I believe this is good journalism to an extent-it reports both sides of the issue, and paints a good general picture of the situation. However, I noticed what seemed to be somewhat of a bias- the Obama administration was painted as the reasonable, logical, compassionate group, while the Republican party was described as intolerant and misunderstanding. While Obama's statement was inclusive among all those involved with the deportation process ("those in immigration proceedings, NGOs and other community and advocacy groups"), the Lamar Smith described all those involved as "illegal and criminal immigrants". While these are direct quotes, they may be selected in order to influence a readers' views.

This article, though informative and factual, presents its findings and ideas in a way that may affirm stereotypes, and unintentionally steer readers towards a particular political opinion. The article uses the phrase "illegal immigrants” to describe one set of people, while using words like “citizens,” “residents,” and “Republicans” to describe another category of people. As Sally Lehrman attests in her book News in a New America, phrases such as these can unintentionally induce readers to “draw on racial stereotypes,” prompting them to support harsher policies towards immigrants. In addition, this article is written in from an economical angle, emphasizing the strain immigrants would place upon resources, as ... More »

In the article I chose, I found that the author liked to put "illegal immigrants" and "criminals" together in the same category. This is not right and it is kind of what the article is about. The article is trying to decide if to draw a line between the two, but I guess the author already has an opinion in her writing which might mean that the author has an unconscious stereotype of the situation like the book "News in a New America" explained. This is similar to the example in class where the white person's name is proper and the nonwhite name is improper. This shows a separation between the two even though it is not completely obvious. This is the only example I noticed in this article.

At first glance, this article seems to be good journalism because it is able to, in a simple way, present a lot of information concerning both sides of the issue of illegal immigration. After reading more closely, however, it is easy to see that this article portrays a very clear viewpoint on the issue, which discredits its overall quality. If I had not read and seen examples of the subtle, unconscious stereotypes that often appear in writing, I probably would have missed those same types of stereotypes seen in this article. Although the opinion of the author was never stated (that would definitely not be good journalism), his feelings either unconsciously or consciously were clear through his use of language. Words like ... More »

In every news story, there is a central focus- the concern of the public for which the news story is being focused on. In this news article, we know that the issue here is the controversy over having a new public advocate for immigrant concerns, specifically the fact that these concerns include those of undocumented immigrants. it is understandable that the issue is because they are not undocumented, but the language that is used can make viewers/readers see undocumented immigrants unfavorably. According to "Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local TV News on the Viewing Public", we are "scripted" to look for a "perpetrator"- the individual or group responsible for creating a controversy here. Since we see that the issue is over ... More »