The Mexican media system has long been characterized by a history of collusion and clientelism with the government. Throughout the 20th century and well into the democratic transition, many major media outlets operated under a framework of political loyalty in exchange for economic benefits, such as official advertising, printing subsidies, or exclusive access to information (Orme 1997; Gillingham et al. 2018). Rather than acting as independent watchdogs, many news organizations became integral parts of the political machinery, reinforcing official narratives and minimizing criticism of the ruling elite. This deeply rooted relationship has shaped journalistic practices, compromised editorial independence, and continues to influence the structure of media-state relations in Mexico today (Rodríguez Castañeda 1993).
The political and economic liberalization that unfolded in Mexico during the 1990s also triggered a gradual transformation of the media landscape. As the country moved away from one-party dominance and adopted market-oriented reforms, the media system began to experience a parallel process of liberalization (Lawson 2002; Hughes 2006). New regulatory frameworks, a more competitive media market, and the decline of state-controlled advertising led to increased pluralism and the emergence of more independent journalistic voices. While the legacy of clientelism persisted, this period marked a shift toward greater editorial autonomy, investigative journalism, and a diversification of narratives that challenged the formerly hegemonic control of information.
The newspapers selected for this study are El Universal and La Jornada. Both are published in Mexico City, strategically positioning them at the heart of the country’s political and media landscape. These media outlets are national generalist newspapers oriented toward broad audiences and prioritize coverage of issues, actors, and events connected to the federal government, national politics, and international affairs. This editorial focus makes them particularly relevant for a study on how the U.S. elections are interpreted and represented in the Mexican press, given that U.S. political developments are often framed in relation to Mexican domestic concerns and foreign policy.
El Universal, founded in 1916, is one of Mexico’s oldest and most influential newspapers. It has a substantial daily circulation of 122,000 copies and a strong online presence. According to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report, El Universal’s website is among the most visited news platforms in the country. It ranks third among the most widely used offline media outlets and first among online media sources, reflecting its wide reach and capacity to shape public discourse. Its editorial stance leans toward the center and center-right, offering a perspective that often aligns with market-oriented and institutional views on international affairs, including those involving the United States. Thus, El Universal is a valuable case for exploring how centrist and conservative narratives interpret and disseminate information about U.S. elections. El Universal represents a case of low political parallelism, as its centrist editorial line often challenges the official discourse of the current leftist government. However, it occasionally features voices that align with governmental narratives, particularly within its opinion section.
By contrast, La Jornada, established in 1984, represents a different segment of the Mexican media ecosystem. With a daily circulation of 103,000 copies and a highly visited website, it also holds a significant place in the national media sphere. In the same Reuters Institute rankings, it is listed as the thirteenth most used offline media outlet and the fourteenth most used online. Its editorial line leans clearly to the left, often highlighting social justice issues, critiques of neoliberalism, and solidarity with progressive causes domestically and internationally. Although La Jornada maintained an independent stance during the PRI era, its editorial line has increasingly aligned with the government’s perspective since the first leftist administration came to power. This shift has made La Jornada a case of high political parallelism, frequently echoing the positions of the President and the official party.
This orientation provides a distinct counterpoint to El Universal, allowing the study to compare how different ideological lenses influence the framing and salience of the U.S. electoral process in Mexican news coverage.
These two newspapers offer complementary and contrasting perspectives within the Mexican media landscape. Their selection enables an analysis that captures variations in editorial approaches, political positioning, and audience orientation, all of which are critical for understanding how foreign elections—particularly those of the United States, which have profound implications for Mexico—are portrayed in national discourse. Thus, El Universal is considered a case of low parallelism while La Jornada is a case of high parallelism.
References
Gillingham, P., Lettieri, M., & Smith, B. T. (Eds.). (2018). Journalism, satire, and censorship in Mexico. University of New Mexico Press.
Hughes, S. (2006). Newsroom in Conflict: Journalism and Democratization of Mexico. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Lawson, C. (2002). Building the Fourth Estate. Democratization and the rise of a free press in Mexico. University of California Press.
Orme, W. A. (1997). A Culture of Collusion: An Inside Look at the Mexican Press. North South Center Press-Lynne Rienner.
Rodríguez-Castañeda, R. (1993). Prensa vendida. Mexico City, Grijalbo.