Media split on how to frame decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law
This morning the United States Supreme Court issued a split decision on the legality of a hardline immigration law adopted by the state of Arizona. Four of the law’s provision were reviewed, but only three struck down, according to Kevin Russell at SCOTUSblog.
English-language news outlets in the U.S. and Britain jumped on the news, but disagreed on how to frame the results. Some emphasized that much of the law went down. Others emphasized the survival of a part of the law that, according to the Los Angeles Times, will allow “state officials to begin enforcing a provision that calls on police, when making lawful stops, to check the immigration status of people who may be in the country illegally.”
Fox News and the Los Angeles Times are examples of a “glass three-quarters empty” frame.
Reuters and BBC are examples of the “glass quarter full” frame, framing the news as good news for its supporters.
You can review all of the homepages archived by PastPages for that same hour right here.
Also, the Los Angeles Times is my employer, but in no way associated with PastPages, which I maintain on my own time with the support of a network of individual donors. Read all about it.
Update: Soon after, Reuters changed its play, opting for more ambiguous frame with this revised headline.
