The drastic differences between two different news sights

          On Sunday a peaceful march of Central American migrants attempting to escape a Mexican police blockade tried to reach the border in Tijuana that bridges the gab between Mexico and San Diego. This peaceful march went terribly wrong when these migrants were met with less than a peaceful response from the United States Customs and Border Protection agency, who fired tear gas on the individuals attempting to cross. This situation, in my opinion, is horrendous and frankly a breach of human rights, and in my mind the media would agree. Shockingly I was mistaken, in fact I had to reread certain articles on the account that I did not believe I was reading an article about the same incident that forced the mother and children depicted above to flee from tear gas. I read two articles, one from the more liberal New York Times and another from the more conservative, The Hill. From each I received a very different account of what happened this past Sunday.
       The New York Times article began by explaining, the same as I have, about how a peaceful march of migrants attempted to cross the border and was met with a Mexican police blockade and tear gas from the United States.  This was a simple reporting of the events that ensued on Sunday without any particular language to convey their own bias. However when they began explaining the method the United States Customs and Border Protection agency used with the migrants and tear gas they used the word "fired". This word has an inherently negative connotation and implies an aggressive action. They could have chosen a word such as "used" which would be far more neutral and would likely not provoke any aggressive emotion once it was read. In addition when describing why the migrants were attempting to cross the border the author explains that they are trying to flee from "poverty and violence in their homelands". Poverty and violence hold a lot of weight, as they are describing situations that are undesirable and unsuitable for human life. Once again while describing the Mexican police's involvement in the situation they say that "Mexican federal police officers pushed the protesters back." The author did not use the word moved, or taken, they used the word pushed, implying the use of force and once again demonstrating the authors negative view of the issue. Finally when referring to where the migrants were living currently the author said, "housed since in squalid conditions in a community sports center." I believe this word holds the greatest value in its meaning, squalid implies that the living situation is unacceptable. The exact definition of squalid is, of a place extremely dirty and unpleasant. This word was chosen by the author intentionally to convey the disgust she has for the way this situation has been handled. Overall, the words she has chosen in this article has culminated to form the biased opinion that the treatment of the caravan was unacceptable.
        The next article I read gave me pause. It wasn't because of the writing style, or the font, I was genuinely confused on whether or not I was reading about the same caravan that was attempting to cross in Tijuana. I checked the dates, I checked the source, I even checked some of their quotes, and to my utter surprise it was the relaying of the same story. The fact that I could not even discern the issue they were reporting on speaks volumes about the word choice, and in this case the information they chose to include.
            The article from The Hill began much differently than that of the one in the Times. Rather than saying, a peaceful march of migrants tried to cross the border, what I read was that members of the caravan met a "hot-and-cold reception in the Mexican city of Tijuana." This was the first, and not the last time, that I stopped reading and thought to myself, they did not just write that. A hot-and-cold response wins the award for being the most sugar coated statement of the century. However the term accomplished its mission of convincing me that the situation was not very severe. The next thing I read about in this article was how three journalists had been injured in fistfights. The author said that they had been injured in fistfights, which certainly gave me the impression that the attempted border crossing unfolded in a way that included several brawls, but nothing serious. Finally I was informed that after the fights were stopped that, "the migrants were taken to shelters in a different part of town." Taken implies that they were transported, not forced to go to alternative locations. In addition these shelters were in a different part of town. The reason I point this out is that this description is night and day to the one I read about in the Times article, that said they were squalid. The phrase of a shelter in a different part of  town is incredibly neutral and does not emit any kind of negative of positive connotation. In this way the author truly accomplished relaying this encounter with an incredibly passive attitude to the whole situation. I would also like to include the fact that throughout this entire article the tear gas fired by the United States was not mentioned a single time. This was one of the major points of confusion for me when I was trying to figure out what story I was reading. Overall, however this author achieved his goal of remaining calm about the situation and successfully omitting enough details to make me believe this violent encounter was a mere disagreement with a few fist fights.
https://thehill.com/latino/417658-caravan-spotlights-immigration-tensions-in-mexico
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/world/americas/tijuana-mexico-border.html
https://thehill.com/latino/417091-violence-breaks-out-as-first-group-from-migrant-caravan-arrives-in-tijuana