Sym Abdul-Hadi

Professor McCarthy

ENGW1111

1 November 2019

Unit 2 Bias in media: Monday, October 14 Indigenous Peoples' Day

Over the past several decades, states and cities have started to replace Columbus Day

with Indigiounous Peoples’ day. The was this is being reported on differs when coming from

different news outlets. The same events can be accurately covered very differently depending

on the goal of the writers. Each of the articles will have certain biases going into the writing

which will determine how the story is framed. All of the articles examined here will come from

fairly credible news sources, yet each of them has some level of bias and a completely different

goal.This essay will focus on how the bias that each article’s headline and pictures contain

contributes to the goals of the articles.

The headline and opening sentences of each news outlet’s reporting on Indigionous

Peoples’ Day does something very different. While they are all effective at getting a point about

the events across, they each will give the reader completely different ideas about what is

happening. The headline of the AP article is “Some states celebrate indigenous people instead

of Columbus.” The AP uses a very direct headline which doesn't do anything except present a

thing that is happening in a concise way. It doesn't make the reader consider anything else.

NPR’s headline, “Columbus Day Or Indigenous Peoples' Day?” does a lot more than tell us

what is happening. It is made to be eye catching to readers by asking a question. The use of a

question prepares the reader to read about a controversy, “Columbus Day VERSUS Indiginous

Peoples’ Day”, and implicitly states that there is a debate to be had. Finally the Mother Jones

article does something that the other two didn't in it’s headline. The headline " Columbus Day Is

Dying. Indigenous Peoples Day Is the Future.” strongly endorses a position. And does so with

provocative language, which could potentially be controversial. This headline brings up ideas of
a dark past being cleared away to make room for a better future. All of the articles headlines are

telling of what is to come in them, and frame events very differently.

The pictures that each outlet decided to use are all highly appropriate for the goals that

each article headlines implied. The AP article has a lot of images of Indiginous people engaging

in cultural activities. The pictures are not very provocative including a lot of cute children, and

help readers get a better picture of the kinds of things which may occur during IP day

celebrations.

A dancer with the Acoma Sky City Ram Dancers from Acoma Pueblo, N.M., performs Monday

at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque. (AP Photo/Russell Contreras)

 NPR’s pictures are very interesting as there is a very clear way that we can interpret

them which aligns with what the headline was doing. There is a statue of Columbus in a

confident pose looking forward, which is juxtaposed with pictures of crowds of protesters with

signs against Columbus day. These pictures work to frame the event as a battle of progressives

versus culture, which is a perfectly valid way to frame the story although a bit dramatic.
 The only picture in the mother jones article is a statue of Columbus that was covered in

red paint by protesters. The statue features a Columbus wearing a cross across his torso which

is covered in blood and holding the globe in a bloody hand. This juxtaposition between the

courageous looking columbus holding the world looking forward and the blood is a very effective

way to convey the idea of realizing the dark past and making changes.

Each article here has a different audience and goal for that audience. The headline and

pictures just contribute to these different goals. The AP article doesn't want to do anything other

than to give readers information about changes that are happening. It doesn't require the reader

to think about why the changes are happening or who is pushing for them, and everything is

given in as neutral a tone as possible. “Native American advocates for years have pressed

states to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day over concerns that Columbus

helped launched centuries of genocide against indigenous populations in the Americas” is one

of the few sentences in the article that mentions why these changes are being made, and it

does so as nonpartisanly as possible(AP). Unlike the other two articles the AP one does not try

to persuade the reader to take a side on the issue. The NPR article does a few things differently
than the AP one. First it frames the story as a battle. While it does unambiguously support the

side of Indiginous Peoples’ Day, it goes a long way to frame the changes as a battle between

the indiginous people, and Italian culture with no mention of more conventional conservative

opposition to such measures. Although it uses this angle to make counter arguments to making

the changes it does conclude that “it's incredibly important to have a day to celebrate that

heritage. It just shouldn't be around the figure of Columbus" (NPR). Like the NPR article the

Mother Jones article also unambiguously supports Indiginous Peoples’ day replacing Columbus

Day. However, it also doesn't present the changes as if they are going to make a significant

difference to the conditions of indiginous people in America. It frames removing Columbus Day

as the least that can be done with sentences like ”Yet as Confederate statues are pulled down

and buildings named for slaveholders get rechristened, it’s hard to deny that at least some

Americans are waking up to the truth about their history, and that’s better than staying

asleep”(MJ). It presents this switch as an obvious good, but makes sure that the readers know

that supporting this is not enough to support indiginous peoples’ recovery from systematic

abuses. Unlike the other two articles this one does not leave the reader satisfied.

None of the choices made in the headlines or pictures in these articles were done by

accident. These choices emerged from biases at the core of each article. All of the articles

chose pictures which support the tone and framing of the stories that came in with the headline.

The NPR article wanted a way to talk about opposition to the changes made, and to give

counter arguments to them. With that goal they found a counterargument to changing Columbus

Day that we are not used to seeing, and argues against it. And they used pictures and a

headline that evokes ideas of conflict. The AP article while it may not have seemed to have any

biases, was very careful to appear neutral. To do that it had to avoid giving background on why

any of this is even happening and Its headline and pictures couldn’t be thought provoking. The

MJ article didn't care for making this a story about conflict or appearing to be neutral. In doing

that they were able to use a more thought provoking headline and picture, and give as many
facts as they wanted about why these changes are happening. None of the articles included

anything that wasn’t factual, yet they will each leave the reader with very different feelings.

Works Cited

Contreras, Russell. “Some States Celebrate Indigenous People Instead of Columbus.” AP NEWS,
 Associated Press, 15 Oct. 2019,

https://apnews.com/32759d8251a14b22974c3fe00bfbd6e0.

Fadel, Leila. “Columbus Day Or Indigenous Peoples' Day?” NPR, NPR, 14 Oct. 2019,

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/14/769083847/columbus-day-or-indigenous-peoples-day.

Friedler, Delilah. “Columbus Day Is Dying. Indigenous Peoples Day Is the Future.” Mother

Jones, 14 Oct. 2019, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/columbus-day-is-

dying-indigenous-peoples-day-is-the-future/.

Acknowledgments

Classmates for helping me with peer review

Class Discussions for giving me ideas about what to discuss