The Supreme Court agreed to hear the immigration detention case. Ten outlets told the same fact ten different ways, before a single argument. Seven verbs for one act. Reuters has the court “weigh” a policy; CBS has it “hear” a dispute. Those verbs describe a court doing its usual work. “scrutinize,” in The Washington Post and Fox, adds suspicion before any argument is made. The New York Times goes further: “Taking On Trump Immigration Agenda” casts the court as a challenger. Read it with “Reviewing” in place of “Taking On” and the court is a referee again. Seven of ten headlines name no one who is held. The president, ICE and the court appear; the detained do not. The Washington Post says “immigrants,” NBC says “immigrant,” The New York Times says “Migrant.” Immigrant suggests someone who came to stay. Migrant suggests someone still moving. The noun picks the picture, and most of these headlines give the reader no picture of a person at all. The frames widen one policy into a project. The Federalist’s “Deportation Agenda,” the Times’s “Immigration Agenda” and Fox’s “deportation machine” ask the reader to judge the project, and the same noun, agenda, appears in two outlets that rarely share a frame. The New York Post names the stakes with “catch and release,” a phrase borrowed from fishing. Fox’s “blockbuster” borrows from the box office. Reuters and CBS add none of this, which is also a choice.
