William Finnegan's new piece in The New Yorker about Tijuana's police chief and the city's improved security climate is quite good, as was his piece about Michoacán several months ago. Against my best efforts, I typically read long-form pieces on the nation subconsciously looking for mistaken facts and flawed thinking, but if there was any of either in Finnegan's article, I didn't see it.
One difficult challenge when writing about Mexico's security issues is the fact that everyone could be lying, and, consequently, every explanation or narrative you seek to employ could be totally false. Some writers take this as a cue to turn journalism on its head, embrace the anti-truth, and write with a degree of cynicism and distrust that basically makes learning anything impossible. Others, particularly in the newspapers, write Mexico basically straight up, which means that a big contextual element is missing, and also that sooner or later, the law of averages will probably catch up to them, and they'll wind up being fed lies by a dirty politician. This is not an easy dilemma, but Finnegan splits the difference quite nicely, and his approach is pitch perfect.