Introduction
According to news article featured in The CBC News titled ‘ U.S. immigration crackdown: Here's how separating 'illegal' kids and parents really began’ , the zero tolerance policy launched by the Trump government has sparked controversies across the country. In another article featured in The Guardian, ‘Migrant parents separated from children: 'We came because we didn't want to be killed' , parents who violated US immigration laws plead with the court to go scot free after the border patrol officials separated them from the children. A similar story is featured in the USA Today news article, titled ‘ Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise.’ Notably, the three news articles have strived to report on a similar issue, but the presentation of information is different. The immigration subject has sparked numerous issues. Firstly, how is the government supposed to handle immigrants who entered illegally in the country as children? Should the government give priority to economic immigrants, family members, refuges and skilled workers to enter the country? Should the US government focus on increasing or reducing immigration levels? Should minors be separated from their parents at the border? In the following discussion, the focus is mainly on the way the immigration issue has been presented by the three different media sources.
Assumptions Regarding the Three Articles
Prior to reading of the three articles, readers have assumed that the target audience is a broad one, and for obvious reasons, they expect that additional background details will be provided regarding the issue at hand. Back at the mind of the readers, they are aware that the author is targeting a broad audience, considering that the three are news articles. The mind of the readers is already at work on whether after reading the articles they will achieve the purpose of the reading them. The opening lines will provide a hint on the overall topic, and at that point, readers will determine whether their needs will be met. In this case, the three articles focus on the motive behind the immigration issue of separating children from their parents. For instance, in the CBC News, the author’s opening line touches on the way Trump administration has separated more than 2000 children from their families, following the emergence of ‘zero tolerance policy’.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Evidence of Bias in the Articles
In view of the three articles, evidence of biasness is evident. Right from the headlines, the authors have presented the information on immigration differently. For example, the headline ‘How America ended up jailing kids’ represents a different story from ‘Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise.’ The screaming headline on the way America jailed children is aimed at capturing the attention of the readers. The headline is equally emotional, a clear indication that the author aims at revealing zero tolerance in bad faith. The USA Today headline touches on the way the US is handling children based on laid down policies governing immigration. The article is informational, and aims at enlightening the reader on the zero tolerance policy. Notably, the author is not favoring the government or the immigrant side. It represents neutrality and the fact that, separating children from their parents is provided for in the immigration policies. The Guardian headline ‘Migrant parents separated from children: 'We came because we didn't want to be killed' is biased in the sense that, the author is simply favoring the side of immigrants, as opposed to retaining a neutral view. The article is intended on portraying the sympathetic situations forcing illegal immigrants to cross US borders illegally.
Point of View expressed (if there is one) by the Article
The three articles have presented the news in the third person point of view. The authors have chosen the third perspective considering that, it is effective in expressing their message to the readers. In addition, the third point of view allows the authors freedom to expound on the immigration issue. For instance, in the article ‘Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise’ featured on the USA Today, the author has the freedom to tell on a wide range of issues, thus the readers end up getting the different sides of the issue. In the article, Jessica Estepa covers on the zero tolerance policy, the way Trump is cracking on asylum seekers, and the way the immigration issue is associated with Obama administration. Thus, by the time readers are done reading the article, they have a clear understanding of the background leading to the enactment of the policy, besides appreciating the reasons for separating children from their parents for immigration violation.
Reasonably, the third perspective view is objective, probably the reason the authors of the three articles have utilized it. In each, the authors are in a position to tell the readers things about the immigrants, which they might not admit were they to narrate their stories. For instance, in The Guardian article titled ‘Migrant parents separated from children: 'We came because we didn't want to be killed' , the author is in better position to narrate to the readers the way migrant parents were separated from their children by a Texas court. The article reveals that the Brazilian laborer was running away from his country because a drug trafficker wanted to kill him and his family. In the even the article was written from a first perspective, the narrator would have concealed such unpleasant and scary things about his family.
Way Stories Favor Privileged Views
Looking at the three articles, they favor privileged views in the sense that, they champion the interests of the immigrants and to some extent those of the government. For instance, the CBC News article is skewed towards championing the human rights that are being violated by the Trump administration. According to the article, the UN high commissioner for human rights has bashed the White House for what it deems as a way of ripping the migrant families.
Peer-Reviewed Source
Peer reviewed source refers to an article written by experts and reviewed by the numerous experts in the same field after which it is published as a journal. The article by Leach & Good (2011) was helpful in thinking critically about the immigration issue. It was of significance in fostering thinking critical in developing sensible and reasonable arguments in the discussion.
References
Estepa, J. (2018). Immigrant children: Here's what's happening with kids at the border, policywise. Retrieved from < https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/05/29/heres-what- happening-immigrant-children-u-s-border/650755002/>
Gatehouse, J. (2018). U.S. immigration crackdown: Here's how separating 'illegal' kids and parents really began. Retrieved from < https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-afghanistan-us- child-immigrants-1.4710516>
Leach, B.T., & Good, D.W. (2011). Critical Thinking Skills as Related to University Students’ Gender and Academic Discipline. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science , 1(21(Special Issue - December 2011)), 100-106.
