Do Cartels Exist? A revisionist view of the drug wars.
It's a super bad title for the piece for a LOT of reasons. It currently has five comments, which I didn't expect to see. The last time I looked at it, there was only one comment and it starts off "The cartels certainly think they exist..."
The title makes it sound like "drug dealing in Mexico doesn't really exist" and that's clearly the interpretation of the person who left that first comment: That person apparently thinks the piece is saying "There are NO DRUG DEALERS in Mexico. It was completely fabricated by corrupt governments, a fairytale to cover up their own corruption." which isn't at all what it says.
It is saying that, yes, drug dealers exist and illicit drugs are big business in Mexico but characterizing them as cartels is misleading and most likely is done to serve the needs of the people making such characterizations of activities that are, by their very nature, not really knowable.
People dealing drugs are not, themselves, going to hold a press conference and tell you "I am (famous drug lord name) and although I do x amount of dollars worth of illicit business, cartel is a misleading characterization. A more accurate term would be..."
But asking "Do Cartels Exist?" makes it sound like the author is proposing the drug trade doesn't exist and that's not what the article even says. It says the term cartels is a label given by outsiders -- governments and journalists -- about a world they don't have good information about and the term is chosen for reasons having to do with intentionally shaping public perception to get support for government policies and is NOT about trying to come up with an accurate description of a business that operates in a dark underground.
Following that up with the description "A revisionist view of the drug wars" signals "Some people who were not there and don't like actual reality have made up nonsense about it." It suggests this piece is NOT good analysis but is, instead, the largely unfounded OPINIONS of people who don't like what people who were there had to say about actual reality.
That description isn't an accurate framing of the piece at all.
The piece is not the BEST writing I have seen but it's fairly reasonable. The title, though, SUCKS majorly and needs A LOT OF WORK.
It's a super bad title for the piece for a LOT of reasons. It currently has five comments, which I didn't expect to see. The last time I looked at it, there was only one comment and it starts off "The cartels certainly think they exist..."
The title makes it sound like "drug dealing in Mexico doesn't really exist" and that's clearly the interpretation of the person who left that first comment: That person apparently thinks the piece is saying "There are NO DRUG DEALERS in Mexico. It was completely fabricated by corrupt governments, a fairytale to cover up their own corruption." which isn't at all what it says.
It is saying that, yes, drug dealers exist and illicit drugs are big business in Mexico but characterizing them as cartels is misleading and most likely is done to serve the needs of the people making such characterizations of activities that are, by their very nature, not really knowable.
People dealing drugs are not, themselves, going to hold a press conference and tell you "I am (famous drug lord name) and although I do x amount of dollars worth of illicit business, cartel is a misleading characterization. A more accurate term would be..."
But asking "Do Cartels Exist?" makes it sound like the author is proposing the drug trade doesn't exist and that's not what the article even says. It says the term cartels is a label given by outsiders -- governments and journalists -- about a world they don't have good information about and the term is chosen for reasons having to do with intentionally shaping public perception to get support for government policies and is NOT about trying to come up with an accurate description of a business that operates in a dark underground.
Following that up with the description "A revisionist view of the drug wars" signals "Some people who were not there and don't like actual reality have made up nonsense about it." It suggests this piece is NOT good analysis but is, instead, the largely unfounded OPINIONS of people who don't like what people who were there had to say about actual reality.
That description isn't an accurate framing of the piece at all.
The piece is not the BEST writing I have seen but it's fairly reasonable. The title, though, SUCKS majorly and needs A LOT OF WORK.
Comments