Recently President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Trump ordered a suspension of arrivals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, including refugees. This quick action by President Trump caused lots of chaos and confusion with Administration officials, who thought this ban also applied to green card holders. People became stuck at airports in the Middle East who were trying to get home to the United States. This so called “travel ban”, caused a huge uproar. Many people questioned if this was really a ban on Muslims, not a travel ban. People were split, it was either a safety precaution enforced by our “great” President, or a cowardly act imposing the idea that all Muslims are a considered a threat. New York Times and CNN took very different stances when covering the so called travel ban President Donald Trump put into place. These new sources used tactics such as diction and quote selection to portray this order as either a travel ban that is protecting the US citizens or a ban on Muslims enforced by a cowardly President.
Within in the first paragraph, CNN’s article writer, Carol Swain, takes a stance on this issue by using harsh words like “hysteria” and “misleading new reports”. Carol Swain comes right out a says that this is not a ban on Muslims, but that people have turned this false accusation into something that it is not. The diction Carol uses suggests that she is one hundred percent for this travel ban. She claims that, “Donald Trump has planned to reduce the number of refugees to a more “reasonable” flow.” Reader reading this article are starting to perceive this as more of a travel ban and by using the word reasonable she suggests that the limit, previously made by Barack Obama, was too much. She then goes on to say that refugees are “ill-equipped” and impose an “enormous burden” on local communities. This not only suggests that refugees can’t. adjust to other cultures, but that they should not be allowed here because they will be a burden to communities in the United States. Using the word burden does not sound positive at all. Word choices like that can shape the reader’s perception on refugees with negative connotation. Carol continues to say that this is a travel ban that was put in place to protect the people, not ban a certain religion. She concludes her article by stating, “ instead of complaining about President Trump’s executive order preventing terrorist attacks from foreign nationalists, when we invoke the words “we the people” we should celebrate the fact that we have someone in the White House willing to go the extra mile to ensure the safety of our citizens. We should be thankful.” By closing with this statement and using words like “complaining” and “thankful” it shows bias. She is pretty much calling out people saying to man up and appreciate the fact that we have someone who’s willing to do what it takes to protect U.S. Citizens. She uses gatekeeping to talk about all the “great” things he’s done for us and that he is doing what needs to be done.
On the other hand, the New York Times took a very different approach and you can tell in the title. Their headline reads, “ Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous”. Right off the bat readers get this idea that Trump is a coward for putting a ban on Muslims. Nowhere does it say that it was a travel ban, but they repeatedly say it’s a ban on Muslims. The New York Times is acting as a gatekeeper, preventing us from perceiving this as a travel ban. Within the first paragraph words like “ cruelty” “injury” and “suffering” bring a very negative connotation towards Trump and his actions. The editor then uses the word indefinitely when describing the suspension of Syrian refugees. Diction like this causes users to portray this as a horrible and negative act. The New York Times acts like gatekeeper. This article constant focuses on the “bigoted, cowardly, and self- defeating” acts of President Trump, nowhere in this article is he portrayed as a protector. Any information that makes Trump look good was completely left out. However, both articles included the statement, “ The United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and it’s founding principles. Swain came at this statement as a form of protection, while on the other hand The New York Times said it was a “spurious notion” that all Muslims should be considered a threat. Not only does the article reference the so called “Muslim Ban” but it also references the fact that Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women and supporting policies against gay rights. This biased information is meant to form this picture in your head that Trump is a coward and not someone who should be president. This article used diction and quote selection to try and act like a gatekeeper; stopping people from hearing the counter argument to this issue.
In conclusion, both new sources took two very different approaches to Donald Trump’s “travel ban”. Swain took the stance that Donald Trump’s order was not a ban on Muslims, but a travel ban that was done in order to protect America from terrorists. This article was less biased than the article written by The New York Times. The New York Times really emphasizes the idea that Donald Trump is a coward and that he is not a good president. As a reader I would not trust a new source like this because of all it’s biased information. It hard to get an understanding of something when you’re only hearing one side of it. It very important for an article to keep the article unbiased and touch on both sides.However, the article by Swain was was still a little biased, but to a smaller degree than the second article, which makes both articles not the most reliable pieces of news.
