https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/29/world/americas/mexico-caravan-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=image&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/22/migrant-caravan-reaches-us-mexico-border.html
A caravan of migrants from Honduras and Guatemala, among other Central American countries, has reached the U.S./Mexico border- but what now? Articles from both the New York Times, a historically liberal site, and Fox News, a more conservative media outlet, posed this question.
Right off the bat, however, they created different emotions in readers. The New York Times headline read Migrant Caravan, after Grueling Trip, Reaches U.S. Border. Now the Really Hard Part. Their headline was designed to evoke sympathy at the trials and tribulations faced by the migrants. By using words such as "grueling" and "really hard," the author, Kirk Semple, creates a picture of brave migrants overcoming insurmountable struggle after insurmountable struggle. On the other hand, the Fox News headline is simply Migrant Caravan reaches US, Mexico Border. The Fox headline is not derogatory or hateful, but rather...cold. While the New York Times headline humanizes the migrants, the Fox headline paints them, not as people, but as just another story.
The differences in the two pieces become more and more apparent as the articles go on. Semple continues with his attempts to humanize the migrants. He interviews a couple (with a two-year-old daughter) who just got married in Tijuana, and describes their harrowing fear at being separated, but, above it all, their unwavering faith that the journey was worth it. Readers can't help but empathize when reading about the individual struggles faced by some of these migrants. It's easy to isolate ourselves from the struggles of a group, but it's much harder to distance ourselves when we read the statement "a gang that had attacked him and killed a close relative."
In total contrast, the Fox News article contains a disturbing trend of belittling the migrants. When describing the caravan, the authors use the words "so-called" and put caravan in quotation marks. The caravan is thus seen as a figment of imagination, something a little child might dream up but would be unable to provide proof of. Using these few demeaning words, the Fox "News" article somehow manages to gloss over the countless struggles faced by the migrants in favor of treating them like an indulgent parent would act toward an over imaginative child- paternal, all-knowing, and totally condescending. The article creates an image of family, where "America" becomes the Founding Fathers or good ol' Uncle Sam, while the migrants are reduced to the diminutive tots who don't know what they're saying. The belittling terms are repeated throughout the article. Later, the authors write "these migrants, who say they are fleeing gang-driven violence." The use of the word "say" calls the testimony of the migrants into question and makes their credibility seem shaky at best. Again, the migrants are portrayed as children- they might say something, but *surreptitiously winks and genially chuckles* they can't always be trusted. On the other hand, the National Guard was called in to "help secure the border." If the migrants are imaginative children, the National Guard then becomes the benevolent Big Brother- just helping keep a lawful society in place, right?
In addition to the way they treat the migrants, the two articles treat Donald Trump differently. The Fox News article, while unwilling to show respect for the Honduran migrants, can't show enough respect for "President" Trump. On the other hand, the New York Times article refers to him as Mr. Trump. The difference in how they refer to him shows that Fox News sees Trump as a leader, while the Times sees him as a man not worthy of the title of president.
Both articles have their biases, but the Times article at least has the decency to treat Trump as a semi-intelligent adult, while the Fox article doesn't even grant the migrants that small courtesy.
Now, now, Fox, go play. The adults are talking.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/22/migrant-caravan-reaches-us-mexico-border.html
A caravan of migrants from Honduras and Guatemala, among other Central American countries, has reached the U.S./Mexico border- but what now? Articles from both the New York Times, a historically liberal site, and Fox News, a more conservative media outlet, posed this question.
Right off the bat, however, they created different emotions in readers. The New York Times headline read Migrant Caravan, after Grueling Trip, Reaches U.S. Border. Now the Really Hard Part. Their headline was designed to evoke sympathy at the trials and tribulations faced by the migrants. By using words such as "grueling" and "really hard," the author, Kirk Semple, creates a picture of brave migrants overcoming insurmountable struggle after insurmountable struggle. On the other hand, the Fox News headline is simply Migrant Caravan reaches US, Mexico Border. The Fox headline is not derogatory or hateful, but rather...cold. While the New York Times headline humanizes the migrants, the Fox headline paints them, not as people, but as just another story.
The differences in the two pieces become more and more apparent as the articles go on. Semple continues with his attempts to humanize the migrants. He interviews a couple (with a two-year-old daughter) who just got married in Tijuana, and describes their harrowing fear at being separated, but, above it all, their unwavering faith that the journey was worth it. Readers can't help but empathize when reading about the individual struggles faced by some of these migrants. It's easy to isolate ourselves from the struggles of a group, but it's much harder to distance ourselves when we read the statement "a gang that had attacked him and killed a close relative."
In total contrast, the Fox News article contains a disturbing trend of belittling the migrants. When describing the caravan, the authors use the words "so-called" and put caravan in quotation marks. The caravan is thus seen as a figment of imagination, something a little child might dream up but would be unable to provide proof of. Using these few demeaning words, the Fox "News" article somehow manages to gloss over the countless struggles faced by the migrants in favor of treating them like an indulgent parent would act toward an over imaginative child- paternal, all-knowing, and totally condescending. The article creates an image of family, where "America" becomes the Founding Fathers or good ol' Uncle Sam, while the migrants are reduced to the diminutive tots who don't know what they're saying. The belittling terms are repeated throughout the article. Later, the authors write "these migrants, who say they are fleeing gang-driven violence." The use of the word "say" calls the testimony of the migrants into question and makes their credibility seem shaky at best. Again, the migrants are portrayed as children- they might say something, but *surreptitiously winks and genially chuckles* they can't always be trusted. On the other hand, the National Guard was called in to "help secure the border." If the migrants are imaginative children, the National Guard then becomes the benevolent Big Brother- just helping keep a lawful society in place, right?
In addition to the way they treat the migrants, the two articles treat Donald Trump differently. The Fox News article, while unwilling to show respect for the Honduran migrants, can't show enough respect for "President" Trump. On the other hand, the New York Times article refers to him as Mr. Trump. The difference in how they refer to him shows that Fox News sees Trump as a leader, while the Times sees him as a man not worthy of the title of president.
Both articles have their biases, but the Times article at least has the decency to treat Trump as a semi-intelligent adult, while the Fox article doesn't even grant the migrants that small courtesy.
Now, now, Fox, go play. The adults are talking.
Comments
Post a Comment