Comparing New Coverage of Inmigration by a Local Newspaper in the United States with a Local Newspaper in Mexico

Abstract

This is a comparative study of a local newspaper in Pennsylvania, USA, with a local newspaper in Mazatlan, Mexico, in terms of how the subject of immigration was covered during the final 10 weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign. Using a content analysis, the study attempted to capture data on a number of content items that were generated from a literature review of how immigration has been covered in the past by media in the US and in Mexico, and by English-speaking versus Spanishspeaking media. Among the more important findings, the study found that the US newspaper used the term “illegal” alongside the word “immigrant” less than was expected, and that the Mexican newspaper reported both on Mexican immigrants in the US, as well as US immigrants in Mexico, whereas the US newspaper only reported on immigrants in the US. The findings have long-term implications for new horizons of bi-lateral relations between the governments and peoples of both countries.