By Robert Buckman

Because Mexico’s new president-elect, who will be sworn in on Dec. 1, is destined to be in our news for the next 6½ years, we should at least spell his name correctly. It’s Enrique Peña Nieto, not Enrique Pena Nieto.

I’ve conducted a two-day check of major news websites, with interestingly mixed results.  The AP, Reuters, USA Today and presumably other Gannett papers, ABC, CBS, NBC/MSNBC, Fox News, NPR, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Times and The Huffington Post are all doing it wrong.

But The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Dallas Morning News, CNN, Time, Newsweek/The Daily Beast and The Economist are doing it right.

Incredibly, The Miami Herald, which publishes a Spanish-language edition, El Nuevo Herald, and is supposed to know better, is doing it both ways! Its published reports from the AP have it wrong, while those from the McClatchy News Service spell it correctly. In one story alone, it was correct in the subhead and the lede, but wrong in the cutline and the teasers.

An interesting finding of this unscientific content analysis is that the same AP stories in which it is spelled without the tilde are published in The Washington Post and The Dallas Morning News with the tilde, which means the desk people can get it right if they choose to do so. So can the AP and Reuters people, for that matter, because each has a Spanish-language service in which they have to spell it correctly, so obviously they know how.

The Houston Chronicle’s website also has Spanish translations that spell it correctly.

So what’s the big deal over that tilde, ethnocentrists may snort. The big deal is that without it, the name “Pena” is as inaccurately spelled as Obana. In both cases, the misspelling also change the pronunciation. And we’re supposed to spell and pronounce names correctly in journalism, aren’t we?

About 15 years ago, I instructed the desks at the Mac-using Advocate in Baton Rouge and Daily Advertiser in Lafayette how to write El Niño instead of El Nino. They’ve been doing it right ever since. So it can be done. But their websites both have “Pena Nieto” because they defaulted to the AP for world news.

It’s really easy to make the “ñ” on a Mac. Hold down the option key, hit the N key, let go of both, hit the N again and voila, ñ.

Different PCs seem to have different systems. The most common one for the “ñ” is alt+164. Others have a directory of foreign characters, including Greek letters for mathematical formulas and I guess fraternity newsletters, stashed somewhere in the file folder. But it’s doable if you just find it.

The difference between using the tilde or omitting it is a difference not only in pronunciation, but often in meaning.

“Peña” (pronounced PANE-ya, for you broadcast folks) is a common Hispanic surname, i.e., Tony Peña Jr. of the Boston Red Sox. The common noun “pena” (PAY-na) means emotional pain, as in Siento pena por ti (roughly, I feel your pain) or pity, as in, Que pena (what a pity).

I heard NBC’s Kate Snow and all the NPR reporters pronounce Peña Nieto correctly, even as their websites spell it wrong.

Deleting the tilde also can have embarrassing consequences. For example, the word año means year, but the word ano means anus, so if you write “Feliz Ano Nuevo” to impress Hispanic friends next Jan. 1, you are literally wishing them a happy new asshole.

And to head something else off at the pass, don’t think you can get around the tilde problem simply by referring to Peña Nieto on second reference as “Nieto.” Wrong! Nieto is the matronymic, or his mother’s maiden name; Peña is his father’s surname. In Hispanic culture, people often go by both names, as a way to honor Mamá, as well as to distinguish between people with very common names, such as Juan García, who may choose to be identified as Juan García Echinique. Not as many of those around.

It’s purely a personal choice. The incumbent Mexican president chose to go by Felipe Calderón, and his predecessor by Vicente Fox. But their formal names are Vicente Fox Quesada and Felipe Calderón Hinojosa.

I won’t even get into accent marks now, which Time and The Economist do correctly, because the new president doesn’t have one. But the candidate who ran second, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has two. Just as well he lost!

I may be tilde-ing at windmills, but the above-listed media that are doing it correctly are proof that it can and should be done right. Unfortunately, I’ll bet this plea falls on a lot of blind eyes and stubborn minds.

Que pena.

Robert Buckman, Ph.D., is a journalism professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and the author of a reference book on Latin America.

The New York Times offers a very moving video report on covering the drug war in northern Mexico and how dangerous it is for journalists.

The Most Dangerous Beat: Juárez, Mexico

A while back the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a report – Silence or Death in Mexico — detailing the situation that has mad Mexico a more dangerous place for journalists than Iraq.

The Inter American Press Association continues to run the Impunity Project in the hopes that eventually enough pressure will be brought on governments to actually prosecute the killers of working journalists.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Last week the Committee to Protect Journalists held its annual awards dinner in New York City.

Honored for their work in defending free press were Dawit Kebede of Ethiopia, Nadira Isayeva of Russia, Laureano Márquez of Venezuela and Mohammad Davari of Iran.

The organization also released its annual report.

While the CPJ looks at the whole world, its 201o report selected Somalia, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Pakistan, Mexico and Azerbaijan for special attention because of the threats to journalism and journalists in those countries.

Thank you Stephen Colbert:

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Last week a Venezuelan court banned print media from publishing violent images. The court ordered all Venezuelan media to stop publishing “images, reports and publicity of any type that contain blood, guns, terrifying messages or physical attacks, images that incorporate warfare content and messages about killings and deaths that could upset the psychological well-being of children and adolescents.” Officially the move is to protect children from harmful images. What really appears behind the move, however, is censoring items that are critical of the Chavez government.

The Committee to Protect Journalists released a statement last week condemning the action.(Venezuelan censorship over morgue photos is selective)

The New York Times used the court order to look at the larger picture in Venezuela. In a Sunday story it pointing out that it is safer living in Baghdad or Mexico than in Venezuela.

In Iraq, a country with about the same population as Venezuela, there were 4,644 civilian deaths from violence in 2009, according to Iraq Body Count; in Venezuela that year, the number of murders climbed above 16,000.

Even Mexico’s infamous drug war has claimed fewer lives.

Needless to say Chavez was not happy that a Venezuelan newspaper — actually two newspapers — ran a graphic picture that showed the failings of his government. The government saw the use of a picture of bodies piled up at a morgue as part of a campaign against his government. The newspaper saw it as part of their job to inform the public.

The director of El Nacional, Miguel Henrique Otero made no bones about the purpose of the picture. He told CNN, “The editorial aim of the photo was to shock people so that in some way they react to the situation, since the government does nothing.”

No doubt the picture was shocking. The SPJ Code of Ethics calls for journalists to “Do No Harm.” part of the Code states journalists should “Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.”

The picture — as described — was no doubt hurtful to the families of the deceased and it most likely pandered to lurid curiosity. But that is no excuse for a government to engage in censorship.

Reporters Without Borders called the order “too broad and imprecise.”

Reuters reported on the ban — Venezuela bans papers from printing violent photos — on the 18th.

Venezuelan publishers denounced the court order as part of a concentrated attack on independent media outlets in the country.

In an editorial, El Nacional said:

<Google Translation>”The measure of censure issued by the regime of President Chávez against the independent press in Venezuela has ratified its totalitarian vocation and its decision to prevent criticism of the country’s social reality in all its dimensions and gravity, goes beyond the knowledge of the people.”

<Original Spanish text>”La medida de censura dictada por el régimen del presidente Chávez contra la prensa independiente de Venezuela ha ratificado su vocación totalitaria y su decisión de impedir que la crítica realidad social del país, en toda su dimensión y gravedad, trascienda al conocimiento del pueblo.”

Chavez has never been friendly to independent media. He has followed a totalitarian line on media policy that mirrors the policies of Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler.

And he moves on many fronts.

Besides getting his rubber-stamp courts to hand down edicts, he is also using government funds to buy control of media outlets critical of his government.

According to a report from Reporters Without Borders over the weekend, the Venezuelan government is buying 48.5 percent of the ownership of Globovision and is heading for majority ownership of its stock.

President Hugo Chávez announced on 20 July that his government is about to acquire a majority stake in Globovisión, a privately-owned TV station that is very critical of his administration. By acquiring the shares of some of the station’s directors, the government says it will be able to control 48.5 per cent of its capital.

Federal Bank chairman Nelson Mezerhane stepped in last month at the government’s request and bought 20 per cent of Globovisión’s shares, plus another 5.8 per cent acquired through another company, Chávez revealed during a televised ceremony on 20 July. He also announced that the 20 per cent of shares owned by Luis Teófilo Núñez, one of the station’s founders, who died in 2007, would “pass to the state.” Chávez then did the sum: “25.8 per cent plus 20 per cent makes 48.5 per cent, amigo.” This was not an expropriation, he insisted. The government just wanted to “participate in this business.”

And I love that last line. The government just wants to “participate in this business.”

I would say that the years-long efforts by the Chavez government to close, intimidate and otherwise control media outlets in the country should mean that they have already been “participating” in the news business.

Just to be clear: Venezuela is the ONLY country in South America that is listed as NOT FREE by the Freedom House Press Freedom Report. And its only partner in the entire Western Hemisphere with this “honor” is Cuba, which has jailed more journalists than any other country in the world.

And if anyone was wondering what the impact of censorship has, Venezuela is only marginally less corrupt than Haiti, which means Venezuela is the second most corrupt country in the Western Hemisphere. In general, free media are a good way to keep track of corrupt officials. (Why do you think so many governments want to control the media?)

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

A number of us have been following the situation in northern Mexico for year.

The threats against Mexican journalists for doing their jobs has made the area around the border one of the most dangerous places in the world, exceeded only by Afghanistan, and the most dangerous place in the Americas.

Journalists have been killed and intimidated by the narco-gangs and some have even asked for asylum in the United States. The result of these threats has been a reduction in reporting about anything related to the drug wars.

The intimidation has now gotten so bad that a new term is out: Narco-Censorship.

The L.A. Times has a very good article looking at this situation: Under threat from Mexican drug cartels, reporters go silent.

As the drug war scales new heights of savagery, one of the devastating byproducts of the carnage is the drug traffickers’ chilling ability to co-opt underpaid and under-protected journalists — who are haunted by the knowledge that they are failing in their journalistic mission of informing society.

“You love journalism, you love the pursuit of truth, you love to perform a civic service and inform your community. But you love your life more,” said an editor here in Reynosa, in Tamaulipas state, who, like most journalists interviewed, did not want to be named for fear of antagonizing the cartels.

“We don’t like the silence. But it’s survival.”

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World

National Public Radio ran a great piece this morning that spotlighted how the growing crime syndicate wars in Northern Mexico are affecting the media.

Mexico’s Drug Cartels Use Force To Silence Media

What they reported is what a number of us have been saying for years:

“This record level of violence is really unprecedented,” says Carlos Lauria, head of the Americas program at the Committee to Protect Journalists.

By the organization’s tally, more than 30 Mexican reporters have been killed or have disappeared since President Felipe Calderon declared war on the drug cartels in December 2006.

“We only see these numbers (of murdered journalists) in conflict ridden countries like Iraq and Somalia,” Lauria says.

Groups such as CPJ, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Inter American Press Association have spoken out about the dangers to journalists in the area and against the lack of prosecution of the killers.

And yet with all these killings, reports about the violence in the area that include the dangers to journalists are few and far between.

A UNESCO report earlier this year about the violence against journalists that got little mention in press.

And to be clear, the criticism of the lack of action against those who intimidate or kill journalists is not just us looking out for our own. The violence is an indicator of how powerful the drug gangs have become. Local government has ceased to exist. And even the national government has been intimidated.

Mexican journalist Denise Maeker said late last week, “journalists are not the most important citizens but they do carry out the task of informing, something that cannot be done under these conditions.”

Maeker suspended her talk show in protest over the kidnappings and killings of journalists. (Denise Maerker program in Mexico is suspended)

The reason the drug lords attack the journalists is because they are the ones who have the most credibility when it comes to explaining what is going on. Few believe the local government statements or even the national statements because of the levels of corruption. But the newspapers and broadcasters are seen as honest brokers.

But now, given a choice of death or saying nothing, many journalists are saying nothing.

At least the gangs understood that unlike many of the politicians, the journalists could not be bought off. They had to be threatened or killed to silence them.

The destruction of free and independent media in the border region is continuing and unfortunately few people — including many in our profession — understand what is happening.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

The Committee to Protect Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists sent letters to incoming Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino, asking him to deal with the issue of the murders of journalists in his country. The groups want real investigations and an end to the protection of the murderers.

What is going on against journalists in the Philippines is not unique to the Southeast Asian nation. Journalists are being killed with impunity in Mexico and Colombia as well.

From the International Federation of Journalists

30 June 2010

Open letter

IFJ Action Plan for President Aquino to End Impunity in the Philippines

President Benigno S. Aquino III

Malacañang Palace

1610 J.P Laurel St.

San Miguel

Manila

RE: Journalists’ Rights and Impunity in the Philippines

Dear President Aquino,

Congratulations on taking office today.

We write regarding the ongoing violations facing journalists in the Philippines on the eve of your inauguration. We are saddened to learn from our affiliate, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), of three murders of media personnel in recent weeks. The killings are especially disturbing in consideration of the 32 journalists and media personnel killed in the Ampatuan Town Massacre last November and the 140 media personnel killed in your country since 1986.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), representing more than 600,000 members in 125 countries, has a long and close working relationship with the media community in the Philippines, through the work of the NUJP. In the Philippines, we promote the rights of professional journalists, especially on issues of safety and press freedom. It is our view that a robust and independent media sector is essential to democracy and assurance of respect for universal human rights.

However, the long-running culture of impunity surrounding the deaths and violent assaults and intimidation of Filipino journalists pervades the Philippines, and is a significant impediment to the full realisation of these rights.

With respect, the IFJ reminds the Government of the Philippines of its obligations as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and to the 1997 Additional Protocol on the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) to ensure the protection of journalists as civilians. Article 13 of Protocol II states: “The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.”

In addition, we draw your attention to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1738, which was adopted in 2006 and stresses the civilian status of journalists reporting in war zones and crisis areas within national borders. The resolution stipulates: “… that all parties to an armed conflict comply fully with the obligations applicable to them under international law related to the protection of civilians in armed conflict, including journalists, media professionals and associated personnel.”

Therefore, the Philippines Government is required by international law to remedy the current situation and redress the past injustices carried out against journalists. The recommendations that follow are based on close engagement with local organisations and the findings of an emergency mission the IFJ led in the immediate aftermath of the Ampatuan Town Massacre.

These recommendations serve as indicators which will be used by the IFJ and the NUJP, other international press freedom organisations, and the international community to assess the progress of the Government of the Philippines in meeting its responsibilities to protect journalists as civilians and to ensure justice is done for past gross abuses of the rights of media personnel.

1. Immediate prosecution of all perpetrators of the Ampatuan Town Massacre in Maguindanao on 23 November 2009. The trial or trials must be fully open and transparent so that the public may observe the proceedings without hindrance. There is to be no political interference in any aspect of the conduct of the cases.
2. The Government of the Philippines initiates immediately a full and open investigation into the involvement of Filipino military, police and government officials in the Ampatuan Town massacre. An independent and impartial investigator, endorsed by the Human Rights Commission of the Philippines, is appointed to lead the inquiry. All appropriate resources, including protection, are provided to ensure the investigator can do his/her work without hindrance. The investigator’s final report is completed by 1 December 2010 and tabled in the Congress.
3. The Government of the Philippines establishes an independent commission with full judicial powers to call witnesses to publicly inquire into repeated and ongoing instances of assaults, threats, intimidation, abductions, illegal detention and murder of journalists in the Philippines, and the reasons for the failure of authorities to take action against perpetrators. The terms of reference will be devised in consultation with the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the Human Rights Commission of the Philippines and other media groups. The commission’s recommendations will be made public and acted upon by the Government of the Philippines. The commission will be established by 1 October 2010 and will report to Congress by 30 June 2011.
4. Noting that 140 media personnel have been murdered in the Philippines since 1986, the Government of the Philippines in consultation with the Department of Justice, the Philippines National Police together with the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, establishes an independent taskforce to implement credible judicial proceedings, endorsed by the Human Rights Commission of the Philippines and international legal experts, to fully investigate these cases and conduct prosecutions. Action initiated by 1 October 2010. The task force and proceedings will be funded by the Government of the Philippines. There will be full public disclosure of all evidence and official records.
5. Any new attacks on media personnel and human rights defenders (murder, assault, abduction, threats and intimidation) are immediately and credibly investigated. Perpetrators are swiftly brought to justice.
6. Where any new attacks on media personnel and human rights defenders (murder, assault, abduction, threats and intimidation) are reasonably suspected of links to state actors or associates, the Government of the Philippines will direct that such actors be stood down from their positions pending full and credible investigations. All information on such cases is publicly available. Perpetrators are swiftly brought to justice. The IFJ, its associates and other international organisations will closely monitor such cases.
7. The Government of the Philippines will issue a congressional statement in defence of the rights of journalists and the media, recognising the Philippines’ commitment to the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1738 and acknowledging the vital role journalists play in strengthening democracy by informing communities and scrutinising power.
8. The Government of the Philippines will legislate national laws that enshrine the sentiments of the above congressional statement, with specific reference to the Government’s commitment and responsibility to protect and defend the rights of journalists and the media, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1738.
9. The Government of the Philippines provides financial resources, with full transparency, to the families of all killed journalists for legal support and ongoing trauma counselling.
10. The Government of the Philippines acts to ensure the Freedom of Information Bill is passed by the Congress at the first sitting of the new Congress.
11. The Government of the Philippines commits itself not to pass any legislation or issue any executive order that will curtail press freedom and freedom of expression, and it will move to decriminalise libel at the first sitting of the new Congress.
12. The Government of the Philippines cooperates with the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the Human Rights Commission of the Philippines and media owners to develop and implement a sustained training program for police, military and government employees and elected office holders on the rights of journalists pursuant to the above international legal instruments. The program is fully resourced and activated by 1 December 2010.
13. The Government of the Philippines, in cooperation with the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the Human Rights Commission of the Philippines and media owners, initiates and conducts a series of public meetings in all provinces of the Philippines to raise awareness among the broader public of the rights of journalists in serving the public interest, and the Government’s commitment and responsibility to defend and uphold these rights. The meetings will form the basis of a national public awareness campaign in support of media freedom, democracy and human rights in the Philippines.

Again, we respectfully request that you use your authority as President to act on the grave concerns held by the IFJ and its affiliates around the world for the welfare of our colleagues in the Philippines, in the spirit of serving the best interests of all citizens of the Philippines.

Finally, the IFJ believes that media employers must commit themselves to providing journalists, especially those in the provinces, with fair treatment. Collective agreements between managements and workers in all media organisations should be concluded to provide for stability, safety and security in employment conditions. Structures of self-regulation and accountability toward the media audience should be strengthened. The media should aim to speak for all of the Philippines communities, rather than cater to narrow constituencies and special interests.

Yours respectfully,

Aidan White

General Secretary, IFJ

From the Committee to Protect Journalists

June 9, 2010

Senator Benigno S. Aquino III

Rm. 526, 5th Floor

GSIS Building

Financial Center

Roxas Blvd, Pasay City

Manila

Philippines

Via fax: (632) 552-6601

Dear President-elect Aquino:

With your recent election to office, we are looking forward to engaging with your administration on press freedom-related issues in the years ahead. It is our particular hope that you will translate your strong electoral mandate into a firm commitment to end the culture of impunity that has resulted in the extraordinarily high number of media killings in the Philippines.

In your campaign speeches and press interviews, you promised repeatedly to break from the corruption that has plagued previous governments and create an independent commission to investigate the various allegations of corruption and misgovernance leveled against outgoing President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration.\

We recommend that you immediately launch a probe into the circumstances surrounding last November’s Maguindanao massacre, the single deadliest attack against the press anywhere in the world since CPJ started monitoring violations in 1981. Thirty-two journalists and media workers were among the 57 people killed in the election-related violence that has implicated members of the politically influential Ampatuan clan.

Despite the local and international outcry condemning the killings, indications are that the judicial process may be compromised by political considerations. In April, acting Justice Secretary Alberto Agra dropped charges against two top suspects—Zaldy Ampatuan, the former governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, and his uncle, Akmad Ampatuan, former mayor of Mamasapano—against the advice of the public prosecutors working on the case.

Although Agra later reinstated the charges on the basis of newly submitted evidence, his willingness to intervene by overruling the Quezon City Regional Court that is hearing the case underscored how vulnerable judicial processes can be to political pressures in the Philippines. There have also been reports by a highly regarded press group, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, that family members of victims have been approached with offers of money to drop charges against Ampatuan clan members.

With these developments in mind, we urge you to provide full support and ample resources to the relevant Justice Department agencies to ensure a free, fair, and speedy trial in this landmark case. It is our strong belief that convictions of the masterminds and the assailants involved in the Maguindanao massacre would be a meaningful first step in breaking the cycle of murder and impunity that has taken so many media members’ lives in the Philippines.

Our concerns about the deteriorating press freedom situation in your country unfortunately are not confined to the Maguindanao killings. Unpunished media killings are endemic: CPJ’s Global Impunity Index, released in April, ranked the Philippines as having the third-worst record in the world for bringing the killers of journalists to justice—trailing only Iraq and Somalia. It is a record unbefitting Asia’s oldest democracy, and should be addressed immediately.

Your predecessor initiated a unit of the Philippines National Police, known as USIG, dedicated to investigating and resolving media and other extrajudicial killing cases. Regrettably, the USIG has been unsuccessful in achieving substantial convictions in 62 of the 68 journalist murder cases recorded since 1992, according to CPJ research. CPJ believes that only partial justice was reached in the other six cases.

Task Force USIG member Police Chief, Henry Libay told CPJ in July 2009 that the mishandling of evidence and a lack of witnesses willing to testify were major impediments to serving justice. He said that witnesses shied from the courtroom out of fears of reprisal, lack of financial support, and a general distrust of law enforcement.

We understand that your administration will face obstacles in reversing these trends and breaking the culture of impunity that has resulted in so many media killings, but this should not be an excuse for inaction. A sincere government commitment to press freedom and the protection of journalists is essential to achieving the democratic aspirations embodied in your strong mandate to rule and reform.

Again, we look forward to working with you and your administration on protecting journalists and journalism in the Philippines.

Sincerely,

Joel Simon

Executive Director

Nice to see that the United Nations finally took note of the dangers to journalists.

The UNESCO report — The Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity — takes note of the issue of targeting journalists and the way many governments and para-military groups seem to think they can get away with it.

The problem of impunity has been a major issue for those who care about bringing the murderers of journalists to justice.

The Inter American Press Association has rune Project Impunity for about 10 years. In that time, the IAPA has sent delegations to Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua, Argentina and other countries in the Americas. The missions were designed to let the government leaders know directly that the regional media were looking at how aggressively the governments go after the murderers of journalists.

The UNESCO document on impunity and dangers to journalists came out March 25 after the usual long process United Nations vetting process. (Their data ends in 2007.)

The IAPA issued a statement March 30 calling for governments in the region to get serious about protecting journalists.

The issue of impunity is not limited to just the Americas. Too many journalists are targeted because they are doing their jobs.

I wouldn’t count on any of the countries that have not responded to the UNESCO requests for information about the status of the criminal investigations to change their ways overnight. I have more hope that journalists around the world will keep an eye on these countries.

And I suppose it is too much to ask that maybe a few stories about the progress (or lack thereof) might occasionally be done.

Originally posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

UPDATE/Correction: Reports now say the woman consulate employee was not a Foreign Service Officer but rather an American hired locally to help with American citizen services. Her husband works with the El Paso sheriffs department.

Two U.S. diplomats were killed over the weekend in an attack tied to the drug cartels.

Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

For journalists we have known for some time that Mexico is the most dangerous place in the Americas for our profession.

I have complained about how the murder and intimidation of journalists by the drug cartels in Mexico have gotten little coverage in the non-border U.S. media.

Now we have two U.S. diplomats killed, apparently by the cartels, but no one knows why.

What I am wondering is why U.S. diplomats, in general, get such little coverage about the dangers in their jobs.

Believe me, as the spouse of a senior U.S. diplomat, it is not all cookie pushing.

I have seen death threats made against first-tour officers because they denied a visa to person.

Around the world more and more U.S. Foreign Service officers are living in dangerous and violent places.

Many of the FSOs in Iraq and Afghanistan are not in the “safe” areas but are out in the field running the restoration projects so cherished by the last administration. And none of these officers received any special security training. They live in the neighborhoods with the people they are trying to help. They are not surrounded with military escorts or armored vehicles.

And those are the obvious dangerous spots. But think about places where the law is more “fungible” and what that means to personal safety and security.

But even with those dangers, I know very few FSOs who would quit rather than keep trying to do their best to represent America and American values.

Granted the State Department could do a better job in explaining what its employees do and the dangers they face.

Likewise, the U.S. media can do a much better job in explaining global events and putting those events into context for local readers. (And, yes, my old chestnut of finding international angles for local stories and local angles for international stories still holds true.)

I have a much longer rant at my personal blog site. Rather than repeat it, just click here to read it.