Immigration has been a hot button issue in the States for some time and is a deeply layered problem that the news is constantly covering. Lately major news sources such as the New York Times, USA Today and CNN have been covering the American side to the issue. Meanwhile sources from Universal, an online Mexican news source, and BBC of the United Kingdom offer more of an international viewpoint.
In a recent New York Times article, “Debate Over Arizona Immigration Law Comes to U.S. Court,” by Randal C. Archibold focused on the issues between the State and Federal government in a very sophisticated tongue and dry style. The demographics of the average New York Times subscriber suggest an educated reader with a wide vocabulary and previous understanding of the inner-workings of our country’s government. Archibold jumped right in discussing and quoting officials on the issue. The NYT article discussed whether or not Arizona’s new law was constitutional in regards to its rights to overstep the Federal government’s previously implemented immigration programs. He also discussed whether or not it would be legal for the Arizona officers to allow race to come into play while on the field explaining that the new law allows for it while previous Federal Court rulings say this is illegal.
While the New York Times offered a strictly factual and governmental focus, USA Today seemed to be writing for a different audience.The author of the online version, “Judge Hears Arguments Over Arizona Immigration Law,” not only offered more descriptive language but also a more personal level of information, describing the protest outside the court house this past Thursday during hearings. They were less concerned with the legality of the issue and more focused on the realities of daily life in regards to illegal immigration in Arizona; the history of these issues, the feelings of the citizens and why this law came about. Arizona citizens are tired of the daily consequences of their location and feel the federal government isn’t doing enough to secure the boarder (large billboards stating the boarder is a dangerous territory doesn’t seem to cut it) so they decided to take state action, constitutionally or not. The article offered specific information of the new rights the Arizona police officers now have, “The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to check a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.”On an online broadcast of the “Arizona immigration showdown,” CNN offered a dry, factual and statistical piece on the issue. The new immigration laws in Arizona are only one piece of a very large puzzle. CNN chose to cover a different piece in the immigration saga analyzing boarder patrol and safety and raising questions of just how secure our boarder is. All in all, the previous three articles covered different aspects of a large ongoing issue, but all with a white, American focus and many times from the personal right-wing point of view of various interviewees.
Contrarily, Universal and BBC gave new points of view. BBC offered a political worldview to the issue discussing Mexican Officials’ feelings on the new law. As a “friend of the court,” the Mexican government has offered its opinion on the new law. “‘Mexico has a duty to protect its citizens and ensure that their ethnic origin is not used as a basis for committing discriminatory acts,’ the Mexican foreign ministry said in a statement.”
Mexican news source, Universal, posted an online article titled, “Migrantes a la Deriva por Narco y Racismo” was the only article of the 5 I looked at that offered the Mexican point of view. The unknown author was the only to talk about why Mexican’s are coming to the United States and to mention what would happen to those questioned without paperwork once the law comes into action: jail. The second title to the article translates to, “ Specialists say families escape the violence going to the United States, but return because of the prosecution.”
The Critical Cultural Model suggests that the senders of our media messages only cover what resonates with them based on their perception of culture. This is proven by the diversity of information offered from these 5 news sources. The demographics being reached explains the different subtopics covered in each story however it was only the Mexican news source that seemed to be writing an article not catered to the white people tired of illegal immigrants. All the American based articles tackled Arizona citizens frustration with the issue, the political and legal circus around the new law and boarder security, all of which are important issues, however none had any interest in the welfare of these illegal Mexican immigrants on either side of the boarder. Due to this imbalance, any reader interested in new points of view is going to have to search outside our daily American news sources for fresh points of view or stories with personal depth verses legal and statistical information.
I think you touch on a very sensitive issue now. I also agree that there are certain points of view offered in a sector of the media. Recently, CNN has started a campaign called CNNExpress (I think it's only available in the Spanish branch) The campaign consists on visiting towns affected by this new soon-to-become law and talk to people directly to know what they think. They visit towns in a bus (that's why the name 'express'). It is interesting to know what immigrants feel; most of them think they are being scared away and some are willing to leave though others are not and prefer to wait for the law to be reversed (See link for more: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/spanish/2010/07/27/WEBcnnexpress16.cnn)
ReplyDeleteNow, even when this campaign shows a different perspective on how people feel about this issue, it is still targeting Spanish-speaking population which, in my opinion, does not benefit the vast majority of those interested in this issue.
Great post.
The immigration issue is very interesting to me. The critical/cultural model can be applied in this instance. However, the problem with the critical/cultural model is that it broadbrushes everyone into the same model. I would say that people, while perhaps inclined to pay attention to messages that resonate with their personal opinion or experiences, are also able to listen to and adopt other points of view which can shape and even change their own world view.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of main stream discourse on immigration, what is often left out of the discussion is the historical context, and the role of global capitalism, and globalization in immigration. The border is portrayed in news media as dangerous, and the presence of immigrants is seen as a threat to Americans. The reasons WHY people are coming here, leaving their homelands, and risking their lives is left out of the discourse.
The portrayal of immigrants has been made synonomous with "mexican" in the current media climate. The Arizona law is an example of racial profiling. Certainly there are plenty of immigrants of European descent who are here illegally, who have no reason to fear their own deportation. This is problematic. And perhaps what we should be asking ourselves is what are the implications of laws such as the one in Arizona about the views of which immigrants are welcomed, and which are not, and why? Which are demonized, and which can be easily assimilated into the mainstream, and what do institutions (such as government and media) do to reinforce these?