The article “She Became a Face of Family Separation at the Border. But She’s Still With Her Mother” references the well-known photo of the Honduran toddler crying at the border as her mother was being patted down. The article explains that the child was not actually separated from her mother, and that the two were taken away by border security together. Several sources, however, said that the girl was carried away screaming. This article is a good representation of how the media can have an influence over the perception of immigration. The TIME’s story was not accurate, but it had an impact. People are not used to seeing immigrants represented in this type of way, especially not as crying children at the border. The article says that this photo caused a surge in donations towards immigrants at the border and mobilization against family separation, specifically because this photo was spread so quickly through social media.
Discussion Question: Even though photos like this have a more positive impact on immigration rights/immigration views, do news sources still have a responsibility to not dramatize the truth for the sake of the cause?
I found the Times response on the use of the image interesting, “Our cover and our reporting capture the stake of this moment”.
I think news outlets have the right to dramatize the truth for the sake of a cause and for the sake of viewership. Given the decline of print and subscriptions, news outlets implore every strategy to get people to click on their articles and stay there. However, it is super important to consult various sources to gain an understanding of the full picture. Thankfully, in the case of this photo, other outlets noticed the error and spoke out against the times. Similarly, the CNN article that Daniela posted calls out both MSNBC and FoxNews for their biased coverage of the caravan.
I think dramatizing the truth is a risk for news outlets, one that might lose them loyal subscribers, but it is all within their rights to do it.