Lies, slander, wild accusations, and the bending of truth.
The sex, drugs, and alcohol of journalism (especially online) can come from both sides. Take these two articles (links below) on ICE involvement over the past few months, for example.
For our leftist contestant, we have a Mother Jones article titled: 'This Is What Trump's Deportation Campaign Really Looks Like'. And for our rightist contestant, Breitbart, with an article by the title of:
'ICE Fights Back Against Fake News on Criminal Alien Arrest'.
One article includes the year's favorite buzzword 'fake news' and the other has a title which could easily be labeled as 'clickbait' (content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page) on someone's Facebook feed.
The Breitbart article opens discouraging the idea that ICE is doing checkpoints and sweets, whose reports "create mass panic and put communities and law enforcement personnel in unnecessary danger. Any groups falsely reporting such activities are doing a disservice to those they claim to support". This statement speaks a lot, because from a perspective it almost sounds like the statement from ICE (as reported by Breitbart Texas) is trying to discourage and discredit any groups ahead of time before they take to the streets for protest, which seems to be the new American pastime considering recent trends. The use of 'mass panic and putting communities and law enforcement personnel at danger' makes me wonder which communities they are considering? While there is largely a mass panic in the immigrant community (largely the Latino immigrant community), I find it unlikely that people who already live in poverty and tend to live in rather specific areas will put the physical aspects of a community at risk. From a firsthand perspective, Latinos are very family oriented and considering their sense of community I doubt that the ICE representative means to represent their community.
Throughout the article, Breitbart takes testimonies from 'both sides' in what can only be a hope of legitimacy in a cry of 'we're considering both sides' kind of argument, citing Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro when he questioned the threat by posting "I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state". That seems like a reasonable thing to ask, especially if the grounds ICE are detaining people on are that they are potentially dangerous.
Other articles list that deportations under the Obama administration were done only to potential 'higher risk targets' and the current argument is that ICE is indiscriminately targeting those only looking to make a life in their new country (despite having coming illegally).
Shortly following, the article even goes so far as to say that Austin City Councilman is 'adding to the fear and false information about the operation', the councilman's Facebook quote, rallying the community by saying that ICE was arresting people for retaliating against people like Abbot and Trump directly points fingers. It's almost like a call to action, stirring the pot in a 'he said' 'she said' war based solely on who can scream the loudest (by subsequently making their supporters scream the loudest) without actually making sense.
They even go as far as calling the statement of the President pro Tempore of the California State Senate - who simply asked federal officials for a disclosure of the numbers of those detained, the rationale for detention, and that everyone be given an offer for an attorney- as 'fear-inducing rhetoric'.
It is a constitutional right - the sixth amendment - and I quote, to: Guarantee the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
You could argue that the constitution only applies to citizens, but the constitution of the United States technically dictates the guidelines in which the government should be run. This does not specify if someone must be a natural born citizen. Would I, as a permanent resident not have the same constitutional rights as someone who was born here? Technically, no.
Throughout the article, Breitbart takes testimonies from 'both sides' in what can only be a hope of legitimacy in a cry of 'we're considering both sides' kind of argument, citing Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro when he questioned the threat by posting "I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state". That seems like a reasonable thing to ask, especially if the grounds ICE are detaining people on are that they are potentially dangerous.
Other articles list that deportations under the Obama administration were done only to potential 'higher risk targets' and the current argument is that ICE is indiscriminately targeting those only looking to make a life in their new country (despite having coming illegally).
Shortly following, the article even goes so far as to say that Austin City Councilman is 'adding to the fear and false information about the operation', the councilman's Facebook quote, rallying the community by saying that ICE was arresting people for retaliating against people like Abbot and Trump directly points fingers. It's almost like a call to action, stirring the pot in a 'he said' 'she said' war based solely on who can scream the loudest (by subsequently making their supporters scream the loudest) without actually making sense.
They even go as far as calling the statement of the President pro Tempore of the California State Senate - who simply asked federal officials for a disclosure of the numbers of those detained, the rationale for detention, and that everyone be given an offer for an attorney- as 'fear-inducing rhetoric'.
It is a constitutional right - the sixth amendment - and I quote, to: Guarantee the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
You could argue that the constitution only applies to citizens, but the constitution of the United States technically dictates the guidelines in which the government should be run. This does not specify if someone must be a natural born citizen. Would I, as a permanent resident not have the same constitutional rights as someone who was born here? Technically, no.
While the Breitbart article has its flaws, it is not the only culprit.
To shift to the Mother Jones article, we already see the techniques to pull at your heartstrings and instill emotion from their vocabulary.
In opens with "Since February, dozens of deportation raids have been carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies as Donald Trump has kicked his immigration crackdown into high gear. Immigrants - many of whom have lived and worked in the country for decades- have been arrested at home, at work, and at routine check-ins with ICE officials... Here are some of the most outrageous arrests ICE has made so far this year:".
Right away you know you're in for some heated reading, considering the editor has already used the word 'outrageous' and incited compassion by noting that many detained immigrants have lived and worked in the country for decades. It opens up the article with the right mindset, but bases its entire argument on the premise that you should be angry because 'look at how all these people are harmless and good citizens and yet the big bad government is going after them because they're immigrants' instead of the specific legalities of what ICE is doing.
Were they looking for a legitimate argument, the article could list things such as constitutional law and laws still in effect from the Obama administration which could be used in court to protect the targeted individuals who were wrongly accused and apprehended.
To shift to the Mother Jones article, we already see the techniques to pull at your heartstrings and instill emotion from their vocabulary.
In opens with "Since February, dozens of deportation raids have been carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies as Donald Trump has kicked his immigration crackdown into high gear. Immigrants - many of whom have lived and worked in the country for decades- have been arrested at home, at work, and at routine check-ins with ICE officials... Here are some of the most outrageous arrests ICE has made so far this year:".
Right away you know you're in for some heated reading, considering the editor has already used the word 'outrageous' and incited compassion by noting that many detained immigrants have lived and worked in the country for decades. It opens up the article with the right mindset, but bases its entire argument on the premise that you should be angry because 'look at how all these people are harmless and good citizens and yet the big bad government is going after them because they're immigrants' instead of the specific legalities of what ICE is doing.
Were they looking for a legitimate argument, the article could list things such as constitutional law and laws still in effect from the Obama administration which could be used in court to protect the targeted individuals who were wrongly accused and apprehended.
The first section lists a DACA ( Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipient being apprehended after speaking out against ICE for detaining her brother and father. Her status had expired in November and while she applied to renew her status in February (completely legal), her brother and father were apprehended 'in their home' (as the article suggests), and a few weeks later when she spoke out, she was pulled over by ICE, saying that 'You know who we are, you know why we're here'. The woman has since been released from custody.
This section is very relate-able. Anyone can imagine how horrible it would be to have a family member be detained, especially for something you thought preventable or that could never happen. It continues the tone of the article, posting a video of the DACA recipient telling her story. You can put a face to a name and a story. It becomes even more of a personal connection.
This section is very relate-able. Anyone can imagine how horrible it would be to have a family member be detained, especially for something you thought preventable or that could never happen. It continues the tone of the article, posting a video of the DACA recipient telling her story. You can put a face to a name and a story. It becomes even more of a personal connection.
The second section mentions how a brain tumor patient was detained at the hospital even though immigration officials would consider hospitals a 'sensitive' place to apprehend someone. ICE arrested Sara Beltran Hernandez in the Texas Hospital in February where she was receiving treatment for her brain tumor, transferring her to a detention facility in Alvaro, Texas. The individual was granted bond by the social media campaign Amnesty International to reunite with her family and seek medical attention in the end.
Again, it's a heartfelt story. This is one of the saddest situations you could put someone in. Not only is she a woman, but she is also a brain tumor patient, who escaped her country to get away from domestic abuse and gang violence. Other than appealing to people's emotions this section does not go into any real legal details, there is no video or eyewitness testimony listed and it falls very low on the credibility rating. It's all a bit 'Here is why you should be angry at this, direct all your anger without checking fact's piece.
The article continues with a third piece about a Transgender woman detained at a domestic abuse hearing, a father whose arrest was filmed by his sobbing (emphasis on sobbing) daughter, a mother (of two U.S. citizens. This is probably listed to highlight that that means the children will not get a chance to see their own mother, driving the objective of the authors home with their readers) who was deported for working illegally, a father who was forced to deport himself, and a pregnant mother of 4.
The article is completely subjective, being just as guilty as the right leaning article of using emotion as the main driver of their prose (although the Breitbart article at least attempted to use credible sources like politicians who have spoken about the issue, though missing the point and making them sound unreasonable for lawful requests).
If anything, these articles send a very important message.
You can't just be satisfied and call yourself informed by just seeing a piece of the puzzle.
Breathe. Gather your thoughts, and dig for more information.
Do not let yourself be taken by your emotion, because as soon as you get give them your emotion, intelligence and the art of proper argumentation loses.
Again, it's a heartfelt story. This is one of the saddest situations you could put someone in. Not only is she a woman, but she is also a brain tumor patient, who escaped her country to get away from domestic abuse and gang violence. Other than appealing to people's emotions this section does not go into any real legal details, there is no video or eyewitness testimony listed and it falls very low on the credibility rating. It's all a bit 'Here is why you should be angry at this, direct all your anger without checking fact's piece.
The article continues with a third piece about a Transgender woman detained at a domestic abuse hearing, a father whose arrest was filmed by his sobbing (emphasis on sobbing) daughter, a mother (of two U.S. citizens. This is probably listed to highlight that that means the children will not get a chance to see their own mother, driving the objective of the authors home with their readers) who was deported for working illegally, a father who was forced to deport himself, and a pregnant mother of 4.
The article is completely subjective, being just as guilty as the right leaning article of using emotion as the main driver of their prose (although the Breitbart article at least attempted to use credible sources like politicians who have spoken about the issue, though missing the point and making them sound unreasonable for lawful requests).
If anything, these articles send a very important message.
You can't just be satisfied and call yourself informed by just seeing a piece of the puzzle.
Breathe. Gather your thoughts, and dig for more information.
Do not let yourself be taken by your emotion, because as soon as you get give them your emotion, intelligence and the art of proper argumentation loses.
