Fair and Balanced ?

So, even though both Mexico and Canada border the United States, and both refuse to extradite suspects until the US agrees to not have the death penalty on the table, this article's title proclaims its intention to only make Mexico looks lawless.

Exhibit 1: Title ... Fleeing to Mexico Thwarts Death Penalty

Ms. Roberts, do you know the meaning of fair and balanced? Or is this another thing we can blame on media consolidation?

I recall a young British man who had been on death row released from jail recently... the first thing he did was jump on a plane back to Britain. What do you think the British would have done with this guy had he managed to flee to Britain before he was convicted??

Exhibits 3-8: Excerpts that clearly show that the slant on this article was all too obvious:

Mexico refuses to send anyone back to the United States unless the U.S. gives assurances it won't seek the death penalty - a 30-year-old policy that rankles some American prosecutors and enrages victims' families.

Word choice here seems to point to Mexico as the small child refusing to do what its parent directs and wants.

"We find it extremely disturbing that the Mexican government would dictate to us, in Arizona, how we would enforce our laws at the same time they are complaining about our immigration laws," said Barnett Lotstein, special assistant to the prosecutor in Maricopa County, Ariz., which includes Phoenix.

Apparently Arizona and Maricopa County have more sovereignty than a COUNTRY.

Mexico routinely returns fugitives to the U.S. to face justice. But under a 1978 treaty with the U.S., Mexico, which has no death penalty, will not extradite anyone facing possible execution. To get their hands on a fugitive, U.S. prosecutors must agree to seek no more than life in prison. Other countries, including France and Canada, also demand such "death assurances." But the problem is more common with Mexico, since it is often a quick drive from the crime scene for a large portion of the United States.

I want you to read the article because I want you to see how long it takes this reporter to get around to letting us know that the run to the border to avoid the death penalty could actually go either way, though, she is choosing to report on only ONE direction. She will demonstrate that she cannot prove the statement in red above in a quote below where she notes that she was unable to get stats for France and Canada.

"If you can get to Mexico - if you have the means - it's a way of escaping the death penalty," said Issac Unah, a University of North Carolina political science professor.

I hope Professor Unah is the reigning expert on this subject, though, just knowing that he is from University of North Carolina must make it so. Real JOURNALISM usually requires that you get differing views that would imply at the very least interviewing more than one "EXPERT."

The Justice Department said death assurances from foreign countries are fairly common, but it had no immediate numbers. State Department officials said Mexico extradited 73 suspects to the U.S. in 2007. Most were wanted on drug or murder charges.

Yeah...so it turns out that we can know how many suspects have been extradited to the US from Mexico; we can't know how many "death assurances" were issued; and, we have NO IDEA how many suspects are sought in Canada, how many suspects were extradited or how many "death assurances" might have been issued. I can clearly see how that would qualify one to say that the problem is more common in Mexico.

Please, where is the editor at AP? Could it be that we just dislike Mexico more right now and thanks to the bigoted (and/or just plain rabble rousing -- because I know some of you don't really care but it's been a great bandwagon for you) radio and TV commentators have made us feel entitled to heap criticism on Mexico?