One of the big news stories of last week was the passing of the Arizona immigration law, a bill which is the most sweeping American legislation on the topic. Unfortunately, it was passed Friday afternoon so most of the morning talk shows on the cable news channels had to wait a whole weekend to get their say in. Now that Monday has arrived, early rising Americans across the country finally got to learn what their opinions should be. In a move sure to shock absolutely no one anywhere, the folks at Morning Joe and Fox & Friends had slightly different takes on the subject. Below, we take some time out to compare the different approaches.
Main Sentiment: Joe Scarborough and crew are definitely not fans of the new law. The main fear here was that racial profiling would become a huge problem as police begin stopping every Hispanic on the street to ask for their papers. As Scarborough describes, we are reentering a time when people can be pulled over for the simple crime of being a “person of color”.
Shrill Hyperbole or Awkward Analogy: The MSNBC show definitely went the hyperbole route. Not only was the “person of color” phrase used to evoke old civil rights debates, the team also through around the term “totalitarianism regime” or just called the law “frightening”.
Actual Good Point: “Why don’t you check illegal immigrants at the place where it matters? Why don’t you check at work?”
Antithesis: When first learning how to write a persuasive essay, high school students around the country are taught to include some dissenting views towards the end of their argument to show that they’re levelheaded. Scarborough made his English teachers proud by reminding viewers that he was against the McCain/Kennedy bill, calling it “amnesty”. Joe likes immigrants. He just doesn’t like like them.
Extra Credit: Love the Rush song in the background! Rock on, Morning Joe!
Quote to Sum it Up: “Oh my God. Where are we? What decade are we in?”
Fox & Friends
Main Sentiment: The Super Friends over at Fox & Friends covered the protests against the law but seemed almost bemused by them. Why on earth would people be upset about a law that merely helps enforce laws we already have.
Shrill Hyperbole or Awkward Analogy: Awkward analogy all the way. When Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade brought up the worries of racial profiling with cops pulling over anyone who looks Hispanic,
Gretchen Carlson helpfully told a story about her Australian friend. Unfortunately, the topic on hand wasn’t people who sound foreign, mate, but people who look it.
Actual Good Point: “When we go to other countries we show our passports so that’s kind of the way it works.”
Antithesis: On this case, the “fair and balanced” network clearly beats out the “place for politics”. Not only do they mention the concerns of those against the law, they also show an interview with Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva who is not thrilled with what his state passed.
Extra Credit: Note the reference to Robert Krentz, the rancher whose murder has been a rallying cry for conservatives in this debate.
Quote to Sum it Up:“I’m a little confused over this whole thing. Why was the word in front of ‘immigration’ for years and years and years ‘illegal’? Because it’s illegal!”
As always, the truth in this matter is most likely somewhere in the middle of these too views. We’d love to show you the opinion of the middle but unfortunately, you can make much more money preaching to choirs.
Have a tip we should know? email@example.com