Propaganda and Media Bias Regarding the Travel Ban

The executive order which prohibits immigrants of seven countries from entering the United States has recently been updated. The travel ban originally included Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. However, recent updates have omitted Iraq from the ban, as it was requested by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. He feared that including Iraq would “hamper coordination to defeat the Islamic State, according to administration officials” (Thrush). As recent as April 7th, 2017, the travel ban is being blocked for now (Carapezza). 

Conservative articles have continued to use the intensify and downplay model as a persuasive tactic. These articles downplay the opposition’s arguments while intensifying their own arguments. We see this in the National Review article where the author states that “The hysterical rhetoric about President Trump’s executive order on refugees is out of control. Let’s slow down and take a look at the facts” (French). The author of this article is implying that anyone who disagrees with him needs to be enlightened with the facts because their rhetoric is out of control and hysterically wrong. Further into the article, the ban is explained and points out that this is Donald Trump backing down dramatically from his campaign promises. This article employs the card stacking style of propaganda. Card stacking involves the selection and use of facts or falsehoods in order to give the best possible case for an idea, program, person or product. In this case, the card stacking is being used to promote the travel ban in a positive light.

Liberal articles are continuing to use the name calling style of propaganda and the intensify and downplay model of persuasion. We see this in the Vox article, which argues that Obama “never treated people with passports from the seven countries as unusually dangerous terrorism threats. Obama’s policies never approached anything like the breadth, cynicism, and incompetence of Trump’s executive order” (Beauchamp). Here they are labeling the president as incompetent and claiming that he and anyone who tries to cover his actions are “aiding and abetting Trump’s assault on America’s historic status as a welcoming safe harbor for immigrants and refugees.” They also employ an emotional bandwagon style of propaganda. The bandwagon style is the theme that everybody is doing it, or at least all of us. This implies that their argument is valid simply because it is the popular way of thinking.

Both of these articles and many articles like them use the intensify and downplay model of persuasion in an attempt to make their arguments seem stronger and valid, while making the opposition seem uninformed. In reality, both arguments are valid and have truths but these articles do a poor job at pointing this out and actually informing the public on the issue. The articles are also contradicting each other by presenting their facts in a biased and opinionated manner. The conservative article focused on defending the travel ban and explaining that this is a tame immigration policy by Donald Trump, while the liberal article focused on pointing out how extreme the executive order is. This example further proves that the many different styles of propaganda are being employed. Both articles are name calling and using all of their energy to point out the flaws in their opposition’s argument.

Word Count: 542

Works Cited

Beauchamp, Zack. “Trump Says Obama Banned Refugees Too. He’s Wrong.” Vox. Vox, 31 Jan. 

Web. 7 Apr. 2017.

Carapezza, Kirk. “Travel Ban’s ‘Chilling Effect’ Could Cost Universities Hundreds Of Millions.” 

NPR. NPR, 07 April. 2017. Web. 7 Apr. 2017.

French, David. “Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees - Separating Fact from Hysteria.” 

National Review. National Review, 28 Jan. 2017. Web. 7 Apr. 2017.

Thrush, Glenn. “Trump’s New Travel Ban Blocks Migrants From Six Nations, Sparing Iraq.” 

The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Mar. 2017. Web. 7 Apr. 2017.

Competing Narratives on the Trump Administration's Immigration Policy

During his first week of presidency, Donald Trump signed an executive order temporarily prohibiting people traveling into the United States from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. This has been a frequently discussed event and has caused a wide range of interpretations across the media landscape. While campaigning for president, Donald Trump spent a great deal of time talking about immigration policies and ideas he had for tightening border security. When he won the presidency, it came of no shock that he immediately implemented executive orders focusing on tightening our borders. The competing narratives include conservative leaning articles which defend the Trump administration’s efforts to increase border security and liberal leaning articles that point out the devastation this causes immigrants who currently live here and now fear deportation. 

Conservative leaning articles have been focusing on defending the president’s decision. I found an article on the Conservative Review titled Separating Fact from Sickening Media Fiction on Trump’s Immigration Executive Order. By reading this title, you can already tell that this article is targeting the sympathetic audience which is seeking information to confirm what they already believe. This article presents the information as a matter-of-fact narrative and not necessarily open for interpretation. It essentially states that this is what happened and this is why it needed to happen. The author uses the intensify and downplay model of persuasion by Hugh Rank. He highlights all of the reasons his argument is right and intensifies the reasons the opposition is wrong, while downplaying why his argument is bad and downplaying the good in the opposition. We can tell he is about to do this just by reading the title where he calls the opposition “media fiction.”

Liberal leaning articles have focused their efforts on appealing to our emotions. An article I found titled “Crying is an everyday thing”:life after Trump’s “Muslim ban” at a majority-immigrant school points out the emotional effects on young immigrant children after the election and after the executive order. This article tells a specific story about a young boy who was crying because he received detention and was terrified that getting into trouble meant he would be deported. The audience being targeted here would again be sympathetics who are searching for articles that confirm their current opinion. It implies that all children, especially immigrants have been crying and full of anxiety every school day since the election. This article is very biased and  uses the intensify and downplay model. The title gives it away for this article as well. By emphasizing how emotionally distraught the children are, the author is downplaying the opposition’s points and attempting to make any one who might disagree feel terrible because children are crying.

Both of the competing narratives have a specific audience. They are speaking to people who agree with them and very rarely provide information for a moderate audience. Major differences between the narratives include the techniques being used to tell the story. The liberal leaning article appealed to our emotions and told a story about how the executive order has affected children. The conservative leaning article presented the information as fact and not up for interpretation. Both of the narratives have excellent points but they are not attempting to persuade any new audiences. Essentially, they are playing it safe by reaching an audience that regularly follows their articles. Perhaps these are the author’s real opinions but ultimately, they are not informing or persuading and that should be their goal.

Word count: 583

Sources:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/trump-immigration-executive-order-fact-fiction#sthash.DVDvEDY4.dpuf

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/2/16/14584228/muslim-ban-trump-immigration-ban-children-kids-schools-anxiety