Author Topic: Media spin at its finest with the latest SCotUS Ruling.  (Read 1317 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Media spin at its finest with the latest SCotUS Ruling.
« on: June 08, 2021, 06:18:30 PM »
And it is earie as to how well it hews to the example discussed back in 2017:

If you are “a moron” however and only read the headlines… well then yes.  You may very well believe Russia hacked the vote.

Based on studies of the typical behavior of most people browsing online. That is probably just about all the majority of people read. The next smaller group might have even read the first paragraph in the article. After that, you're down to a quarter or less of the people who clicked on the link.
You're bumming me out man...  Probably not wrong, but disheartening.

Well, it gets better when you consider claims of "media bias" and consider another item I had brought up elsewhere. Look at how many agencies write their stories.

For example, they'll lead with a (pro)Trump Claim, and IMMEDIATELY seek to refute it from the opening sentence.

If they lead with an anti-Trump claim, they'll usually spend the next several paragraphs talking about what the opposition thinks before getting into the "meat and potatoes" of the issue itself. (IE. They're putting the anti-Trump stuff up front, where the "average attention span" will catch it, while they're placing anything that might support Trump near the end of the article, in the hopes that people won't bother to read it.)

Likewise, with Clinton, it wasn't uncommon to see a Pro-Clinton claim get a pro-clinton lead-in while the anti-Clinton content trailed.

Or media coverage in regards to political strategy. How is it that the narrative tends to be "Democrats are going to try ___. What are the Republicans going to try to counter, and how could it hurt them(the Republicans) in the polls?" vs "The Republicans are going to try ____. How is this going to hurt them in the polls."

But to get to the recent example from the Associated Press, which means you can find the headline on most major outlets, I'm picking on NBC just because:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-unanimously-rules-against-immigrants-temporary-status-n1269868
Headline:
Quote
Supreme Court unanimously rules against immigrants with temporary status

Well, at least the court could agree 9-0 on something involving immigration, but that certainly puts a sinister spin on the court the liberal press wants to pack with more liberal justices.

The byline does at least somewhat mitigate the headline, but you have to read it carefully:
Quote
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have Temporary Protected Status from seeking “green cards” to remain in the country permanently.

But then we get into the opening of the article once again:

Quote
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents.

Again leading with the most broad application possible.

Second paragraph:
Quote
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have Temporary Protected Status from seeking “green cards” to remain in the country permanently.

Well, at least they bothered to clarify it before too many people lost interest and moved on to reading something else.

And then 8 paragraphs later at the very end of the article:

Quote
Monday's decision does not affect immigrants with TPS who initially entered the U.S. legally and then, say, overstayed their visa, Kagan noted. Because those people were legally admitted to the country and later were given humanitarian protections, they can seek to become permanent residents.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Media spin at its finest with the latest SCotUS Ruling.
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2021, 11:28:47 PM »
Lol, yes those headlines were something else.  I actually read the case, and it's a bit stunning.  The illegal immigrant in question illegally entered in 1997, in 2001 the US government designated El Salvador as country that was eligible for TPS because - get this - of a series of "devastating earthquakes."  Mr. Sanchez has been - and still is - on temporary protected status because conditions in his home country are "unsafe" because of earthquakes 20 years ago.

The really obnoxious part of this case is that even with his loss Mr. Sanchez is still not facing deportation because he's still eligible for TPS, all this did was deny that he could move off TPS to a permanent "legal" immigrant status.

That said, the fact that this was a 9-0 case turns on a level of grammatical absurdity that really demeans the court.  It was solely based on the difference between being "lawfully in the country," which Mr. Sanchez is, and having been "lawfully admitted to the country," which Mr. Sanchez was not.  I doubt many would read the law in question and think the SC's decision was self evident.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Media spin at its finest with the latest SCotUS Ruling.
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2021, 08:00:56 PM »
That said, the fact that this was a 9-0 case turns on a level of grammatical absurdity that really demeans the court.  It was solely based on the difference between being "lawfully in the country," which Mr. Sanchez is, and having been "lawfully admitted to the country," which Mr. Sanchez was not.  I doubt many would read the law in question and think the SC's decision was self evident.
You'd not make much a Textualist if you think that distinction is a "grammatical absurdity"!  Now, that case that was purportedly decided by an Oxford Comma analysis, now there's grammatical absurdity for ya...