Vox versus Fox

12/4/18

The current crisis on the border between Mexico and the United States is simply atrocious, and the way that two different sources approach it is dramatically different. I analyzed two sources on opposite sides of the spectrum, Vox which lies on the left, and fox which lies on the right. There was definitely a distinction in the words used by each of the news websites, and these word choices are meant to convince and appeal to the audience.

In Vox I found many patterns or categories of words that were repeatedly brought up. For example, words that made the situation more victimized, words that show how people have been assaulted and hurt. They appeal to the peoples sympathy and show the suffering of others. Some words are, "violence, desperation, frustration, force, unrest," and many more. With these words we associate a certain picture of suffering which gets the reader to tap into their more sympathetic feelings and project their emotional connection to these words. Other emotional words I think were used to get people to project a certain view of hopelessness or suffering. Words like "retreated, dispersed, or tried." These have a certain connotation I feel tapping into our guilt or feeling of empathy or wanting to help and improve these conditions. Also, words that make the government's actions seem very severe are used. "Hostile, firing, misdemeanor, prevent, and attack" are a few examples of this. These words have a very negative connotation. With these I think they are targeting again the anger and sympathy that we have. This can get people to develop some kind of resentment towards the government or current conditions. I think that this specific word choice can help get more people into the mindset of creating progress and seeing the problem within our government. So this was very effective in my opinion because it was not too aggressive, but the points and extent of the issue were conveyed very well. 

The next piece that I looked into was of Fox News. This piece was very different compared to the one I read before this on Vox. I believe that some words that were used had a more positive connotation to make the government seem more heroic or like they are doing good deeds. Some examples are, "defended, fend off, and pursue." These words make it seem more like the government and its people were being attacked rather than the other way around. It makes it seem like the U.S. is the bigger victim by using these words because the connotation of these words are associated more with a of a victim rather than an offender. Also, the process of using tear gas was made more acceptable by using words with a more positive connotation. Some examples are, "necessary, policy, response." This choice of language is more acceptable and gives the impression that this was not an attack, but just a necessary progressive action. These words I think lead the audience to project their own thoughts of what the victim versus the offender is based off of these words. This takes off the blame from the government and instead makes it seem more like a heroic deed. I also noticed that there was a lot less focus on the people that this is affecting like the people trying to enter the country, instead the main focus is on our country and what must be done. Not many negative words were used, only words with positive connotations. This I believe is to allow the audience to project positive thoughts on the situation and see what is happening as good or just a normal policy. By repeatedly bringing up the point that this is only "policy" and that it is "necessary", people associate these words with a common or normal protocol rather than what is actually happening. Therefore, with these words the blame is taken off the government and the suffering of the people is avoided to only discuss the necessity of enforcing the policy. 

Overall, I was not too surprised by the difference in the two pieces. One was definitely more doublespeak, positive and narrow, the other was more inclusive, realistic, and to the point. With the story presented on Vox, there was definitely usage of both positive and negative connotations of words. This was to tap more into sympathy, but also to look at the wrong doings of the government. On the other side, of Fox News the story was much more positive and focused on the government and its situation almost entirely. This was ultimately to gain support and to look more towards the reasons why rather than the effect. Both sides used words that had certain connotations to appeal to the audience. Which one was more effective, is up to one's personal beliefs as well as their relationship or connection with certain words. I do think though that it is very interesting how one story can be take in two infinitely different routes. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-tear-gas-was-necessary-to-repel-migrants-who-rushed-port-of-entry

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/26/18112474/tear-gas-border-patrol-caravan-rocks