Media Criticism: Immigration

During a time when the political climate of the United States is characterized by intense polarization, the media has relinquished its obligation to journalistic objectivity, opting instead to partake in antics that fuel division between Democrats and Republicans and that paint an incomplete picture of American politics. Journalists parade overt biases in their writing, cover aspects of immigration selectively in order to push certain political agendas, and make generalizations that present misleading depictions of immigration to the American public, all of which fail to cultivate a well-informed and politically-responsible population.

Based on coverage of immigration issues in the context of the upcoming election, certain media outlets have proven themselves to be more biased than others. The majority of authors and correspondents, in spite of their ethical obligations to remain impartial, continue to weave in their individual judgments.

For instance, Michael D. Shear, a White House correspondent and journalist at The New York Times, displays overt contempt for Donald Trump in several of his articles regarding immigration. Much of Shear’s writing on immigration tends to have a strong liberal bias and often utilizes satire and irony to attack Trump.

Authors from popular media outlets also exploit immigrant stories with the intention of solidifying their political stances, and this method of extracting sympathy further questions the validity of such reporting. Hailey Fuchs, a journalist for The New York Times, describes the struggles experienced by Guadalupe Rubio, a previous owner of a small construction company who recently contracted the virus. Rubio lost her business, her family’s main source of income, and savings due to the pandemic. She also wasn’t qualified for food stamps and other social benefits. Simultaneously, the Trump administration raised the cost of naturalization applications by more than 80 percent and announced plans on tightening eligibility requirements as well. Fuchs uses Rubio’s immigrant story to propel her argument against the apparent “anti-immigrant sentiment” that thrives within Trump’s policies. In doing so, she conveys several inaccurate assumptions about immigrants based on statistical anomalies. As Fuchs’s article illustrates, anecdotal evidence in reporting runs the risk of misleading readers and furthering personal biases.

The media’s coverage of immigration is extensive yet far from perfect. Both liberal and conservative perspectives display inherent biases that lead to unfounded attacks and harsh generalizations that skew the credibility of their claims.