By Juan Larrosa, March 23, 2026
One month after #22F, many threads remain to be followed and paths to be examined. In this column, we continue to approach the case from a communicative perspective.
At ETIUS, the Observatory of Communication and Culture at ITESO, we have been reviewing newspaper front pages from different countries in the days following the arrest. This type of analysis allows us to observe the impact a news event has on the international press and, above all, which elements become visible in the global circulation of information.
What we found is that the arrest—and especially the cartel’s violent reaction—became a central news story across media outlets in various countries. This was due to the striking nature of the images that emerged from the arrest and the clashes between the Mexican Army and the cartels, as well as the prominence of the criminal leader involved.
For example, Argentina’s Clarín ran the headline: “Mexico’s army eliminated a drug lord and unleashed a furious cartel reaction,” accompanied by the image of a burning bus and, in a small inset, the capo’s photograph. In the United States, The Washington Post highlighted the military operation with an image of an armed soldier in front of a burned vehicle, while the Los Angeles Times emphasized the deaths resulting from cartel attacks, also using scenes of destruction.
A key element is that this episode unfolds in a context of heightened pressure from Donald Trump toward Mexico and Latin America regarding drug trafficking. Several newspapers noted that the arrest was made possible through intelligence provided by U.S. agencies and the operational work of the Mexican Army on the ground.
All of this is reflected in very clear visual patterns. On the one hand, the face of the captured capo appears repeatedly—a single image that circulates widely and is placed in small frames within the newspapers. On the other hand, images of chaos dominate: burning buses and cars, blocked roads, and military presence.
Beyond the fact that these events drew international media attention due to the high levels of violence in Mexico, this coverage has also been linked to another issue: the country’s role as co-host of the upcoming World Cup in just a few months.
This is not the first time Mexico has faced tensions of this kind. In 1968, months before the Olympic Games, the Tlatelolco massacre took place. In 1986, the World Cup was held shortly after the devastating 1985 earthquake and the federal government’s incompetent handling of the tragedy. In both cases, various communicative and diplomatic strategies were deployed to mitigate the negative image of the country created by these events.
Today, the geopolitical context is different, and we are facing another type of situation: it is not an army killing students, nor an inept government attempting to conceal its shortcomings after a disaster like the 1985 earthquake. Instead, we are in a moment in which governments appear weakened and incapable in the face of the violence and power of organized crime.
I am not convinced that a well-executed “damage control” strategy—as specialists call efforts to reposition a country’s image—along with advertising campaigns, will be sufficient to overcome this severe situation or to reshape the country’s image. Although it is unlikely that plans will be reversed, the uncomfortable question remains: is it truly appropriate to host a World Cup amid such fragility in public security in Mexico?
In the days following #22F, images of burning buses in Mexico circulated around the world.
The impact, in visual terms, is severe. The risk, in terms of public security, is high.
This text was originally read on Informativo NTR Radio, broadcast on March 23, 2026, and hosted by journalist Sonia Serrano.