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
