Every now and then, one has the opportunity to read the original story from one newspaper and the edited version carried by another newspaper.  This can lead to responses ranging from amusement to outrage.  Such was the case with a story that originally appeared in The New York Times (“Mexican Migrants Carry H.I.V. Home [www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/world/americas/17mexico.html?hp]) and which the Houston Chronicle (“Researchers fear AIDS crisis as migrants return to Mexico) extensively edited for its print edition.

Cutting a thousand words from a 1,300-word story is not easy if one tries to retain the original sense and credibility.  The Chronicle did poorly.  Here are some examples:

The Times story said, “As sweeping proposals for immigration-law changes founder in the United States, the expanding AIDS crisis among the migrants is largely overlooked on both sides of the border.”  The Chronicle edited the sentence to read, “As immigration reform founders, the expanding AIDS crisis among the migrants goes virtually unaddressed on both sides of the border.”

The terms “largely overlooked” and “virtually unaddressed” are not synonymous.  The Times piece tells us government and health officials have not given much thought to the significance of AIDS among Mexicans working illegally in the U.S., while the Chronicle’s edited version implies policy makers know about the situation and refuse to do anything about it.

The next sentences in the Times story point out that, “Particularly in Mexico, AIDS is still shrouded by stigma and denial.  In the United States, it is often assumed that immigrants bring diseases into the country, not take them away.”  The Chronicle story says simply, “In Mexico, AIDS is shrouded by denial.”  The paper cut the rest of the paragraph.

The word “particularly” in the Times story is of particular importance, as is the word “stigma” that the Chronicle editors deleted.  This is because the Times story refers later to studies that show one in ten Mexicans working illegally in Los Angeles and hanging around job-pickup sites are so desperate for money that they perform oral and anal sex for cash.  The Chronicle deliberately deleted all references to homosexuality and its “stigma” among Mexicans, thereby eliminating gay sex as one reason for the spread of AIDS in Mexico.  The Chronicle also removed the sentence regarding the assumption that “immigrants bring diseases” into the U.S.  By now, one suspects the Houston paper is pushing a political agenda.

The Times story goes on to note that a new study found the greatest risk of contracting AIDS faced by rural Mexican women having sex with their returning husbands is the refusal of their spouses to use condoms.  The Chronicle rewrite, however, placed the blame on “the women’s inability to insist that their husbands use condoms.”

The Times story points out that “AIDS has not yet exploded in Mexico and is focused mostly among prostitutes and their clients, and drug users and gay men.”  The Chronicle turned “prostitutes” into “sex workers” and edited out their customers.

The Chronicle also left out some additional relevant information, such as the percentage of Mexicans with HIV who used to live in the U.S. fluctuated between 41 percent and 79 percent in the 1980s and early 1990s; the percentage of illegal workers from Mexico in Los Angeles who take money to participate in gay sex; and that Mexico’s northern and southern borders are magnets for prostitutes and drug dealers drawn by migrating illegal workers entering and leaving the country.

The Times put its warm and fuzzy spin on the story by using the term “migrant workers” when referring to illegal immigrants.  It further attempted to evoke sympathy for these individuals by telling us they are “displaced” from their homes.  Victims of natural disasters or wars are displaced from their homes; these folks left of their own volition.

Probably the most tortured phrases came when the Times quoted a researcher who tried to explain why these workers do who they do.  According to the researcher, they are vulnerable, isolated, exposed to different sexual practices, hampered by language barriers, depressed, lonely, and abused.

But the worst aspect of both articles is the subtle implication that illegal immigrants come to the U.S. disease free and return to Mexico with AIDS and HIV without infecting anyone in this country.  It is ludicrous to believe they have sex only with prostitutes who give them AIDS or, in some cases, become prostitutes for men who give them AIDS.

In the end, a story giving the sad and disturbing truth about the spread of HIV/AIDS among the returning illegal immigrants and their families turned into a justification for their philandering and an indictment against our nation for not having the programs in place to make them less vulnerable, less isolated, and less likely to hook up with a hooker or to bend over for a buck.

Yes, it is a horrible problem, but it is not our fault.

Mundus vult decipi