This week we discussed how the media’s coverage of immigration could affect the consumer’s attitudes about immigration. The article I choose highlights the difference in coverage of the migrant caravan by MSNBC and Fox News, which are both very loud mainstream media partisan voices on the left and right of the political spectrum. Therefore, I don’t think it’s necessarily shocking the way each framed the caravan and the tone of their coverage—MSNBC utilized words like asylum and emphasized the women and children in the caravan while FoxNews labeled it as an invasion that’s going to bring in criminal activity. One thing I found interesting was the frequency of the reporting on the caravan, particularly by FoxNews before the midterm elections. MSNBC coverage wasn’t so focused in on the caravan as it was on how Republicans were benefiting from it until the tear-gas incident at the border. I think the human-interest aspect of the caravan and timing of it drove media coverage, what other factors do you think could have been driving media coverage of the caravan, and more broadly, what factors do you think drive media coverage of immigration?
I also added a FoxNews video that I came across because as expected it promotes this narrative that the caravan is full of mob members that are trying to invade the country. Interesting enough they attempt to show the other face of immigration by interviewing a legal immigrant from Hungary and then, highlighting that an illegal immigrant murdered her son. In the video, they don’t mention where the illegal immigrant was from, but they casually say that he was a gang member and fled to Mexico. I think this is an example of group association, as they’re trying to categorize illegal immigrants as Latinos, more specifically as Mexicans that are coming here to commit crimes and without a legitimate reason to seek asylum.
Article: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/media/reliable-sources-10-18-18/index.html
Video: https://video.foxnews.com/v/5852293465001/#sp=show-clips
Discussion Questions:
- Do you think that the pre-existing views of FoxNews and MSNBC audiences drive their coverage of immigration-related events or does their media coverage influence the views of their audience?
- In Abrajano et. al, they discuss how generational status influences Latinos’ immigration attitude, do you think that immigrating legally or illegally affects views on immigration as well?
Thanks for this article. I thought it was very interesting to see how CNN, a left leaning news outlet, perceives and criticizes the biases of other outlets.
1. I think that it is a cycle or an echo chamber effect. By catering to the left or right leanings of their audiences, these news outlets maintain viewership, keep people watching, and keep their ratings high. As their news coverage becomes increasingly biased, the viewers they attract become increasingly assured of their views and perhaps even more extreme in those views. Particularly in regards to immigration, the news sometimes can be an individuals only view especially if they are in areas with low populations of immigrants.
2. As indicated by Angel Mom’s “message to the migrant caravan” that you shared, I think it is possible that whether an immigrating illegally vs legally would impact an individual’s views on immigration. I would suspect that those who immigrated legally might have more restrictionist views. That being said, it is also possible that they are members of communities in which they interact with people who got here illegally and they might empathize with them. In Bronx, the area I am studying, even though the majority of the Latino population are legal and came from Puerto Rico, a US territory, the district is very left leaning in immigrant issues.
I think that the relationship between whether or not someone immigrated legally and how they view immigration probably varies based on region, socioeconomic status, and other variables. While I have found legal arrivals in New York to be supportive of immigration, this is probably not the case in Florida.
Thanks for this article. I thought it was very interesting to see how CNN, a left leaning news outlet, perceives and criticizes the biases of other outlets.
1. I think that it is a cycle or an echo chamber effect. By catering to the left or right leanings of their audiences, these news outlets maintain viewership, keep people watching, and keep their ratings high. As their news coverage becomes increasingly biased, the viewers they attract become increasingly assured of their views and perhaps even more extreme in those views. Particularly in regards to immigration, the news sometimes can be an individuals only view especially if they are in areas with low populations of immigrants.
2. As indicated by Angel Mom’s “message to the migrant caravan” that you shared, I think it is possible that whether an immigrating illegally vs legally would impact an individual’s views on immigration. I would suspect that those who immigrated legally might have more restrictionist views. That being said, it is also possible that they are members of communities in which they interact with people who got here illegally and they might empathize with them. In Bronx, the area I am studying, even though the majority of the Latino population are legal and came from Puerto Rico, a US territory, the district is very left leaning in immigrant issues.
I think that the relationship between whether or not someone immigrated legally and how they view immigration probably varies based on region, socioeconomic status, and other variables. While I have found legal arrivals in New York to be supportive of immigration, this is probably not the case in Florida.