a sampling of articles from The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune nearly all provide great detail about the supporters of Obrador, the candidate's most recent pronouncements and actions and the possibilities a shadow government could have on Mexican politics. Felipe Calderon generally is listed almost as an obligatory sideline as the de-facto winner of the presidential election.

This is news. However, rather than being swept into a cult of personalities, wouldn't readers in the United States be better served by fleshing out the details of why Mexico is so markedly split in its political sentiments? Could not coverage highlight more of the economic and political realities which have caused a leftward swing in Latin American politics? The fact that every elected official in Mexico is lame duck the moment they are elected due to constitutionally set term limits could shed some light, for readers in the United States, as to why corruption can swing so far out of hand.

These are the facts that readers should be made aware of, providing depth and narrative to help explain the democratic system of our closest neighbor to the south. Otherwise, an audience relying solely on the lens media provides regarding Mexico remain ignorant, creating false comparisons to the democracy which we hold in the United States to the system developed out of historical necessity in Mexico.