Immigration Ban- Blog 2

My oh my, it seems like forever ago that the media was plastered with new and breaking details about President Trump’s Immigration Executive Order. Well folks, that’s because it has been forever, we have moved on to bigger and more exciting things…you know, potential Russian ties and airstrikes in Syria. This got me thinking, did the people just stop caring? Or did the media decide we needed something new and fresh to bicker over? For a political junkie like myself, I follow the details to this executive order daily, but I find some people who once had very strong opinions on the topic, don’t even know what is happening currently. And this ladies and gentlemen is what I like to call MEDIA MANIPULATION. Conservative and liberal media outlets have it all figured out, they tell you how to think, what to think, and how long you should think about these specific issues.

As of recent, most of the back and forth we see on this topic can be exemplified in one simple question: Is this reform Constitutional? We had great dialogue in class regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, since it does lack specifics to certain situations. Our political agenda and morals impact our perception greatly. I found two articles both written in a similar question/ answer format that clearly have different notions and mindsets on the temporary immigration ban.

Today’s Matchup:

Conservative Review: Separating Fact from Sickening Media Fiction on Trump’s Immigration Executive Order vs. Slate: Trump Said He Wanted a Muslim Ban

The Conservative Review and Slate seem to be very extreme in their sentiments pertaining to this topic. It was quite easy to notice the salient and omitted facts. The Conservative Review article does a great job of educating the audience, with zero(ish) bias. It politely reminds everyone that the so called “Muslim Ban” is simply a suspension on immigration. “It shuts off the issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 90 days from the following seven volatile countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.” For the most part, I find that this article stays unbiased and is merely trying to enlighten the audience on why the executive order is constitutional and no big deal. Of course, we can debate that the authors lax attitude is indeed bias, because he is unaffected by the reform period. Do authors have any business writing about a topic that doesn’t affect them? That certainly has an impact on ones demeanor, especially when it is concerning such a sensitive topic. The authors facts and evidence make him a reliable source no matter what side of the spectrum you find yourself on.

The article from Slate had some good specific details pertaining to the arguments of the Washington lawsuit versus President Trump’s reform. This author had no interest in remaining unbiased (I think), his article seemed so fueled by feelings and emotions that he couldn’t see the common goal in the executive order. President Trump did not implement the temporary immigration ban to be vicious and mean like he is made out to be. The author left out that necessary educational portion that readers need to make their own opinion. I'd like to say the author made good legal points, but he didn't have any evidence regarding the "constitutional limitations" he speaks so frequently about. However, this is certainly a great way to strike up anger and sensitivity in readers, as I said before a media outlets favorite audience are the naïve viewers.