COMPARISON: HOUSE VOTES TO DEFUND IMMIGRATION ACTIONS AS DISCUSSED

IN THE NEWS
2/5/15
I looked at 3 different articles about the House Vote to defund immigration actions,
on from MSNBC, the Blaze, and other from the Hill. I had some preconceived notions
on the respective content on the 3 different sources; however I was presently
surprised on the professionalism showed in these articles. The articles differ many
in: the title, world choice, what they included, and what they didnt include.
In order to understand potential biased in these articles, one needs to look at
the sources. MSNBC is on the left end of the political spectrum, and generally shows
no remorse in latently lying or misleading, coming from someone who is on the
right. Consequently The Blaze is a right leaning political network, which is owned
and operated by Glenn Beck, who is basically a right-wing political comminatory, or
entertainer; insterestly enough I consider Glenn Beck a political whack job The 3 rd
source is from The Hill, which I consider a more middle of the road source, and
generally has little biased.
For the title, the MSNBC article is titled House Votes to gut immigration actions,
whereas the Blaze article is titled House Votes to Defund Obamas Immigration
Action. The Hill article is titled House passes bill to defund Obamas immigration
orders. The MSNBC article is trying to pull at the heart strings, no doubt trying to
paint republicans as heartless SOBs, what hate all immigrants! The Blaze title and
The Hill title are very much alike, the difference is Votes vs. Passes, and Action
vs. Orders. I can understand both differences, since one may have been written
before it was passed, and the immigration policy in question in the form of
Executive action/orders. This title down plays the emotion involved, whereas the

MSNBC ratchets things up. The biased in rather clear, MSNBC is traditionally against
this action, whereas the Blaze is for it.
Word choice is the next very interesting level of dissection of these articles. The
MSNBC is the only article to use the phrase Unilateral actions on immigration, in
reference to Obamas actions. Additionally MSNBC , and the Hill call Obama
President Obama, whereas the Blaze just goes with Obama, in all fairness I
usually go with expletives. This shows that MSNBC and the Hill clearly have more
respect for Obama, then the Blaze does, and this can been seen through there
inherit bias. The use of the phrase, Unilateral action.. is surprising to say the least,
since i though MSNBC would have down played the fact Obama acted alone in the
immigration policy, though they may like that about Obama. Predictably, the MSNBC
article uses the word toxic as an adjective to describe the amendments in the bill,
this is meant to infer that what the republicans are doing is politically unviable, and
that are stupid for messing around with Toxic stuff. The Hill article used the
phrases like choke off the funding, or take aim in reference to Obamas
executive action, both of these phrases have violent connotations, and after quit a
vivid description of the evil republicans ATTACKING THE POOR IMMINGRANT
CHILDREN!!!!! The Blaze article does not include such wording, opting for block,
or defund, in an attempt to remove all emotion from the debate, right out of the
play book.
Finally one needs to look at what facts the articles included, or opted out of.
As one could guess, The Blaze article does not include any commentary from those
in opposition, while both the MSNBC, and the Hill article has quotes about how this
action will tear immigrant families apart, and is ill-responsible to hold the nation
hostage. This plays into the biased of The Blaze, since they no doubtly support

this action, while the biased of MSNBC is shining clear with their selective quotes.
The Blaze article is also the only article not to mention that Obama has promised to
veto any bill of such. The MSNBC and The Hill article also mention quotes that raise
the idea that these actions will hurt he republicans in the long run. This is just
another attempt at trying to silence republican support, by showing a main stream
biased. Looking at the articles as a whole, all 3 of them contain the same basic
facts, the what and the who, but the articles differed on the why question.
Most of this biased was accomplished by choosing quotes from varies people, on the
different side of the issue.
In conclusion all of these articles are factually correct, at least in respect to
each other. The way the author, and/or publisher get the biased across is most
easily seen in word choice, and the quotes that were used. The only question that
still lingers is, are these slight differences the result of intentional, or unintentional
biased. In other words did the author start writing the article with a preconceived
notion, or conclusion, of the facts, or did the author just gather and present the,
without any preconceived notions. I cannot honestly tell, but overall all of the article
are rather fair and informative individually, however the reader may be able to
better understand the issues completely with a comparison of all three.

Works Cited
Kasperowicz, Pete. "House Votes to Defund Obamas Immigration Action." The Blaze. The
Blaze, 14 Jan. 2015. Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/14/house-votes-to-defund-obamasimmigration-action/

Sakuma, Amanda. "House Votes to Gut Immigration Actions." Msnbc.com. NBC News Digital,
14 Jan. 2015. Web. 06 Feb. 2015. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/house-gop-vote-gutimmigration-actions

Shabad, Rebecca, and Chista Macos. "House Passes Bill to Defund Obama's Immigration
Orders." TheHill. The Hill, 14 Jan. 2015. Web. 05 Feb. 2015. http://thehill.com/blogs/flooraction/house/229469-house-votes-to-defund-obamas-immigration-orders