Introduction
Among the promises that President Donald Trump made during his presidential campaign was the pledge to protect the interests of the United States and to ensure public safety. He pledged to fight the Islamic State and other forms of extremism like Al-Qaida. After assuming office, the president signed an executive order that aroused outrage not only in the United States but also across the globe, particularly in the Muslim countries. The law barred people from seven Muslim nations from entering the United States. The president was clear that the executive order was not meant to ban Muslims. Instead, it intended to guarantee the security of the American citizens and to avert terror. Numerous media outlets, political analysts, and scholars have taken different positions regarding the executive order. Some find the order as a political and outright attempt to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.
Analysis
An article by German Lopez of Vox Media refutes President Donald Trump’s claim that the executive order was meant to avert terror and guarantee security. The outrage that followed the signing of the executive order led to the president issuing a statement to defend his position. President Trump reiterated that even though the United States was willing to accommodate those fleeing oppression, it would not compromise the safety of its citizens. He said that the previous regimes used similar strategies to protect the country, citing the ban on visas for immigrants from Iraq by President Obama in 2011. President Trump claimed that had the executive order intended to ban Muslims; it would have affected all the nations with majority Muslims. However, Lopez states, “The executive order is an evolution of Trump’s actual Muslim ban proposal”. The president had promised to ban Muslims from entering the United States temporarily. Thus, even though the executive order does not affect a majority of the Muslims, it signifies the president’s intention to ban Muslims from the United States.
The Lopez cites evidence from President Trump’s close ally and adviser. Lopez claims that Rudy Guiliani (former New York Mayor) revealed that President Trump had sought his advice on how to use the right approach to prevent Muslims from entering the United States. The position of the article is that the president cannot justify his actions. Lopez argues that President Trump’s executive order cannot be compared with that issued by President Obama. In 2011, President Obama issued an order that affected only the refugees from Iraq. However, President Trump’s executive order impacts refugees, tourists, and other potential immigrants.
Lopez maintains that President Obama’s order did not bar refugees from entering the United States. Instead, it reduced the pace at which they were admitted into the country. Conversely, President Trump’s order has completely barred Muslims from coming to America. Hence, it amounts to banning Muslims. The author is biased in her analysis of the topic. The comparison that she makes between President Obama and Trump’s orders is not sufficient enough to claim that the latter’s move is equivalent to banning Muslims. The author presents the story with closure. As per Lopez, President Trump’s action is a voluntary ban on Muslims.
Tom Kertscher is a reporter with PolitiFact Wisconsin. Kertscher does not see the executive order as a move to ban Muslims. Instead, it is aimed at safeguarding the Americans and preempting a possible terrorist attack. The author explores numerous perspectives to support his argument. Kertscher claims that even though the ban targets seven countries whose majority of their population is Muslim, the nations have been found to harbor terrorists. Kertscher avers that one may be right to say that the order bans Muslims from the seven nations but not from the other 42 countries. The author defends his argument by looking at how the order impacts the fight against terrorism and Muslims.
The article supports President Trump’s executive order by referring to the 9/11 attack. The United States can guarantee safety only by barring people who do not value and uphold its constitution from entering the country. The fact that the order does not affect all the Muslim nations proves that it is not a ban on Muslims. The executive order is viewed as a ban on Muslims because it came after President Trump had expressed his intention to prevent Muslims from visiting the United States. The author is objective in his analysis of the story and does not rush to make a judgment. He refers to numerous reports, interviews, and studies. For instance, he refers to a CNN interview amid President Trump and host Cooper. He also refers to a report by Cato Institute.
In spite of Kertscher not mentioning that President Trump’s executive order discriminates against the affected nations, it is evident from the analysis he gives regarding other countries that pose a significant threat to the United States. The author argues that countries like the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt produce the highest number of terrorists who target the United States. However, the executive order does not target these countries. The report goes father to refer to studies conducted by the Cato Institute, which found that terrorists from the seven countries that the executive order bans have never staged a successful attack in the United States. In other words, the author insinuates that the order is not entirely meant to combat terrorism.
There might be other reasons that led to President Trump identifying the seven nations. The phrase “Does not” repeatedly appears in the story to signify that Kertscher believes that the president had no intention of banning Muslims from entering the United States. The detailed coverage of the story gives readers an opportunity to make a judgment without influence from the writer. The author leverages quotations and interviews in the story. They help to bring out the viewpoints of other stakeholders that the executive order affects in one way or another. The inclusion of past interviews involving President Trump gives the reader an opportunity to understand the factors that compelled him to sign the executive order.
Diamond and Almasy, CNN reporters, provide an account of President Trump’s signing of the executive order. The journalists report on the events that followed the signing of the executive order. They use words like “Shockwave” and “seismic” to signify the gravity of the matter. From the title that the reporters use, it is evident that the report is inclined towards the opposition of the president’s actions. They condemn the move by the president to sign executive order even without evaluating its merits. The reporters use film footage to cover the story. They show demonstrators converging in the main airports across the United States to oppose President Trump’s order. Diamond and Almasy compile a detailed report of events that followed the signing of the executive order. The report covers the reaction of the human rights organizations, Democrats, and advocacy groups (Diamond and Almasy par. 14). It includes the response from the Iranian government.
CNN is renowned for its impartial coverage of social and political events that happen not only in the United States but also across the globe. Therefore, the manner in which the reporters treat this story is in line with the reporting culture of CNN news. The inclusion of the opinions of the judges, advocacy groups, and human rights organizations in the report has influenced people’s impressions about the story. Even though the reporters appear to support the executive order, they have presented facts to show that the president was wrong in his actions. Thus, people are torn between supporting the president or people from the affected nations.
The collection of views from different parties makes the news legitimate. One would respond differently to the same report if it is presented in a different format. For instance, the broadcast of the story on the radio may lead to a person downplaying it as politics. However, when it is proclaimed with the backing of film footage, one understands the gravity of the matter and can make a sound judgment. Apart from referring to the views of judges and famous politicians, the story does not include information from other reports that cover the same topic. The reporters use commentaries sparingly. However, they rely heavily on quotations from President Trump and people who are against the executive order.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Americans have divergent opinions regarding the recent executive order signed by President Trump. Some media personalities are biased in the coverage of the issue and believe that the move was meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Others are objective in their coverage and consider different perspectives of the matter. Understanding the events that led to the signing of the executive order may help to make objective conclusions. People should not condemn President Trump without understanding his intentions.
Works Cited
Diamond, Jeremy and Steve Almasy. “Trump’s Immigration Ban Sends Shockwaves.” CNN News, 2017, Web.
Kertscher, Tom. “Is Donald Trump’s Executive Order a ‘Muslim Ban’?”Politifact Wisconsin. 2017, Web.
Lopez, German. “Trump is Now Complaining that his Order is being Called a “Muslim Ban””. Vox Media, 2017, Web.