Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
from the for-all-sides... dept
A few years back, we had noted that Mexican gangs were actually some of the earlier adopters of YouTube, using it as a communications platform, posting videos of the different crimes they had committed and communicating with and taunting other gangs. So, perhaps it’s no surprise that a recently launched blog, run by an anonymous blogger has now become the go-to source for people on all sides of Mexico’s raging drug war. Apparently both gangs and law enforcement are regularly sending the blog exclusive information, photos and videos, hoping to get them more widespread attention among others in the drug war. The anonymous site owner is careful to stay “neutral” in posting all of this stuff, though that has some attacking him for not abiding by his journalistic “social responsibility.” While I recognize where that worry comes from, I actually think that’s what makes this story so interesting. By creating a sort of neutral “middle ground” platform, a lot more information is making it out to everyone involved. If anything, it sounds like this “professional journalist” is just jealous:
“Media outlets have social responsibilities and have to serve the public,” said Carlos Lauria, of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. “This is being produced by someone who is not doing it from a journalistic perspective. He is doing it without any ethical considerations.”
Ethical considerations like repeating bogus statements from officials rather than getting to the actual meat of a story? Ethical considerations like reprinting press releases without fact checking? What “journalistic perspective” does Lauria think is being ignored here, and why is there some mythical standard that this blogger needs to live up to?
Filed Under: blogs, drug wars, journalism, mexico
Comments on “Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset”
I love how Ms. Lauria automatically equate “professional journalists” and “being ethical”.
If anything, a paid journalist who has money on the line would be less neutral, whereas an anonymous blogger who has nothing to gain except perhaps secret pleasure of owning a site that many visits would be more neutral.
What would be really funny, would be a Fox Network interview of Ms. Lauria and her statements. I don’t think anyone would be able to keep a straight face while watching that.
Suggestion, perhaps Ms. Lauria should get some of that journalism warning labels and start using them. Perhaps that will make her statements carry more weight.
Re: Re:
First, it is MR. Lauria and I think the “ethical” questions he raises might have to do with giving free unfiltered publicity to cartels who have murdered 30 journalists in Mexico since 2006.
Journalists in Mexico live in fear for their lives. It is considered the most dangerous place in the world to be a journalist. They can’t report on this stuff because they are under death threats.
And it is so corrupt that journalists have been beaten and threatened by police and military.
The fact they haven’t come after the blogger either means they can’t find him or his posting the videos works in the cartels’ favor, or both.
Re: Re: Re:
You think he should charge for unfiltered publicity?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, you know what I mean. He’s giving them a bigger audience and making it one stop shopping rather than having to search for the cartel videos on YouTube.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yes, that’s true, but that doesn’t make it any less news-worthy.
The journalists that are complaining haven’t chosen not to write about this issue because of any moral reasons. They’ve chosen not to report about this issue because they’re afraid of being hurt, and now they’re mad that they’ve been scooped by someone with better digital walls.
None of that makes this information and the videos less news-worthy. 😛
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, they’re probably reacting due to things like this.
“The Zetas drug gang, a rival of the Sinaloa cartel, first drew attention to the scandal by kidnapping a local police officer and forcing him to describe the scheme on a video posted to a website that specializes in drug underworld information.
The Sinaloa cartel responded by posting videos in which men identifying themselves as police officers described how they cooperated with the Zetas.
The Sinaloa cartel then apparently kidnapped the journalists to demand that the television stations they work for air the video clips. Fearing for the safety of the journalists, one of the stations did so briefly.”
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/08/05/1290548/mexico-nabs-3-suspects-in-journalist.html#ixzz0wc4KGuLt
And they’re not afraid of being “hurt.” They are afraid of being killed.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I’m reasonably sure that a violent death hurts, thus qualifying as ‘hurt’.
Regardless, all of this is newsworthy. None of this is a reason not to report the news.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Is it newsworthy enough that it might get someone killed? Is it newsworthy enough that it doesn’t matter that it is being used as propaganda and intimidation by rival drug cartels?
What exactly is the newsworthiness beyond a voyeuristic pleasure from the gore? Could the same information have been brought to light without the video? Do we need to see the results of a massacre?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Do you prefer to live in a world of make believe?
Besides the gore is useful, if it was not why do they force big tobacco companies to show what happens? Why do they show how you will end up when you use drugs?
Get one unadulterated place for news and let others decide how they will show that crap.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I think most people would be shocked, I certainly lost the voyegeristic tendencies with the years, when I was young and stupid I liked that stuff, but I think I’m getting old because it makes me sick now.
Do you think more people end up like me?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I cannot figure out what you are saying.
> The Sinaloa cartel then apparently kidnapped the
> journalists to demand that the television stations they
> work for air the video clips. Fearing for the safety of
> the journalists, one of the stations did so briefly.
So wouldn’t the fact that Blog del Narco is showing the videos help normal journalists? They could say, “Just send the video to Blog del Narco and stop harrassing me”?
> Do we need to see the results of a massacre?
You don’t have to watch. You have to let go of your outdated understanding of the news. “Push” media is gone. We don’t need journalist telling us how to think. If I want to know what is going on, I can go look for myself. Frankly, we’re all smarter than our newscasters. This is the same argument used against Craigslist and prostitution. More unfiltered information can’t be a bad thing.
> It doesn’t bother you that 4 journalists were kidnapped …
Put the blame on the people doing the killing and kidnapping, not Blog del Narco.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
>>>So wouldn’t the fact that Blog del Narco is showing the videos help normal journalists? They could say, “Just send the video to Blog del Narco and stop harrassing me”?
You should have read on. The video was on the Narco site.
“The Zetas drug gang, a rival of the Sinaloa cartel, first drew attention to the scandal by kidnapping a local police officer and forcing him to describe the scheme on a video posted to a website that specializes in drug underworld information.”
The site is being used by drug cartels as propaganda and the blogger’s willingness to throw anything out there aids their cause. In fact, it’s being used by law enforcement as well.
So, let’s put it all out there. To hell with anyone’s safety. We want our news unfiltered so we can judge for ourselves even though we might not have the slightest clue as to what a situation is. After all, we’re smarter than those guys who cover it for a living and know more about an issue or situation than we do.
I suppose you would have no problem if WikiLeaks just shoveled the documents they have onto the web without any concern for names of local people who are helping the US in Afghanistan. If they get killed by the Taliban, so what? That’s not wikileak’s fault. It’s the fault of the Taliban. That guy has an agenda but at least he has some consideration about “collateral damage.”
To me, while narco does provide some useful info and is able to show what the mainstream can’t, it is indiscriminate in what it throws out there. It serves as a propaganda arm of the cartels. It’s the old adage, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
So, let’s put it all out there. To hell with anyone’s safety. We want our news unfiltered so we can judge for ourselves even though we might not have the slightest clue as to what a situation is. After all, we’re smarter than those guys who cover it for a living and know more about an issue or situation than we do.
And that’s what it boils down to, isn’t it? You want to make the news what you consider to be “safe”. You want to “filter” it and decide what the public should and shouldn’t know. You think that you’re “smarter” than everyone else. You think that “journalists” should be gatekeepers that tell people what to think. Well, you can take your self-important, egotistical, elitist, censored, freedom hating, fascist so-called-news and put it you-know-where. As for me, I’ll take the truth and make up my own mind.
Have a nice day.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Imagine this scenario. You witness a drug cartel gun down a local cop. The police say they have a witness that can identify the killers. Then, security camera footage shows up on a website and there you are, the only witness. According to you, that’s okay. The website should not have taken any steps to blur your image? They shouldn’t have been a “gatekeeper” to protect you?
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Is that the kind of thing that’s actually happening? Do you have any evidence that what this blog is doing is endangering anyone? Any evidence that these gangs wouldn’t have kidnapped any cops if the blog didn’t exist? That these videos wouldn’t show up somewhere else instead?
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
How is the public release of your image any more damaging than the public release of your image that would happen when a bad cop gave it out?
This is the reality of the situation:
The reporters, for whatever reason, weren’t reporting. People were not getting the information that they needed, like what areas to avoid during time of violence. This guy has stepped up and filled that gap.
“The gangs are using it to project their power, law enforcement to show that it too can play rough, and the public to learn about incidents that the mainstream media are forced to ignore or play down.
In at least one case Blog del Narco may have led to a major arrest — of a prison warden after a video posting detailed her alleged system of setting inmates free at night to carry out killings for a drug cartel.”
This is the reality. Your bullshit is just conjecture typed out to try and hide the fact that your position is defenseless.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
>>>How is the public release of your image any more damaging than the public release of your image that would happen when a bad cop gave it out?
So, you’re saying the blogger has the same morals as a corrupt cop?
>>>People were not getting the information that they needed, like what areas to avoid during time of violence. This guy has stepped up and filled that gap.
I’m not arguing that point
>>>In at least one case Blog del Narco may have led to a major arrest — of a prison warden after a video posting detailed her alleged system of setting inmates free at night to carry out killings for a drug cartel.”
Right. A video taken by a rival cartel sent to del narco to eliminate the competition. Sure, in this case it has a positive outcome, but by the same token, another video could lead to the deaths of innocents.
I brought up the wiki leaks guy. Even he understands the idea that he needs to edit the documents in his possession to safeguard lives.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
So, you’re saying the blogger has the same morals as a corrupt cop?
No. You can’t tell I didn’t make that statement by the fact that I didn’t make that statement.
I’m saying that it doesn’t make sense to put people at risk (the regular citizens who need information to stay safe) in order to safeguard information (the hypothetical witness) that’s going to get out, anyway.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Everything they said, but with this caveat:
After all, we’re smarter than those guys who cover it for a living and know more about an issue or situation than we do.
They’re not covering it, now are they? If they were, this niche wouldn’t even have been there for this guy to fill.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
No, they aren’t because they can’t. I don’t disagree that he is filling a void, I just question his throwing everything he gets up there without any without any ethical considerations such as is he being used by the cartels and/or the govt.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
No, they aren’t because they can’t.
First, find a dictionary. Second, reread that sentence. Third, take your new understand of the word ‘can’t‘, and note that they are choosing not to. It’s a reasonable choice, but it is a choice.
I just question his throwing everything he gets up there without any without any ethical considerations…
What makes you think that he hasn’t thought through the ethical considerations? The fact that someone attorney in New York thinks it’s unethical? The most you could get from that is that they disagree, not that his continued site operation somehow signals a complete lack of thought about what he’s doing. Sheesh.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
>>What makes you think that he hasn’t thought through the ethical considerations?
The article itself calls it “undifferentiated content.” Is it ethical to air a video by a cartel that serves to intimidate local residents?
What ever happened to the idea that just because you can doesn’t mean you should?
Let’s look at it from a different perspective. Do you go around blabbing everything you know or do you self-censor? Say you’re at a dinner party and get seated next to someone who you know everyone dislikes. Do you tell them that no one likes them? It’s true, but should you say it?
And regarding that prison video that got the warden arrested. The blogger aired a video of a cop confessing to their involvement with a rival cartel, with a gun to his head. It turned out to be true, but how did the blogger know it was true when he posted the video? Did he do any investigation to find out the validity of the confession or was it just a confession because he had a gun to his head? That’s the kind of thing that Lauria was talking about.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Nice way to not reply to what I said.
The article itself calls it “undifferentiated content.” Is it ethical to air a video by a cartel that serves to intimidate local residents?
So the article expresses that this guy has chosen to show everything. It does not say that he didn’t think about the ethical considerations first.
I get that you disagree with this, but your position (obviously) isn’t the only positions that people can take on the ethics of this. You keep assuming that he just hasn’t though about it, when the truth is probably that he just disagrees with you.
Personally, I feel like the help that these citizens are getting outweighs the benefits to the cartels, so it’s worth it, ethically.
…how did the blogger know it was true when he posted the video? That’s the kind of thing that Lauria was talking about.
That’s hilarious. Really, truly hilarious. The only difference between this guy and America’s mainstream media is that this guy isn’t commenting on it. Our MSM would report it as well, you know. The MSM would just say that they were reporting what people are saying about the video, which is even more irresponsible.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
>>>So the article expresses that this guy has chosen to show everything. It does not say that he didn’t think about the ethical considerations first.
Maybe he did, but chose to ignore them.
>>>Personally, I feel like the help that these citizens are getting outweighs the benefits to the cartels, so it’s worth it, ethically.
It does help citizens but like I said, just throwing it all up there gives the cartels a platform to intimidate the residents as well. But why show video that is nothing more than a blatant attempt at propaganda or intimidation?
People who live in those places know of the brutality of the gangs. Is it necessary to show it all? Do you feel cheated that the news media in this country didn’t show Daniel Pearl getting his throat slit?
I’m not saying he should be shut down. If the blog wants to give people useful information to keep them safer, fine. I just don’t understand why he gives a platform to the cartels. How does a video of a cop with a gun to his head “inform” anyone? And what is it informing them about?
>>>That’s hilarious. Really, truly hilarious. The only difference between this guy and America’s mainstream media is that this guy isn’t commenting on it.
Man, you guys just don’t get it, do you? According to your standards there should be no filtering at all. It doesn’t matter that what you are watching/reading/hearing is true or false.
No matter how smart we think we are, we can’t make informed judgments on everything.
So, I guess it’s okay to run “uncommented” a video done by a big pharma company that says their new cancer drug is 100% effective in curing cancer? Why not? They gave it to the news station. It’s not their position to comment on it.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
No, according to our standards, you shouldn’t be able to decide what his standards are. I’m not saying that I agree with his choices, but I agree with his right to make those choices, and make them differently than I would.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Also, news stations practically do that already. In fact, they’re worse because our media pretends to be unbiased and gives crap claims more credence just by airing them.
Re: Re: “Ms”
Apparently “Ms” is supposed to be gender-neutral.
With apologies to people of non-gender…
Re: Re: Re:
First, it is MR. Lauria and I think the “ethical” questions he raises might have to do with giving free unfiltered publicity to cartels who have murdered 30 journalists in Mexico since 2006.
Because everyone knows that political correctness is so much more important than the truth, especially for “professional” journalists.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What does political correctness have to do with it?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
What does political correctness have to do with it?
That’s a very good question. Since you were the one espousing it, perhaps you should tell us.
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/18/mexico-journalists-increasingly-endangered-species/
I guess a question to ask is “what’s more important, journalism or the truth?”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The truth is good but not at the expense of human lives. But where do you draw the line between truth and propaganda?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
‘Real’ journalists don’t. Why should citizen journalists?
Oh wait. Is this an admission that bloggers are, infact, journalists and therefore covered under the same guidelines as journalists such as not being made to give up their sources?
Journalistic Ethics
Ethical considerations like repeating bogus statements from officials rather than getting to the actual meat of a story?
Yes!
Ethical considerations like reprinting press releases without fact checking?
Of course!
Maybe we’ll make a journalist out of you yet, Mike.
Id much rather see all sides and decide what i want to believe than be spoonfed with packaged stories from the media. Might take longer to get to the supposed truth but atleast it will most likely be there.
Re: Re:
The truth is that the drug war is responsible for the existence of gangs. Just like with prohibition. There is one very simple way to practically eliminate gangs and substantially reduce gang violence. Legalize drugs.
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed.
Re: Re: Re:
with RESPONSABILITY !
Re: Re: Re:
The truth is that the drug war is responsible for the existence of gangs.
I disagree. There were gangs long before the drug wars started. The drugs are how gangs make their money. The drugs are a tool used by the gangs to fund their expenses. If there weren’t drugs, there would still be gangs, as there were before. Only their source of income would change.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There would be but there would be substantially fewer gangs. Much of the reasons gangs exist is to make money, if there is no money to be made it would mostly defeat the purpose of their existence.
I mean, sure, the KKK and whatnot existed before modern drug gangs, so gangs would still exist. but there would be far fewer.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
errr…. what I should have said, and what more importantly highlights my point, is that
the KKK and whatnot existed independently of the drug war *
Re: Re: Re: Drug Wars => Gangs
Ron Rezendes riposted:
But they weren’t making their money that way back when the drugs weren’t so expensive. And they weren’t so expensive when they weren’t prohibited.
Re: Re: Re:
No, criminal’s interest in making money off of the suffering of others is the reason that gangs and these “cartels” exist. Even if all chemical substances were made readily accessible to all people, without the need for prescriptions, these gangs would find something else to terrorize regions for. It just so happens that their current motivation is to sell certain drugs.
The “War on Drugs” has been a magnificent failure, but it is because the governments in and around the world(for the most part) have not been willing to go far enough. Really though, there is no way to win this farce of a “war”. It still does not mean that government should just give in and let everyone have access to any type of chemical compound they wish.
Now, if government were to tell the people that all drugs were, from this day forward, available to anyone that wants them, with the caveat that taxpayer money will not be available to cure them of their drug habit, then I am all for it. I refuse to see our money to go to people that willingly abuse drugs. If you want to abuse drugs, then you will have to pay for your rehabilitation if and when your use of that drug, or drugs, becomes a problem.
Where do we draw the line? Should we let eight year old children start mainlining cocaine? Should we let 14 year old children start popping OxyContin? Perhaps we should let everyone, from two years old to eighty years old start smoking marijuana. I mean, it comes from the earth, so it has to be good for your body. Of course, narcotics(morphine, codine, oxycodone, etc) comes from the earth too, so that logic is a complete failure.
So, where is the line drawn and how would such a measure be implemented?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with you for the most part, Montezuma, but comparing marijuana to refined drugs is silly. Comparing it to raw coca leaves would be much closer. Coca leaves are pretty much safe, as long as you don’t break down the components of them and refine it. And even that’s silly, because straight up THC doesn’t do any more harm than smoking weed (probably less since it doesn’t have the carcinogens that you get from burning a plant.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Let’s all be clear. No one has died smoking pot. Tens of thousands have died from alcohol poisoning (not to mention accidents). Thousands die every year from aspirin! Pot is non-toxic. I would much rather have my son smoke pot than drink alcohol. It is not even close.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Actually, incorrect on all counts. Pot is as toxic as anything else you smoke, including cigarettes. That is because a large amount of the carcinogens are created by the actual process of burning, as are toxins like carbon monoxide. Plus, who uses proper filters on their joints?
So smoking a joint is as dangerous as smoking a cigarette, and doing either in any quantity is still of comparable danger to drinking more than small amounts of alcohol.
(from an ex-smoking cessation advisor)
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
> Plus, who uses proper filters on their joints?
You are correct, that burning releases toxins. Most regular pot smokers use water filters or vaporizers. But with any toxin, as you know, dosage is the key. The average pot smoker smokes 10x less than the average cigarette smoker. (So if it takes 20 years to get lung cancer from cigarettes, it will take 200 from pot.)
To say it is as dangerous as smoking a cigarette or drinking is just retarded. Go look at the numbers of annual deaths due to smoking, drinking, and pot.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps we should let everyone, from two years old to … blah blah blah…
THINK OF THE CHILDREN! EVERYTHING MUST BE CHILD APPROPRIATE!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We should draw the line where we already draw the line for addictive, immediately dangerous substances. At age 21.
Ethical considerations?
Judith Miller, eat your heart out.
AP Hypocrisy
You know what’s even more interesting than the story that you linked to? The fact that AP takes a screenshot of the blog’s photo and then claim’s ownership of the photo in the story. Just because they left part of the computer program showing apparently negates any copyright claim that this anonymous blogger has.
Re: AP Hypocrisy
Do as I say not as I do.
Re: AP Hypocrisy
Same thing with “hot news”: AP only wants it applied to others.
Carlos Lauria doesn’t even make any sense. The MSM occasionally interviews and deals with terrorists, often interviews and deals with criminals, routinely accepts information from anonymous sources, etc.
The internet is killing yellow journalism
So ummm.....
Why has no one gone after Big Pharma? They’re a gang, they sell drugs, they charge huge sums of money, they’re product is “needed”.
Journalism
“Media outlets have social responsibilities and have to serve the public,” said Carlos Lauria, of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. “This is being produced by someone who is not doing it from a journalistic perspective. He is doing it without any ethical considerations.”
Sounds disturbingly like the arguments Hitler used when he guided journalists to “ethical” journalism.
@Montezuma
“The “War on Drugs” has been a magnificent failure, but it is because the governments in and around the world(for the most part) have not been willing to go far enough”
What is “far enough”? Cameras on our bedrooms? The war on drugs is a failure because you can’t control human behaviour by force. That simple. There is an alternative. It’s called harm reduction. As it has been proven by those countries where drug addicts are patients instead of criminals.
Prohibition never worked and it never will. I’m sure you are aware of how successful alcohol prohibition was. I’m guessing alcohol is your drug of choice as your tirade is typical of alcohol lovers – My drug is approved, society pays for everything it causes, so fuck your drug of choice.
“I refuse to see our money to go to people that willingly abuse drugs. If you want to abuse drugs, then you will have to pay for your rehabilitation if and when your use of that drug, or drugs, becomes a problem.”
Replace “drugs” with fat, sugar, tobacco, alcohol… Are you willing to pay for all those lung cancers? Heart diseases? Hepatic cirrhosis? You’ll line of thinking is typical of those who love to live in a tyranny. And of course, we are living in a tyranny with democracy clothes.
“Where do we draw the line? Should we let eight year old children start mainlining cocaine?”
That’s a weak misleading retarded argument. We regulate drugs the same way we do for those already approved. Can a minor buy cigarettes, alcohol? Can you drive under the influence? Of course not. The same could apply to any drug. There are those who will take them responsibly and there are those will not. Just the same as with alcohol.
Alcohol irresponsibility is among the first causes of death in all developed countries. From heart and liver disease to car accidents. How about a bit of coherence in your anti-drug thinking? Are you willing to forbid alcohol too? I thought so.
Prohibition is based on my morality is better than yours. Nothing else. The gov wouldn’t let science study it properly. That’s how scared they are from the truth. And as you look at the history of prohibition you can clearly see it is based on religious doctrine, racism and discrimination. The war on drugs is a war on latinos, blacks and poor people. Who do think you’re fooling?
Montezuma? Don’t make me laugh. You mean Hernan Cortez.
Cortez the killer.
ethics
ethics,,, id rather have the facts than ethics. whos ethical?? the mexican government? the us government?
if you answered yes to either of those choices,,, hahahahaha,, your lost in space.
i get wind of incidents quite rapidly,, what i dont get is the full story,,, i like the full story,, and here,, rumors are more than likely correct.. so,, yea,, ill go with this site..
Re: ethics
You don’t have a problem that it is being used by drug cartels to intimidate other drug cartels and those who dare challenge them? It doesn’t bother you that 4 journalists were kidnapped and the demand was that one of the videos on the site be played on broadcast TV?
there’s a fine line between neutral observer and conduit, especially when that line could very well be between life and death.
Re: Re: ethics
there’s a fine line between neutral observer and conduit
I suppose an observer only observes, whereas a “conduit” also reports what was observed. That’s the part you really hate, isn’t it, the spreading of information?
Re: Re: ethics
It seems like everyone is using this site. The drug gangs are using it ‘to project their power, law enforcement to show that it too can play rough, and the public to learn about incidents that the mainstream media are forced to ignore or play down.
In at least one case Blog del Narco may have led to a major arrest — of a prison warden after a video posting detailed her alleged system of setting inmates free at night to carry out killings for a drug cartel.’
So… What’s the problem? One part might be bad so let’s scrap all of it?
ethics
ethics,,, id rather have the facts than ethics. whos ethical?? the mexican government? the us government?
if you answered yes to either of those choices,,, hahahahaha,, your lost in space.
i get wind of incidents quite rapidly,, what i dont get is the full story,,, i like the full story,, and here,, rumors are more than likely correct.. so,, yea,, ill go with this site..
uh oh,,
didnt mean to post that twice,, just came back for the email..
about..
The reason why they are upset is.. Notimex is largerly controlled, especially the TV based news (Televisa and TvAzteca) they only post very pro-PAN (ruling party) news and trash anything related to the opossing party (PRD).
so no surprise someone who is very neutral gets such publicity…
the bad is, they will probably invent some law just to take him down because the “pro” publishers have a “friendship” with some idiot in power.