A Day Without Immigrants
Both Fox News and CNN covered the controversial firing of people involved in the day without immigrants protest. Just days ago thousands of people took of work in order to join in A Day Without Immigrants protest. This protest was staged in order to demonstrate the importance of Immigrants and show this opinions towards Donald Trump wanting to build a wall. By missing a day of work nationwide they hoped people would see the importance of Immigrants.
Two different news stations, Fox News and CNN covered the response of many business owners. Employees were fired in response to participating in this event and missing work. Although they both covered the same story, they each painted an entirely different picture based on the perspectives they choose to tell the story from.
For starters the very first thing a reader sees in an article, the title, was completely opposite for both. CNN’s article was titled “ Business Owners Stand by decision to fire workers who protested”. This immediately starts things off from the business’s perspective. On the contrary Fox’s article was titled “ Dozens of Workers lose their jobs for participating in Day Without Immigrants protest”. Unlike the CNN article this starts by putting things in perspective from the workers who were fired, not the business owners. Even the little things like Fox including the number of employees fired, unlike the CNN article make you more biases towards feeling bad for the employees right away. CNN make the business owners sound right by describing them as standing by their decision. Both articles are skewing the readers opinion before they even start reading the article.
The people used as sources in the article provide bias for both news sources because both fail to fairly provide sources from both sides of the incident. CNN chooses to stick with interviewing the business owners themselves only, sourcing their reasoning for why the firings were justified. One boat company owner was quoted and he described how simply he doesn’t make money when his employee don’t show up. He says, “ when 21 people don’t show up it seriously hurts our operations”. This provides merit for firing the employers and doesn’t explain what happened at all from the Immigrants perspective. It leaves the reader only knowing that the Immigrants were in the wrong and should have been fired since it was costing the owner money.
Fox covered the exact same companies incident but included entirely different details. Fox choose to describe that the company told the employees they could not participate in the protest, and “threatened” them with termination. This makes the reader think that the employers were completely against the protest and wanted to inhibit people from participating. Instead of talking about money as the reason why people were fired, Fox sited the threats that employers made one again telling a different perspective.
The word choice describing the employees and how they were fired also bias the reader throughout the articles. Fox News uses terms like “lost their jobs” and “participated” drawling sympathy towards the employees making them sound like the victims in this situation. This bias the reader towards feeling angry with the businesses and really bad for the people who lost their jobs. CNN uses work choice like “above and beyond” and “slap to the face” putting the business owners as the ones being hurt out of this whole thing. It also makes the business owners look like they did everything they could but had to fire the employers, like they were the ones being taken advantage of.
The image CNN used depicts angry aggressive looking people. It makes the reader feel like anyone who protested is violent and scary looking. Fox used an image of a smiling protester holding a sign with an American flag. Both once again show a different story and portray the protesters in a completely different light.
All in all both articles do a terrible job of telling both sides of the story on employees fired on a Day Without Immigrants. Both Fox and CNN tell a completely one sided story from the first words in the article. If a reader had read only one of those articles they would have a completely wrong idea about what happened. Neither article tells the whole story and I think they are both equally bad.