Latin America may be recognized preeminently for its indigenous origins, cultural celebrations, ancient ruins, charismatic music and delightful food, but the media’s representation of Latin America wasn’t always ingenuous. Throughout the years, countries like Mexico, Nicaragua and Guatemala have been slandered in the media due to the high rates of crime and violence that occurs. As insightful as you may concur the media to be, their sources and information may not always be 100 percent true. Times of crisis in Latin America have turned into a playground for the media, they are able to report on said events and have the ability to place their opinion into the headline. The alteration of media has not just become a recent method of foreign portrayal,
…show more content…
While the agreement appeared promising, it was all but the opposite. The agreement led to Mexican land owners to be stripped of their land or have their land be repurposed to harvest certain crops. The people of Mexico formed rebellions in order to fight off this agreement. On January 1st 1994, a primarily indigenous rebel group, the Zapatista National Liberation Army, or EZLN, declared war on the Mexican government. The EZLN discussed demands amongst their people and the Mexican government, demands that included fair democratic elections, subsidization of Chiapas for all of its resources and a revision of NAFTA. While certain demands of the Zapatistas haven’t been met, news outlets have declared the situation as a stalemate. Stalemates don’t do well for news outlets as they are forced to report the same information over and over again. A writer for Cable News Network (CNN) pronounced the rebellion of Chiapas unimportant and claims that Mexicans express that there are more important things to be taken care of in Mexico. Harris Whitbeck wrote, “interest in the Chiapas problem seems to be waning. Most Mexicans seem to feel that the conflict has dragged on for too long and that it is not the most urgent problem the country faces today.” In his report he does not include actual words or interviews of the Mexican people that support this claim. Is this the media finding its separation between the rebellion of Chiapas or is this the media declaring it unimportant or “old news”? Removing the coverage of media could allow for certain actions to continue under the
While the agreement appeared promising, it was all but the opposite. The agreement led to Mexican land owners to be stripped of their land or have their land be repurposed to harvest certain crops. The people of Mexico formed rebellions in order to fight off this agreement. On January 1st 1994, a primarily indigenous rebel group, the Zapatista National Liberation Army, or EZLN, declared war on the Mexican government. The EZLN discussed demands amongst their people and the Mexican government, demands that included fair democratic elections, subsidization of Chiapas for all of its resources and a revision of NAFTA. While certain demands of the Zapatistas haven’t been met, news outlets have declared the situation as a stalemate. Stalemates don’t do well for news outlets as they are forced to report the same information over and over again. A writer for Cable News Network (CNN) pronounced the rebellion of Chiapas unimportant and claims that Mexicans express that there are more important things to be taken care of in Mexico. Harris Whitbeck wrote, “interest in the Chiapas problem seems to be waning. Most Mexicans seem to feel that the conflict has dragged on for too long and that it is not the most urgent problem the country faces today.” In his report he does not include actual words or interviews of the Mexican people that support this claim. Is this the media finding its separation between the rebellion of Chiapas or is this the media declaring it unimportant or “old news”? Removing the coverage of media could allow for certain actions to continue under the