ThirdWorld Quarterly, Vol 17, No 3, pp 537± 556, 1996

`Covering’Latin America: the exclusivediscourse of The Summit of theAmericas (as viewed through the NewYork Times )

WALTERVANDERBUSH & THOMASKLAK

Whenreviewing the history of US±Latin American relations, it iseasy todiscern ethnocentricityand a lackof self-critical re¯ ection in the US mediarepresenta- tionsof the people and nations south of the Rio Grande. Historians such as Johnsonand Black have shown how images of helplessness, corruption and inferioritywere widespread in portrayals of the region at times when such depictionserved certain US interests. 1 Chomskyand Herman have sustained the argumentthat news reporting in the1980s reinforced the Reagan White House’ s politicalslant on and agenda in , and . 2 These importantinterrogations of the media’ s constructionof Latin American and Caribbeanreality in the past serve as areminderthat it is necessary tomaintain discriminatingvigilance in the present. Farmer doesso formore recent news reportingon 3,whileDalby’ s `reading’of the coverage of the Rio Summit exempli®es thatvigilance with regard to environmental issues, 4 andCroteau & Hoynesoffer a moregeneral critique of news reporting. 5 Webuildon theseauthors’ work while analysing the December 1994 Summit ofthe Americas as viewedthrough the ® lterof the NewYork Times . Our focus is primarilyon whatwe argueis incompletereporting. We refer toquestionsnot asked,assertions and assumptions not challenged, and views not articulated. By thenotion of `covering’ Latin America we refer tothe reporting bias achieved throughseveral rounds of exclusivity and exclusion. We argue that the Times coverageof the Summit of the Americas demonstrates a nearlyexclusive relianceon elite voices and a neartotal exclusion of oppositional ones. We detectthree types of oppositionalexclusion. Alternative or dissentingvoices are largelykept from de® ning the overall agenda (eg what should the summit address?),from being heard during the event so as todemonstrate its con- tentiousness(eg has neoliberalismhelped or hurt’ ? ShouldCuba have been excluded?),and from contesting elite assertions (eg does free tradereally promotedemocracy, and is itin everyone’ s bestinterest?). We follow analysis byHawk who, while noting similar exclusion in another Third World context, arguesthat `Africa is trulyª coveredºby the Western press inthe sense that importantstories go unreported’ . 6 WalterVanderbush and Thomas Klak are attheDepartment of PoliticalScience andDepartment of Geography respectively, MiamiUniversity, OxfordOH 45056,USA.

0143-6597/96/030537-20$6.00 Ó 1996Third World Quarterly WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK

Attheend of 1994national leaders from across theWestern Hemisphere came togetherfor the ® rst timesince 1967 to discuss theimportant issues facingthe Americas.James Brooke,the Times’dauntlesslypro- reporter on Latin Americaneconomic trends, commented on 12 December that `[f]or the summit meeting,statisticians froze a frame inthe blur of exports and investmentspeeding south’ . LikeBrooke, we ® ndthe summit useful for retrospectivelyand prospectively assessing hemisphericrelations. However, we wishto broaden his concern for macroeconomics to include others such as jobs andwages, democracy and the environment, elite agendas, and the news media’ s rolein establishingwhat is important.We see thesummit and its news coverage as acrucialmoment in hemispheric relations that can reveal much about the distributionof power and the discourse of development. It reveals who gets to speak,who de® nes theagenda, how `reality’ is presented,and how non-elite voicesare marginalised. Itmight be expected that the ® rst suchmeeting of headsof state in morethan aquartercentury would produce an abundance of context setting and historical re¯ection, thorough reporting and careful analysis by US media.In fact, the coverageby major news sources inthat country was surprisinglylight, and extremelynarrow in terms ofissues, sources andperspectives. In the New York Times,widelyviewed as thenation’ s mostimportant newspaper, only two articlespreviewed the summit during the week before it took place. A single frontpage article only and one editorial throughout the two-week period around thesummit are furtherevidence of the meagre coverage. Those reports that actuallymade the Times lackedthe depth, history and range of perspectives to alloweven previously knowledgeable readers anopportunity to grasp the challengesfacing the region, or even to comprehend the events of those few days.In this argument, we follow a critiquemade by Dalby of the coverage of theRio Earth Summit for `explaining the story without examining complex contexts’ .7 Theincreasing complexity of theworld, particularly in the sphere of internationalpolitical economy, has leftcasual observers bewildered, and even theexperts regularly baf¯ ed, by thenew world order of derivatives,bailouts and worldtrade organisations. While the media is notresponsible for the complexity ofissues, itneedsto beheldresponsible when it doesnot live up toitsobligation toprovide suf® cientinformation for the news consumer to evaluate signi® cant eventsand act accordingly.

Freetrade and media representations ofthe Third World Omissionoften produces the greatest bias in reporting about the Third World or USrelationswith those nations. 8 Anexample of the omission problem today is providedby that which passes fordebate about neoliberalism in Latin America. Themedia give views of politicaland economic elite proponents disproportion- ateattention. As aresult,neoliberal assumptions, from the naturalness of `free trade’to the macro-level indicators to judge these policies, are rarelyinterro- gatedand challenged. At the same time,progress in implementing neoliberal economicpolicies becomes a preoccupationof regional assessments. Thediscussion before the signing of the North American Free TradeAgree- 538 `COVERING’ LATIN AMERICA ment (NAFTA) and GATT inthe USA demonstrateshow accepting these neolib- eralassumptions creates obstaclesto challenging such trade agreements. The mantraof free trade,for example, holds that everyone ultimately bene® ts. Thatoft-repeated notion of long term bene® ts survivedvirtually unscathed duringthe US Congressionaldebates over both GATT and NAFTA, despite widespreadpublic reservations about the trade pacts. 9 Strategicquestions aboutappropriate timing and how to offset short-term costs borneby vulner- ablegroups were frequently raised. But note the difference between a debate overwhether we or they are nowready for free trade,and a deeperone about whethereliminating national constraints on investors and producers (and not onworkers) is initself a goodthing. If thediscussions in the US Congress andmedia begin from the assumption that restraints on trade and investment are unnaturalimpediments to the forward evolutionary progress toward greater competitionand universal bene® t, debate will be reduced to how and when to signon. The negotiations for GATT and NAFTA werecarried on in relative secrecy,protected by these assumptions of inevitability and by the complexity ofissues involvedin this increasingly mysti® cated globalisation of economics. As RalphNader depicts the process, once the agreement has beenhammered outbehind closed doors, citizens hear/ readonly `a sanitisedsummary suitably interpretedby the agreements’ boosters’ . 10 Oras LoriWallach explains, `[t]radeagreements are negotiatedin secret bygovernmental representatives workingclosely with corporate advisers and are enforcedthrough procedures hiddenfrom public scrutiny’ . 11 Inaddition to inhibiting informed debate over trade agreements by failing to providea windowto secret negotiationsand hidden procedures, unre¯ ective mediareinforce certain ideas by simply reiterating elite assertions. For the MiamiSummit, elite views embodied a numberof contentious assumptions aboutthe political economy of the Americas, but the NewYork Times , by merelyaccepting and repeating them, diminished the likelihood that they will bechallenged in the future. In the political sphere, for example, the oft-re- peatedtheme of a `universallydemocratic region’ serves toobscure cases such as ,Guatemala, El Salvador and the , whose political systems wouldmost likely not be so labelled after close scrutiny. Also, the assumptionsabout as theregion’ s singularpariah are similarlyrepeated untilwe are ledto believe that throughout the Americas, the only disagree- mentsabout Cuba concern the most appropriate strategy to transform its government:by what means wouldthat polity best be democratised? Inthe case ofthe Summit of the Americas, we detect two layers of elite screening.First, the meeting attenders were representatives of high politics, whowere able to exclude certain voices systematically. Second, in its report- ing, the Times neitheracknowledged that exclusion nor gave voice to those outsidethe of® cial list of invitees. Instead, the newspaper drew opinion heav- ilyfrom Washington insiders and Latin leaders who comprise part of `the Washingtonconsensus’ on free-market reform. 12 Theproblem with such ex- clusionis notedby Croteau and Hoynes, who argue that `healthy news media shouldexhibit a rangeof perspectives on any given issue representingvarious 13 sectors ofsociety and various explicit political positions’ . The Times cover- 539 WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK ageof thesummit illustrates the media’ s tendencyto reiterate the views of those inhigh politics and to exclude voices from below. Determiningwhat issues warrantinclusion on the agenda at such a summitis as importantas theconference debate itself. US VicePresident Al Gore’ s December1993 initial announcement of theMiami summit argued that no issue was moreimportant for the hemisphere and the world than the environment. He declaredthat the time had come to halt the `grave and perhaps irreparable damageto the global environment’ 14.ByMarch, at the summit’ s of®cial unveiling,the White House’ s press release emphasisedthat the US government wantedthe meeting to focus on two set ofthemes: 1)democracy and good governance;2) trade expansion, investment and sustainable development. Note thatin the summit planning process, `environment’ , itselfa one-dimensional, passiveand lifeless substitute for `nature’ , hadbeen replaced by `sustainable development’, aterminstitutionalised by the 1987 Brundtland Commission report.15 Rich’s interrogationof the term ® ndsthat: [s]ustainabledevelopment is a mother-and-applepie formulation that everyone can agreeon; there are no reportsof anypolitician or internationalbureaucrat proclaim- inghis or her support for unsustainabledevelopment. 16 Further,Rich’ s critiqueof theBrundtland report and its sustainable development theme,as ultimately`an endorsement of business as usual,papered over with piousexpressions of good intentions’ , is relevanthere. 17 Gore’s initialenviron- mentalwarnings were unacceptable within the elite agenda for the summit; they neededto be transformed and shoehorned into one of the trendiest and most vacuous,abused and perhaps even oxymoronic terms ofthe 1990s. 18 And by early1994, revealingly, even sustainable development was `relegatedto last placeon the organisational chart’ , appearingonly after the more purely econ- omicissues. 19 Inthe months that followed, Gore continued to claim that sustainabledevelopment would be importantat thesummit. Even as lateas July 1994,according to Janet Welsh Brown of the World Resources Institute, `sustainabledevelopment appears to haveachieved equal status with strengthen- ingdemocracy and growing the economy as oneof thesummit’ s threeoverarch- ingthemes’ . 20 Aswewillsee intheanalysis of thepress coverageof thesummit itself,however, even sustainable development was tobe jettisoned in the celebrationof economic growth, trade and elections.

Dataand methodology Weexamined all articles in the national edition of the NewYork Times related tothesummit or Latin America during a twoweek period, 5± 18 December1994. Webegan our review on the Monday before the three-day weekend conference andended it the following Sunday. In that way, we were able to survey any previewingof thesummit during the work week leading up totheevent, and, at theother end, we were able to examine a fullweek’ s papersfor post-summit analysis.In other words, we were interested in how the Times preparedreaders forthe historical meeting, how it coveredthe conference as ithappened, and how itre¯ ected on the events afterwards. We also examined other stories on Latin 540 `COVERING’ LATIN AMERICA

Americansubjects in the Times duringthe same periodto gauge regional treatmentand juxtapose the summit and non-summit frames. Inanalysing New York Times articleswritten before, during and after the summit, we apply four criteria:(1) the extent of coverage, as measuredby number of articles and placement;(2) reliance on eliteor `insider’sources; (3)willingness to challenge orscrutinise assertions made by sources; and(4) treatment of opposing voices, viewsand platforms.

Achronologicalanalysis of NewYork Times coverageof the Summit Pre-summit The Times printedjust two articles previewing the summit (see Table1). The ®rst largelyconcerned Miami as aconferencesite and centre of trade.We were toldthat $15 million were spent landscaping and ® xingroads for the largest eventever held in Dade County, bigger than any of itssix Super Bowls. Seventy to200 delegates from each of the 34 countries would be protected by 7000 policeand secret serviceagents, while 5000 members ofthe press ®ledreports. Themain theme in that5 Decemberpiece was thatMiami bene® ts greatlyfrom internationalcommerce, and that the higher volumes of trade the summit was likelyto facilitate would boost southern Florida. As thereport told us, unidenti®ed `[e]xpertson LatinAmerican affairs say theconference, which will dealmainly with the economic integration of the Americas, is crucialto a city heavilydependent on trade’ . Onenamed expert, Ambler Moss, formerUS Ambassadorto Panamaand now head of the University of Miami’s North±South Center,concurred that Miami’ s `futuredepends on the success’ ofthe summit. Theearlier themes of democracyand sustainable development are absent.And forthose with enough background to know that Miami’ s socioeconomicprob- lems,such as ethnictensions and poverty, are unlikelyto disappearas tradewith LatinAmerican increases, 21 thearticle begins to demonstrate the Times’ narrow windowon the summit and its venue. Towards the end of the piece, one paragraphraised problems of rubbish accumulation and homelessness, but the celebratorythemes of free tradeand, as PresidentClinton put it, Miami’ s efforts `tobuild a genuinemulticultural, multiracial society’ dominated. Only one immigrantgroup, the Cuban± American community, got an explicit mention. Of particularinterest to those Cubans interviewed was amarchplanned to press their`anti-Castro’ message. Thearticle suggested that free-trade accords could dofor Florida what NAFTA didfor Texas. Certainly this was apreviewthat left theinevitable and universal bene® ts oftreetrade in the Americas unquestioned. Thechoice of sources accountedat least in part for the narrow perspective. Of thesix people quoted, ® vewere current or pastgovernment employees, and the otherwas theorganiser of a plannedanti-Castro march. 22 The6th and 7th of December passed withoutmention of the impending summit(see Table1). All the Hemisphere’ s headsof state save Castrowere aboutto meetin the USA, over25 years afterthe last much smaller summit, and the Times didnot think it warranted context setting and coverage of the preparationstwo to three days beforehand. The pre-summit negotiations over a 541 WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK

TABLE I New YorkTimes coverageof the Summit ofthe Americasand Latin America, 5± 18 December1994

Pp on Pp on Latin SummitÐ AmericaÐ on on front front Datepage? Main themes page? Main themes

M5/121 noMiami as venueand 0 ± Ð hemisphericentrepot; and plannedanti-Castro march T 6/12 0 ± 2 no Chiapasrebellion, election fraud allegationsand talks; Venezuelan music, includingsome recountingindigenous `ethnocide’ W 7/12 0 ± 3 no Peruvianpatriarchy and female vice presidentialcandidates; ’s judicialcorruption and reform; EU±Mercosur trade R8/121 noHemispheric free trade by 3 no TwoArgentine children lost and rescued 2005 inmountains; Sandinista`con® scations’ ; Chiapasrebellion and election dispute F9/121 noHemispheric trade andUS free- 4yes Riotby exiled Cubans in ; Summit trade hesitancy Chiapaselectoral dispute; Day 1 Brazilian politicalcorruption; Proposition187, agribusiness pro® ts anddesperate Mexicanworkers (op-ed)

S10/121 noClinton on democracy, the 3 yes Frustrationsof Cubanand Haitian Summit Summitcommunique ÂandLatin refugees at Guantanamo; Day 2 America’ sneedfor reform Riotby exiled Cubans in Panama and Panama’ sacquiescence tothe USA; GrowingSouth American trade

S11/123 yes Trade,investment and social 1no Growthof Mormonismin Latin Summit problemsin Latin America; America Day 3 globaltrade pact movementand Cuban`non-democracy’ , rallyby anti-CastroCubans in Miami

M12/123 noAgreement toadmit to 3 no Irresolutionof status of Cuban NAFTA; exiles inPanama Hemispheric trade movement Haitianmilitary thugs (letter); andpotential; ’s disappearances under Free trade celebration militaryrule (op-ed) (editorial)

542 `COVERING’ LATIN AMERICA

TABLE IÐ continued New YorkTimes coverageof the Summit ofthe Americasand Latin America, 5± 18 December1994

Pp on Pp on Latin SummitÐ AmericaÐ on on front front Datepage? Main themes page? Main themes

T 13/12 0 ± 3 yes Journalist’s dinnerconversation withCastro; ’ sColloracquitted of corruption; Debate inMexico’ s Democratic RevolutionaryParty over cooperatingwith or resistingthe government W 14/12 0 ± 4 no ShiningPath’ s terrorand decline; New charges againstCollor; Aristide’s friendslain; Cubanand US governmentsare both stubbornand wrong (editorial) R 15/12 0 ± 2 no Coca growerprotests; USshouldadmit Cuban and Haitian exiles (letter) F 16/12 0 ± 2 no USsignsagreement tohelp revitalise Haitianeconomy; Mexicoestablishes panelto resolve con¯ict withChiapas rebels S 17/12 0 ± 0 ± S 18/12 0 ± 1 no PuertoRican recipes maintainedby USimmigrants

14 day 10 31 total

futurehemispheric free-trade pact among delegates representing the 34 countries whichtook place during these days also did not warrant a mention. Finallyon Thursday 8 December,we ® ndon page A7 a noticethat pre-sum- mitnegotiations have resolved to implement a Free TradeAgreement for the Americas (FTAA)by2005. We are toldof a surprisinglystrong momentum and consensusamong the Latin American and Caribbean heads of state pushing the USAtowardsa tradepact. Potential opposition to a hemispherictrade agreement withinthe USA is notedand accommodated in both the draft communique Âand thestory. We learnthat the agreement addresses basicworkers’ rights in onlythe `vaguestterms’ ,butany mention of them at all should be considered a `major victory’for the Clinton administration. An opponent of NAFTA,HouseDemo- craticleader Richard Gephardt argues that all trade agreements must prioritise 543 WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK

`improvingthe economic lives of working people’ in the USA. Heis not opposedto free tradein principle, but rather argues that it is importantthat an agreementbe constructed so as notto divide the Democratic Party. Gephardt’ s cautionarynote is theclosest thing to an opposition perspective found in the Times.Wehave yet to hear from a LatinAmerican who opposes free trade,or fromthe majority of US citizenswho have consistently opposed NAFTA in the polls.23 Infact, we won’thearfrom these voices in anysummit coverage during thistwo week period. Thesame 8Decemberarticle also previewed the paper’ s inconsistentand convenientuse ofthe term `democracy’ during the summit. For example, variationin the decision-making processes andthe distribution of power and wealthamong Latin American countries was raisedthrough the supposedly exemplarycase ofMexico. That nation was ableto get `up to standards’required forfree tradewith the United States because it is `dominatedby a singleparty, apliantParliament and a verypowerful economic elite’ . Thisis thesame Mexico,of course, that the Times repeatedlyincludes among the current `democracies’, andthat it contrasts with the `authoritarian’ governments com- mondecades ago. The Times editorswould need only to glance one or two columnsto the right on the same pageA7 to a non-summitstory for contradic- tion.There we learn that Zedillo assumed theMexican Presidency `with complaintswidespread about the fairness ofhisown election’ , andamid claims thatthe `Democratic Revolutionary Party was cheatedout of victory’in Chiapas. Thesetwo juxtaposed articles provide striking evidence of thenewspaper’ s lack ofself-re¯ ection. By itself, the mention of single party domination and a pliant Parliamentis enoughto contradict de® ning Mexico as oneof 34 democracies. Theinformation concerning electoral fraud on the same newspaperpage sug- gests thepaper’ s sheer audacity:the editors are so self-assured abouttheir understandingof the free marketand democratic revolution that they let no evidence,not even their own, stand in their way. The8 Decembersummit article similarly frames theissue ofhumanrights for LatinAmerican workers. An unnamed US cabinetmember suggests the import- anceof raising wages for Latin American workers so thatthey can buy US goods.The of® cial explains that decent working class wagesin Latin America can`of course’ be considereda humanrights matter, but it `is alsoa commercial issue forthe United States. Without a rapidlyexpanding middle class, thereis nomarket for us’ . Anunchallenged assumption underlying the description of free trade’s effects onworkers is thatit always brings higher pay or more jobs. Anothercabinet member, Lloyd Bentsen, for example, says thathe bases his advocacyof a hemispherictrade accord on the fear thatEurope and Japan will becomeLatin America’ s partners,with the result that `they will be theones that willbe creatingjobs back home, instead of this country’ . Thevoices of cabinet members suchas Bentsenare partof theUS governmentof® cials’ monopoly on directquotes. In addition, three of the ® veattributed sources are anonymous, furtherobscuring the organisation of discourse creation. 24 Alreadyin the pre- summitcoverage, there is evidenceof under-reporting,reliance on elitesources, failureto scrutinisecontentious assertions, and the exclusion of opposing voices and views. 544 `COVERING’ LATIN AMERICA

Duringthe summit Onthe day the hemispheric summit was tobegin of® cially, 8 December,Latin America® nallymade the front page of the Times,butonly because US soldiers wereinjured during riots by exiledCubans being detained in Panama(see Table 1).The paper-selling headline proclaimed `120 US soldiersare hurtin melee’ butthe ® neprintindicated that 85% of thetroops did not need hospital attention. ThatCuban detainees timed revolts to correspondwith the summit should come as nosurprise, although US guardsadmitted they were unprepared for the confrontation.The Cubans hoped that highlighting a contradictionin US policy couldhelp them get access totheUSA. The Times facilitatedthis publicity stunt bygrantingthe exiles ® vearticlesduring the summit period, including two of the fourfront page stories about Latin America (Table 1). 25 Italso reported the viewsand protests of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami in three of its summit articles.Summarising the movement’ s objective,Lincoln Diaz-Balart, US Con- gresspersonfor Miami, declared that `Cuba should be free andit should be free soon’. Thisis thesame NewYork Times towhich the pro-embargo Cuban AmericanFoundation refused an interview a fewmonths later `because the groupregards the newspaper’ s coverageof Cuban affairs sincethe 1950s as sympatheticto Mr Castro’. 26 Theanti-Castro Cuban exiles are clearlyadept at dealingwith the media and affecting US policyand public opinion. Summitcoverage on Friday9 Decemberis foundon pageA4 andis con®ned tothe subject of free tradeand US hesitancyabout it (Table 1). We are again toldthat the USA is comingunder ® re forhaving cold feet about hemispheric free trade.The image is oftheUSA beingbadgered by allthese heads of states, andfree tradeadvocates from the USA scurryingto reassure theanxious Latin Americans.Charts, tables and maps inthe Times depictgrowing trade among the 34invited countries. Yesterday’ s mildforay into the subject of workers’ rights seems thedistant past, and the remaining coverage during and immediately followingthe conference will hold to sources soundinglike unambiguous advocatesfor the FTAA.Thissummit article marks the® rst timeLatin Americans are quoted,but opinion still does not stray from the Washington consensus. We hearfrom the `American-educated’ president of , Gonzalez Sanchez de Lozada(who, incidentally, speaks Spanishwith an American English accent), andthe World Bank’ s chiefeconomist for Latin America, Chilean Sebastian Edwards.Representing the Washington insider perspective, literally rather than onlyideologically, are Jeffrey Garten,Undersecretary of Commerce for Inter- nationalTrade, former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, and Peter Hakim,President of Inter-American Dialogue. Inthe summit story published Saturday 10 December, we learn how the US has operationalisedits pre-summit interest in promoting `democracy and good governance’. TheUS governmentpushed to have the summit communique includea uni®ed regional pledge to force countries into elections that are toits satisfaction.Although the Times neverde® nes democracy,by reading between thelines we are remindedthat the US government’s conceptualisationof it is usuallyreduced to `free’ elections,and that the judgement of what constitutes `free’ or`acceptable’ is atthe very least politically charged. 27 The Latin 545 WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK

Americancountries ultimately refused to sign such a pledgeand instead insisted thatthe Organisation of American States ( OAS)principleof political non-inter- ventionismbe repeated in the summit declaration. Latin American delegations alsodisagreed with the US government’s otherpolitical priorities. They were unwillingto commit in the communique Âtothe collective actions against drug traf®cking and money laundering that the US desired. Saturday’s summitarticle cites only members ofthe Clinton administration. Amongthe serious implications of such a narrowrange of sources isthatseveral questionableassertions go unchallenged. Clinton is quotedas sayingthat `the so-calledlost decade of Latin America is afadingmemory’ , andthat, except for Cuba,the region has `freeditself from dictatorship and debt, and embraced democracyand development’ . Amongthe most easily veri® able of those asser- tionsis theforeign debt burden. From 1989 to 1993 Latin America paid out almost$8 billionmore in debtservicing than it receivedin loans and other aid. 28 Further,the most recent ® gureson Latin American debt indicate that it is at recordlevels. By 1993 the foreign debt of the 18 Latin American countries for whichdata are availablehad reached $480 billion, up from $375 billion in 1985.29 Moreover,debt obligations are nowhigher for virtually every Latin Americancountry, and are especiallyoppressive for some, including Nicaragua andGuyana. And while a fewcountries such as CostaRica and have paidoff or been`forgiven’ for signi® cant portions of theirdebts, Clinton would bemore accurate if he claimed that the debt problem is pastin the sense that NorthAtlantic banks are nowless troubledthan a fewyears agoby the threat ofLatin American loan default. This is becauseLatin governments have either convertedprivate debts to local currency or more often absorbed them com- pletely;debt packages have been rescheduled in exchange for pledges towards neoliberalreform, and US bankshave written some debtsoff their books or sold themin secondary markets after years ofpro® ting from them. 30 LatinAmerica itselfremains under the collective yoke of debt payments and attendant con- straintsthat hurl it towards neoliberalism. Clinton’s assertionthat democracy is regionallyembraced is alsoquestion- able.31 Itis tenuousat best in many places; forexample, an early 1995 Gallup pollfound 59% of Venezuelans discontented with democracy. 32 Democracyin eventhe loose sense offree andfair elections is questionablein Guatemala,Peru andthe Dominican Republic. That question also applies to Mexico, where, in addition,many have been experiencing economic and political problems during 1994and 1995 with some longingfor the `so-called’ lost decade of the 1980s. Regardingfree trade’s impactson USworkers,the 10 Decembersummit story againrelied on Clinton to explainthat it would ultimately raise wages.Clinton’ s argumentrests ona reportedstatistic revealing that those who produce export goodsearn 17% higher wages than other workers. Although the article does not explainthe relationship, the reader is leftwith the idea that less restrictedtrade willinevitably lead to more US workersproducing goods for export and receivingconcomitantly higher wages. Several unasked (and probably unanswer- able)questions require af® rmativeresponses forClinton’ s free trade±higher wagesrelationship to hold.They include, `will exporters necessarily expand their workforcesin directproportion to the expected rise inexports?’, `willwages stay 546 `COVERING’ LATIN AMERICA

17%higher as USproducerspush their arguments about the need to be globally competitive?’and, even if some newjobs are createdat higher wages, `will those workerscurrently producing for the domestic market who get displaced ® ndtheir wayto workin anexporting ® rm?’ .Asusual,the concerns of individualworkers andeven whole communities are washedout of thestory in favour of economic formulasand aggregate statistics which, as inthiscase, are themselvesprobably invalid. Thereporting on Cuba’ s absencefrom the summit provides a goodexample ofhowthe media reinforce the US government’s imageof anenemy state. 33 The 10December summit story tells us thatPresident Clinton is applaudedby Miami’s businessand political leaders when he expresses hopethat a `demo- craticCuba’ could attend the next meeting. Then a StateDepartment spokesper- sonrevealingly notes that what Castro needed to dowas `getwith the program’ . Thereporter does mention one contradiction in USpolicy,namely that it isolates Cubawhile it embraces Chinaand Indonesia, even though they `have also repressed dissent’. Thatreporter could learn considerably more about US policy contradictionsand the repression of dissent in the recent histories of `demo- cratic’Guatemala and El Salvador. 34 On11 December, the summit ® nallymade its only front page appearance in the Times.Thearticle largely relied on the usual elite sources. That quotable American-educatedBolivian president said that any delay in trade agreements wouldimperil the `democratic foundations’ in Latin American countries. The asserted relationshipbetween less restrictivetrade and political democratisation was leftuncontested. The same articleaired a secondLatin American voice; contraryto the pattern, a Braziliandiplomat suggested that `[t]he corruption and democracytalk [by US of®cials] is alittlepatronizing’ . Thereader can detect some dissent,although the neoliberal economic consensus remains unscathed. Afterall, the reporter tells us thatthis has been`billed as atradesummit’ . Additionally,this anonymous Brazilian voice is lostamid the majority of the day’s sources whoare fromthe USA. Clinton,Mickey Kantor and Ron Brown speakfor the administration, while voices from the academy are thatsame formerambassador to Panama, Ambler Moss ofthe University of Miami and MarkRosenberg of FloridaInternational University. Neither academic offers any dissentor challengeto the free tradeconsensus. From the US privatesector, the vicechairman of Citibank urges the Latin American nations to open up their ®nancialmarkets. That Mexico had been listening to such advice became painfullyclear only weeks after this media celebration of free tradewhen that country’s internationaloverexposure caused virtual economic collapse. Inthe last few paragraphs of the 11 December article, in the least visible positionthat, in standardjournalism practice, is reservedfor contrary views and evidence,35 theissues ofsocial problems and economic disparities in Latin America® nallysurfaced. Hillary Clinton argued the need to educate the children oftheregion, and we readthat the summit’ s ®naldocument will set 2010as the targetfor the hemisphere’ s childrento be completing primary school. Her assertionthat the goal of universal primary education `will help eradicate child labor’is leftuncontested, although it contradicts existing understanding that childrenwork because they need money, while they also attend school. 36 The 547 WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK educationdiscussion also raises severalironies. One could argue that linking the economiesof the region is botha moredif® cult and less urgenttask than improvingbasic education, and yet the target date for trade is ®veyears earlier thanthe education goal. Further, the experience in countries such as Cubasince 1959and Nicaragua in the 1980s would suggest that it need not take 15 years toenact dramatic improvements in literacy and education rates, if countries prioritisethese social issues. Tokenand last minute references toschooling and mortalityrates suggesttheir relative importance to the summit elite and main- stream media.Had Cuba been present, perhaps there would have been greater attentionto and maybe even some inputon how to move more quickly toward universalaccess toeducation, literacy and health care. Finallya boneis thrownto environmentalists. Remember that Vice President Gorestarted us offwith his December 1993 announcement of the summit by declaringthat no issue was moreimportant for the hemisphere and the world thanthe environment. Then, throughout the summer of1994,there was thesense thatenvironmentalism’ s corporatecousin, sustainable development, was ofequal statuswith strengthening democracy and growing the hemispheric economy. On Sunday11 December, in the second to last paragraph, and only after coverage ofplans to increase trade and `liberalise and integrate capital markets’ , weread our® rst pieceof environmental news: hemisphericleaders have agreed to phase outleaded gasoline by theend of thedecade. The de-emphasis of environmental issues fromthe planning to theagreement stages illustrateshow the agenda gets rede®ned to re¯ ect corporate priorities and to marginalise those of the less powerful.

Post-summit Thesummit’ s wrapup articles came inMonday’ s paper,stating that the `atmospherewas splendid’and `surprisingly harmonious’ at the three day meeting(Table 1). The announcement of Chile’s admissioninto NAFTA headlined the® rst article.The tone was generallyone of self-congratulation within the Cliftonadministration. We continue to see scatteredreferences to`discord’ , but thedissent is soft,though, as instrategic and tactical disagreements, rather than ideologicalones. Some unnamed human rights and labour groups are saidto be criticalof the US administrationfor putting business ® rst.Other references are tothe fear ofsmall Caribbean nations that their tiny economies are particularly vulnerablein tradeliberalisation. Although the article does not pursue that point, itis worthemphasising here that the vast majority of thehemisphere’ s headsof states are fromsmall countries, without the resources ofthe Brazils and .A shockthat only staggers Mexico may be fatalfor . This issue ofsmall nations’ vulnerability is aserious¯ awin the proposed FTAA that themedia and apparently the summit itself largely ignore. Cuba comes infor some mention,as Clintonacknowledges the opposition to US policytowards Cubathat some regionalleaders have privately expressed Because heis the sourcefor those conversations, Clinton is onceagain able to put his preferred spinon the Cuba question. For the president, then, the disagreement is only 548 `COVERING’ LATIN AMERICA tactical.That is, the consensus is thatit is `urgentto restore democracy to Cuba’. Dissentis restrictedto thosebelieving that commercial ties would speed Castro’ s exodus.Excluded from the news coverage are largerquestions about Cuban sovereignty,autonomy, and comparative accomplishments. 37 Twodays after Clinton claimed more exports meant higher wages in theUSA, the Times similarlylet stand Clinton’ s assertionthat NAFTA hadcreated 100 000 USjobs,to be followed by hundreds of thousands more from additional free trade.Although the Times reiteratedthe massive jobgrowth assertion without quali®er, that claim has beendisputed in other less prominentmedia. 38 The Times’silencein the face ofpro-free trade assertions is partlyexplained by the factthat all of theday’ s quotedsources are highgovernment of® cials. When the Times gives`the free tradeleads to higherwages and more jobs’ argument a free ride,it reinforces an unproven assertion, contributes to cultural myth making, andmakes suchstatements harder to challenge later. Onthat day of consolidating the coverage of the summit, the Times runs its ®rst andonly designated `news analysis’ piece next to the summary article discussedabove. The overt labelling of the article as `analysis’raises expecta- tionsthat tougher questions might be posed and answered by journalists given some reinto interpret, rather than simply `cover’ events. In fact,it isdif®cult to distinguishthe analysis from the description articles in terms ofcontent. James Brooke’s assessment ofthe summit is favourable,and he unre¯ ectively contin- ues thereference to the 34 `democratically elected leaders’ . Indiscussing the potentialeconomic implications of free trade,Brooke makes noteof the Brazilianpresident’ s visionof 450million credit cards inLatinAmerica. Brooke doesoffer one additional source, however. That is, along with Florida’ s com- merce secretary,the president of theInter-American Dialogue, Mexico’ s Foreign AffairsSecretary, Clinton’ s seniorcounsellor, and our omnipresent former ambassadorto Panama turned academic, a representativeof a `leftleaning research group’is atlast quoted. Note that this is the® rst andonly time a source iscitedas partisanor ideological.That is, among all the summit coverage in the Times,noone was describedas right-leaningor havingany sort of conservative ideology.Elliot Abrams, for example, who supervised US warefforts in Central Americain the1980s, 39 is describedsimply as aformerUS pointman for Latin America.One prize winning journalistÐ not frequently found in the TimesÐ Al- lanNairn of the Nation magazine,has suggestedthat `war criminal’ may be the mostaccurate description for this particular ideologue. Ambler Moss, headof the North±South Center, which has takena consistentlyhard line against Castro and infavour of hemispheric free trade,is alsonot ideologically labelled. The suggestionis thatthe proponents of free tradeand US foreignpolicy have no politicsor ideology. If itweren’ t enoughto have quali® ed the new source’ s commentsby theleft-leaning characterisation, the entire point allowed Washing- tonDC’ sCouncilon Hemispheric Affairs ( COHA)is that`the business of the summitis business’. AlthoughBrooke adds that this was saidby way of complaint,it would hardly be stretchinga pointto call it anaccurate description. Brookeneeds to label COHA ideologicallyor else thereader would be left wonderingwhy yet another pro-business comment could be considered a complaint.If the Times so desired,it could easily have included a more 549 WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK insightfulreaction from COHA tothe summit and to Chile’ s invitationto be NAFTA’sfourthmember, as thisstatement from its bi-weekly newsletter illus- trates:

Today,when the country’ s economicperformance is being hailed as the `Chilean miracle,’critics ask whether the repression of the labor movement and the poor, as wellas the travail of otherdemocratic dissenters, together with an economicmodel thatunabashedly continues to encourage already existing patterns of inequalityand socialinjustice, should be¼ cited before trumpeting Chile’ s purportedachieve- ments.40 Theseideas, however, would have thrown a wrenchin the Times’`free tradeand democracy’celebratory characterisation of the hemisphere. From the exception- allylimited space the Times providesit, the `left’ looks naive, is speakingthe conventionallanguage, and is marginalisedwith respect to this historic Summit ofthe Americas. Themain point of Brooke’s `analysis’piece is thattension between the USA andits neighbours is athingof the past. The historic image of Uncle Sam lecturingeconomics to his nieces and nephews in Latin America is resurrected, butis thenreplaced with the idea that the pupils are nowracing ahead of their teacheron the subject of economicintegration and free trade.Because the Times largelycon® nes itsquotes to what critical analysts of geopolitics have labelled the`intellectuals of statecraft’, 41 thereader is leftwith the impression that either theelite’ s neoliberalviews represent the views and interests of Latin American people,or the latter’ s positionsare simplyirrelevant. Either way, voices of dissentor alternatives are silenced. The® nalwords on the summit for 12 December were left to the Times’ editorialpage. The message was unequivocal:the summit was `aneconomic victoryfor people throughout the hemisphere’ . Insupport, the editors cite an estimatethat `free tradecould raise incomein Latin America by $500 per personÐa hugeboost in countries racked by poverty’ . Thesource of this assertionis leftout, as is theword `distribution’ . AsformerEcuadoran President RodrigoBorja, a neoliberalsceptic, put it in another forum, the problem with neoliberalismand its reliance on aggregatetrends is that`[i]f I eata chickenand youdon’ teatany, statistics say we’veeach eaten half a chicken’. 42 To the Times’editors,the meeting could `prove momentous’ . Throughoutthe summit, thecoverage did not stray from the assumption of inevitable evolutionary progresstowards free marketsand global economic integration. The costs were apparentlyfew and largely unspoken. Opposition was alternatelynonexistent, muted,or ideologically branded. In this editorial, however, we do ® nallysee recognitionin a singlesentence of the problems still facing the democracies of theDominican Republic, Peru and Guatemala. But only `two challenges’ are speci®ed for the Americas: unitingregional free tradepacts into a largerone, and letting`democracies’ outside the hemisphere into the grand trade pact. Perhapsthe most illuminating article concerning the summit did not mention itby name. That same 12December paper featured an A8 article about Pennsylvaniatextile workers. Noting that the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’Union membership has droppedfrom 1.2 million to 800 000 in two 550 `COVERING’ LATIN AMERICA decades,the writer observes that the reactions to this drop from individual garmentworkers are thingslike `it’ s scary’and `we’ re helpless’, andthat there isawidespread`feeling of insecurity’. Morerevealing, though, is thedescription oftheir impression of trade agreements such as GATT:`Manyworkers say they know of GATT butunderstand little of theeconomic theory that says itwillmake thecountry richer over all’ . Citizensare askedto trustthe experts and not to try tocomprehend their negotiations and plans. After all, the press repeatedlytells usthatthe trade pacts have everyone’ s bestinterests in mind.But supranational agreementsare purposefullyundemocratic. 43 Thegarment workers are notalone. Issues havebecome increasingly complex in this time of the global production, andcitizens are confused.For most of us whotry to understand the issues, the mediaremain the ® lterthrough which we getour information. If theymerely cite thewords of the rich and powerful and do not challenge them, the struggle of theoppressed becomes more daunting and less likelyto succeed.

Coverageby other media Summitcoverage by other media sources alsohelps to reveal the priorities of the Times. TheEconomist and the WallStreet Journal ,widelyviewed as organs ofthe economic elite, were more willing to interrogate assertions made by proponentsof free trade.For example, regarding the claim that NAFTA has created100 000 or more US jobs, TheEconomist admitsthat `[s]uch estimates, basedas theyare onsome ratherbig assumptions, ought not to be taken too seriously’. 44 TheBritish magazine also gave space tothe recent year-end report on NAFTA bythe Institute for Policy Studies ( IPS),whichhas offeredconsistent andcompelling arguments against free-trade agreements and neoliberal ideology moregenerally. TheEconomist brandedas `senseless’ asuggestionin that IPS reportthat there was concreteevidence of only 535 jobs being created. 45 The same article,however, agrees withthe IPS claimof 12 000-pluscerti® ed job losses as beingjust the tip of the iceberg. While it istruethat a weeklymagazine has moreopportunity to treat subjects in depth than do daily newspapers, it remainsrevealing that, even within its overall unambiguous support for free trade, TheEconomist foundmore space thanthe Times forquestions and concernsabout NAFTA andits expansion. Similarly,the WallStreet Journal gaveorganised labour a partialvoice. 46 First,the paper noted that the American Federation of Labor and Congress of IndustrialOrganizations AFL-CIO was pressingthe Clinton administration to make labourstandards a bigissue atthesummit, a pointunknown to the most careful readerof the Times. Then, the Journal reportedthat, to a tradespecialist at the AmericanLabor Federation, the summit was `toolittle, too late’ for labour, and that`worker interests get nice language, while corporate interests get real action’. Whilethe reporter offers nosympathy for (or disagreement with) these views,they represent a voiceof opposition absent from the Times.Finally,the Journal’s wrap-uparticle mentions that the distress atProposition 187 (Refer- endumapproved by vote on California’ s ballotin fall 1994 denying Social Servicesto undocumentedworkers and their children) felt by thesummit’ s Latin Americanparticipants was putin the of® cial record. 47 TheLatin American 551 WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK leaders’stance on anissue thatwas so divisivein theUSA inthemonths before thesummit made it through the ® lterof the WallStreet Journal ,butnot that of the Times. Thegenerally narrow view provided by these business periodicals does not warrantunquali® ed praise, but it isnoteworthythat publications with readerships drawnmore speci® cally from the economic elite are morelikely than the newspaperwith an historical left of centre reputation and somewhat less restrictedreadership to challenge the claims of free-trade advocates. The expla- nationcould be as straightforwardas thenotion that the capitalists reading the WallStreet Journal and TheEconomist needto understand the views of their class enemies.What is clearis thatthe Times,whichhas aslightlymore inclusivereadership, gave less space tooppositional or alternative voices and viewsthan the explicitly business-orientated publications.

Conclusions Perhapsthe most striking aspect of the NewYork Times ’summitcoverage was itspaucity. Only once did the newspaper place the summit on thefront page. We suspectthat no other country could host 34 heads of state without continuous frontpage coverage its the leading newspaper. The Times provideda mere ten summitstories over the two weeks around the conference. Even day-to-day eventsin Latin America, which themselves receive notably little attention from theUS press, 48 gotsubstantially more coverage than the summit. During the same periodthe Times printedthree times as manystories concerning Latin AmericaÐfrom an individual kidnapping in Argentina to classical music in Venezuelaand Mormonism in MexicoÐ bearing no relation to the summit (Table 1). That the Times choseto neglect the summit can be explained by the present convergenceof threetrends in globaland hemispheric political economies. Each trendchallenges certain elements of conventional wisdom or logic about the stateof the world and the hemisphere, and the US rolein them. First,despite certain trends towards multipolarity in international alliances suchas AsiaPaci® c EconomicCooperation ( APEC)andthe non-aligned move- ment,a highdegree of backyardism presently characterises US relationswith LatinAmerica. Although it has essentiallybeen the case throughoutthis century, USregionaldominance is nowso uncontestedthat, from the US perspective, meetingsare especiallypredictable and dull. Who could be interested in 32men andtwo women nodding in unison? The Soviet Union’ scollapsehas removed theelement of intrigueassociated with cold war contestation in theregion, which inany case was highlyimbalanced in the United States’ favour. This creates a paradox.The US press andpublic have grown uninterested in their southern neighboursat the same timeas theirtrade and policy dependence upon them has increased.Ignoring the region at this point is insome ways,of course, simply acontinuationof anhistoricalpattern for the USA ofturningits attention to the southonly during what are perceivedas interest-threateningcrises. If the® rst trendde® nes thescale ofUS regionaldominance, the second concernsthe accompanying ideologies and the extent of their absorption across thehemisphere. Neoliberal development policy and electoral democracy are 552 `COVERING’ LATIN AMERICA indeeddemonstrating hegemony, but not so muchin Latin America as has been widelyassumed. 49 Notwithstandingthe many uncontested assertions and myth makingefforts of the Times,grassrootsresistance to that political economy is evidentin many parts of the region. 50 Thehegemony of neoliberal economic policiesand electoral democracy is morecomplete within the US press and publicat large. From the US perspective,the Western Hemisphere’ s assumed convergencebehind these two principles suggests a monotonyassociated with an `endof history’ , and,more speci® cally in this case, leadsto a veritable`end of press coverage’. Third,the dearth of summit coverage in the Times re¯ects thesuccess ofthe purposefulinsulation of international trade negotiations and agreements, and multilateraleconomic bodies such as the IMF,WorldBank and the World Trade Organisation( WTO)frompublic comprehension, opinion, debate and input. 51 Citizenshave been schooled to ignore such matters despite their tremendous importanceto living standards and ways of life. 52 Thisyields the paradox that publicknowledge of international trade relations is ininverse proportion to their economicsigni® cance. The global production and marketing of the largest corporationshas outgrownthe con® nes ofnation-states and the comprehension anddemocratic inputs of their citizens. Whatcoverage of the summit the Times didoffer stayed so close to the politicalelite’ s scriptthat it provided little help with discerning regional problems.With the bene® t ofseveralmonths hindsight, we nowsee evenmore clearlyLatin America’ s continuingeconomic and political problemsÐ which the Times’coverageof the summit ignored. As Paternestronotes, `[i]n almost every speech,President Clinton¼ praised Mexico’ s economy’. 53 Theexample of Mex- ico’s politicaleconomic collapse immediately following the summit illustrates whyit is essentialto an informed citizenry that the press seek outthe voices of otherthan government of® cials and free-trade proponents. Good reporting would haveincluded at the very least both recognition of the contentiousness of the currentstate of Latin American political economies and some space foralterna- tiveagendas. Weshouldnot expect from the Times eithera thoroughsurvey of the region’ s politicaleconomy or clairvoyance in the case ofthe Mexican ® nancialcrisis. Afterall, the mainstream news media are trainedlargely to taketheir cues from thepolitical leadership. As WashingtonPost reporterJulie Preston puts it, `[i]t is atruismthat in US foreignreporting the State Department often makes the story’ .54 Journalistsreporting evidence contrary to the US government’s view havebeen subjected to character assassination. David Halberstam and other reportersin the® eldwho dared to contradictthe of® cial version of theVietnam Warwere harassed andpersecuted. 55 UnderUS governmentpressure, the Times editorsyanked reporter Ray Bonner from the Latin American beat for his audacityto stand by stories suggesting that the El Salvador military massacred hundredsof unarmed civilians at El Mozote in 1983, when the US government insistedit didn’t happen.Bonner now reports from Africa and the Balkans. Since then,a wealthof evidence, including exhumations, has con®rmed military massacres ofunarmed civilians in andaround the rural village. No one in theEl Salvadormilitary has beenprosecuted or punished for the crimes. 56 553 WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK

Duringthe Miami summit the US governmentand the Times mocked Cuba whenone of its newscasters defectedbecause, according to the Times, `he was tiredof trying to ® ndways to portray Cuba’ s cripplingeconomic problems in a positivelight, as hisbosses atthe station required’ . 57 The Times eagerlyreports medialapdogism abroad, 58 butdoes not recognise its own. Two differences betweengovernment± press relationsin Cuba and the USA are notable.One is thatUS reportershave more thoroughly absorbed the ideology handed down by theelite. This means thatUS press lapdogismgenerally requires less overt proddingand is less transparentto members ofthe press. 59 Second,and more serious,the US press is buyinginto elite discourses that are implicatedin far greaterhuman and ecological tragedies abroad. Putting a positiveslant on Cuban economicnews is notcomparable to the US media’s long-runningassistance in `covering’for its country’ s stateand corporate imperialism, which has con- tributedto massacres, impoverishment,exploitation and environmental devas- tationin many corners of the world, including Cuba. 60 We® ndthe summit and the Times coverageof itan apt moment from which toextract lessons abouthow US powerin the hemisphere and neoliberal hegemonyin the mainstream US mediacombine to establish the parameters for acceptablediscussion of the conditions, trends and priorities of the Americas. The Times holdsa virtualmonopoly position in the United States as theprint media’s principalsource of extensive daily international news. It has the reputationof being the national paper of record on which many interested US observersof world news, including academics and policy makers, rely to make upfor what may be only a singlepage of `international news’ in their local newspapers.Indeed, there are pressures inmanycircles of theintellectual left to stayabreast of articles and op-ed pieces in the Times inorder to participate in politicaldiscussions. TheUnited States’ newspaper of recordhas anin¯ uence that extends beyond itsborders as well.A Mexicanreporter observes that `an adverse editorial in the NewYork Times or WashingtonPost cando more damage to a LatinAmerican governmentthan a thousandlarge-scale demonstrations’ . 61 Butit is alsopossible forthe international media to play positive roles. Randall has arguedin this journalthat the international media can contribute to the democratisation process inthe Third World. 62 Evenif Third World leaders are ableto exert monopoly powerover local media and thereby create their own `imaginary’ politics, internationalmedia sources haveprovided alternative information that can sabotagetheir project and help sharpen popular discontent. Exposingand specifying the NewYork Times ’shortcomingstakes on con- siderableimportance given the various levels at which the newspaper’ s `cover- age’of worldnews can in¯ uence political thinking and practice. It must be clear, then,that we needto makeuse ofawiderange of sources inthealternative press inorder to draw additional evidence, arguments and frameworks concerning the worldand the US rolein it. It is notnearly that simple, however. The structure ofa privatepro® t-based media privileges the Times andother media that are closeto the sources ofeconomic power. Concentration of US mediaownership infewer and fewer hands is likelyto exacerbate existing problems for the alternativepress thatis less ®nanciallyendowed, and therefore more limited in 554 `COVERING’ LATIN AMERICA frequencyand extent of reporting and analysis. While the alternative media struggleto survive, mainstream print and video media from the USA continue toexpand their presence globally. The contemporary internationalisation and de-democratisationof political economy presses forwardsimultaneously.

Notes 1 JohnJohnson, LatinAmerica inCaricature ,Austin,TX: University of Texas Press, 1980;and George Black, TheGood Neighbor ,New York:Pantheon, 1988. 2 Noam Chomsky, Turningthe Tide: US Interventionin Central America andthe Struggle for Peace , Boston, MA:South End Press, 1985;Chomsky, Year501: The Conquest Continues ,Boston,MA: SouthEnd Press, 1993;and Edward Herman & NoamChomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Politics of the Mass Media , New York:Pantheon Books, 1988. 3 PaulFarmer, TheUses ofHaiti ,Monroe,ME: CommonCourage Press, 1944. 4 SimonDalby, `Reading Rio, writing the world: the media, UNCED andthe new worldorder’ , paperpresented at theAssociation of American Geographers’annual meeting, 29 March± 2 April1994, San Francisco. 5 DavidCroteau & WilliamHoynes, By InvitationOnly: How the Media Limit Political Debate ,Monroe,ME: CommonCourage Press, 1994. 6 B Hawk, Africa’sMediaImage ,New York:Praeger, 1992,p 6. 7 Dalby,1994, p 11. 8 MarkDanner, TheMassacre at El Mozote ,New York:Vintage Books, 1994; and Garth Myers, Thomas Klak& TimothyKoehl, `The inscription of difference: news coverageof the con¯ icts inRwanda and Bosnia’ , PoliticalGeography ,15(1),1996, pp 21± 46. 9 New YorkTimes ,12December, A8;and Edward Herman, `Mexicanmeltdown: NAFTA andthe propaganda system’ , Z Magazine,8(9),1995, p 38. 10 RalphNader, `Introduction:free trade andthe decline of democracy’ ,inNader et al, TheCase AgainstFree Trade: GATT, NAFTA andthe Globalization of Corporate Power ,SanFrancisco: Earth Island Press, 1993,p 5. 11 LoriWallach, `Hidden dangers of GATT and NAFTA’ , in Nader et al, TheCase AgainstFree Trade , p 23. 12 JohnWilliamson (ed), LatinAmerican Adjustment: How much has happened? Washington,DC: Institute for InternationalEconomics, 1990; and John Williamson, `Democracy andthe ª Washingtonconsensusº ’, World Development ,21(8),1993 pp 1329± 1336. 13 Croteau& Hoynes, By InvitationOnly , p 37. 14 Janet WelshBrown, `Sustainable development and the Summit of the Americas’ , North±South: The Magazineof the Americas ,September±October 1994, p 6. 15 WolfgangSachs (ed.), TheDevelopment Dictionary: A Guideto Knowledge as Power ,AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Zed,1992. 16 Bruce Rich, Mortgagingthe Earth: The World Bank, Environmental Impoverishment, and the Crisis of Development ,Boston,MA: Beacon Press, 1994,p 196. 17 Ibid, p 197. 18 VandanaShiva, `Resources’ ,inSachs (ed) TheDevelopment Dictionary ,1992pp 206± 218; and Rich, Mortgagingthe Earth . 19 Brown,`Sustainable development and the Summit of the Americas’ ,p6. 20 Ibid, p 7. 21 SheilaCroucher, ImaginingMiami: Toward a Theoryof Ethnicity in the Postmodern World ,Charlottesville, VA: Universityof Virginia Press, 1996. 22 Inorder of appearance, thosesources are Ambler Moss,former ambassador toPanama; PresidentClinton; asecret service agent;the chairman ofDade CountyCommission; the organiser of the anti-Castro march; andthe Lieutenant Governor of Florida. 23 Herman, `MexicanMeltdown’ , p38. 24 Inthe order in which their comments appear thesources are asenioradministration of® cial; anof® cial involvedin the talks; Richard Gephardt; an unnamed Cabinet member; andLloyd Bentsen. 25 Theattention-drawing efforts of the Cuban exiles inPanama appear tohave helped them reach theirgoal ofUS asylum,which they, along with those held at GuantaÂnamo,were grantedin May 1995 ( New York Times,5May1995, A4). 26 New YorkTimes ,8May1995 A1, A10. 27 Herman, `MexicanMeltdown’ . 28 Rich, Mortgagingthe Earth , p 184. 29 World Bank, WorldDevelopment Report ,New York:Oxford University Press, 1987,pp 232± 233; and World Bank, WorldDevelopment Report ,New York:Oxford University Press, 1995,pp 200± 201. 30 RichardBarnet &JohnCavanagh, GlobalDreams: ImperialCorporations and the New WorldOrder , New 555 WALTER VANDERBUSH &THOMAS KLAK

York:Simon and Schuster, 1994, esp p372;and Doug Henwood, `Whatever happened to Third World debt?’, inKevin Danaher (ed), FiftyYears is enough:The Case Againstthe World Bank and the InternationalMonetary Fund ,Boston,MA: South End Press, 1994,pp 39± 43. 31 AtulKohli, `Democracy amid economicorthodoxy: trends in developingcountries’ , ThirdWorld Quarterly , 14(4),1993, pp 671± 689. 32 LatinamericaPress ,13July 1995, p 7. 33 ThomasKlak, `Havana andKingston: mass media images andempirical observationsof two Caribbean cities incrisis’ , UrbanGeography ,15(4),1994, pp 318± 344. 34 ElisabethBurgos-Debray (ed), I,RigobertaMenchu Â:AnIndian Woman in Guatemala ,New York:Verso, 1983;Chomsky, Year 501;andDanner, TheMassacre at El Mozote . 35 MartinA Lee &NormanSolomon, UnreliableSources: A Guideto Detecting Bias in the News Media , Secaucus,NJ: CarolPublishing Group, 1990; and Robert Entman, `Framing US coverageof international news: contrastsin narratives of the KAL andIran Air incidents’, Journalof Communication ,41(4),1991, pp 6±27. 36 KathyRakowski, Contrapunto:The Informal Sector Debate in LatinAmerica ,Albany,NY: State University ofNew YorkPress, 1994. 37 EmilyHatchwell &SimonCalder, Cubain Focus ,London:Latin America Bureau,1995. 38 SarahAnderson, John Cavanagh, David Ranney & PaulSchwalb, NAFTA’ s FirstYear: Lessons for the Hemisphere,WashingtonDC: TheInstitute for Policy Studies, 1994. 39 Chomsky, Turningthe Tide . 40 COHA,`Invitationto Chile to join NAFTA raises questions’, WashingtonReport on the Hemisphere , 14(24), 1994, p 3. 41 G.OTuathail& J.Agnew,`Geopolitics and discourse: practical geopoliticalreasoning in American foreign policy’, PoliticalGeography ,11(2),1992, p 195. 42 COHA,`Formerfaithful question free trade gospel’, WashingtonReport on the Hemisphere ,14(20),1994, p 3. 43 Nader et al, TheCase AgainstFree Trade . 44 TheEconomist ,10December 1994,p 23. 45 Ibid, p 24. 46 WallStreet Journal ,9December 1994,A7. 47 WallStreet Journal ,12December 1994,A3. 48 StuartSurlin & Walter Soderlund, MassMedia and the Caribbean ,New York:Gordon & Breach, 1990;and Klak,`Havana andKingston’ . 49 Williamson, LatinAmerican Adjustment ;and`Democracy andthe ª Washingtonconsensusº ’. 50 Jeremy Brecher &Tim Costello, GlobalVillage: Economic Restructuring from the Bottom Up ,Boston,MA: SouthEnd Press, 1994;and NACLA,`Introductionto hope: the left inlocal politics’ , NACLA Reporton the Americas,29(1),1995. 51 Danaher, FiftyYears is Enough ;andIan Robinson, `Globalization and democracy’ , Dissent,Summer,1995, pp 373±80. 52 Nader et al, TheCase AgainstFree Trade . 53 SilvanaPaternestro, `Mexico as anarco-democracy’ , WorldPolicy Journal ,Spring,1995, p 47. 54 Quotedin Lee &Solomon, UnreliableSources , p 257. 55 DavidHalberstam, `Vietnam: whywe missed thestory’ , WashingtonPost National Weekly Edition , 22±28 May,1995, pp 8± 9. 56 Danner, TheMassacre at El Mozote . 57 New YorkTimes ,11December 1994,A4. 58 See forexample, StephenKinzer, `News media inBelgrade mute theirnationalism’ , New YorkTimes , 8 July 1995, p 5. 59 GoranTherborn, TheIdeology of Powerand the Power of Ideology ,New York:Verso, 1980; and Herman & Chomsky, ManufacturingConsent . 60 William Blum, TheCIA: A ForgottenHistory ,AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Zed,1986; Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader ,James Peck(ed), New York:Pantheon Books 1987; Chomsky, Year 501; and Walden Bello, Dark Victory: TheUnited States, Structural Adjustment and Global Poverty ,London:Pluto Press, 1994. 61 LiliaRubio, `Gobierno y corresponsalesextranjeros’ , LaJornada Semanal ,25June 1995, p 4. 62 VickyRandall, `The media anddemocratisation in the Third World’ , ThirdWorld Quarterly ,14(3),1993, pp 635±646.

556