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
This is a very popular focus area for this assignment - and so I am trying to get all of those interested by the immigration controversy to dig deep on their specific theme.
ReplyDeleteYou do a good job here of immediately pointing out two interpretations of this executive order: border security v. deportation. The deportation angle is particularly intriguing because the executive order has nothing to do with individuals who are already in the country (although there was a great deal of conflict regarding those who may have been in transit or already granted a visa from those particular countries). The article which focused on the child's fear of deportation coming from getting detention in school is really shameless. Even the way you describe the situation, as "emphasizing how emotionally distraught the children are," is heavily slanted. My guess is that these distraught children had never before even heard of an "executive order" and that they had been told something quite specific about this one in order to generate stress - but I don't know. I appreciate the frustration you express that these articles do not help people to understand what is actually going on. That's a good indication that there's propaganda going on!
Would you say that coverage of this executive order has been put through the lens of the basic legitimacy of Mr. Trump as president? If this is about border security, it seems to be a normal thing for any president to be concerned about; but if this is about threatening immigrant families and scaring children, then it's just another indication of how abominable this president actually is.
Consider the direction you will take, ultimately. Will you focus specifically on the wording of Trump's executive order, and the legal battle over it, and the subsequent release of an edited version of the same order (designed to overcome the initial legal issues)? Will you focus on the way the public discourse has galvanized around this issue; and whether this will be discussed as border security or as a humanitarian issue? Which of those approaches would you say better "informs" the public about this?
Good stuff! Let me know how I can help!
I think that the topic of immigration is so popular because Donald Trump called for this executive order just days after his inauguration as President of the United States. Many of the comments he made while campaigning for this presidency in regards to the current immigration policies and our borders were often considered controversial. I think that whether or not people agree with Mr. Trump, the executive order should come of no shock because he is taking the immediate action that he promised his voters he would.
DeleteI would agree that the article which focused on a child’s fear of deportation after being disciplined with detention was shameless. The author of that article employs a tactic which elicits an emotional response from readers. As you stated, the travel ban does not ultimately affect current citizens so fear of deportation is a bit extreme, especially for children who were born in the United States. Unfortunately many articles are taking this approach in an attempt to promote fear and hysteria. This is prevalent as a result of social media. It has become increasingly difficult to find a factual, credible, and informative article.
Both of the articles I referenced and many other articles exemplify different types of propaganda. It is strenuous to find an article that is clear and informs the public of what is actually going on. I have decided to take this on as my topic. With further research, I will focus on propaganda in the media. Propaganda is used in television news, journalism, and many other forms of news media. I imagine that many other people feel the frustration and hopelessness that I do about mass media and the information they receive, or lack thereof.
The media is keeping a close watch on Donald Trump and his every move because they question his legitimacy. He is one of the most disliked presidents in history. Many of the reporters and journalists do not like him and as a result, they are covering his presidency meticulously. Unfortunately, most of their coverage is of what they would like us to know and a limited amount of the information is unbiased and subjectively presented to the public.
In my next blog post, I plan to touch on the topic of “fake news” and the non factual articles that were posted on social media. Many young people find their information about politics and general happenings in the world via social media. Friends and family with similar political views share a meme, a video, or an article and it is accepted as fact because the source is someone we trust. This outlet has strengthened and in time could become a source for credible articles. However that time is not the present.
I appreciate your criticism and hope that I have sufficiently answered all of your questions, cleared up any confusion and focused on a more specific theme for this assignment. In my next blog post, I will find two examples of propaganda from both extreme opposite ends of the spectrum.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness here. There was no confusion about the focus of your project. But there are many ways to approach what you discuss - there are many nuanced positions regarding immigration, illegal immigration, and Middle Eastern refugees; just as there are many positions regarding Mr. Trump, even among those who "support" and those who "oppose" him. Narratives have emerged in the media asserting many ideas - and all aimed at influencing the political landscape.
ReplyDeleteRemember that narratives can often offer interpretations rather than facts - and that often, especially in political debates, competing factions can appear to be relying on "facts" that are direct contradictions with one another. Our job here is not to verify every fact, but rather to observe how selected facts and interpretive frames can be used - sometimes even in the face of facts - to influence public opinion. In the case of competing narratives, these "plotlines" are as much to reinforce what sympathetics already think (as opposed to making any effort to convince those who remain ambivalent).
Yes, it's certainly true that these narratives are designed to elicit emotional responses. That's exactly how propaganda operates; as much to reaffirm certainty among the faithful as to demonize the opposition. You are on a very good track here. Remember that we are sharpening our capacity to recognize persuasive strategy and technique - and not participating in the debate itself.
Let me know how I can help!