While my fingertips kept turning the pages in the Los Angeles Times newspaper, I had found myself intrigued by a nationwide story headlining "A desperate decision on the Rio Grande," written by Molly Hennessy Fiske.
Ms. Fiske strategically layered her article with enough facts and statics that covered the 5Ws and H. The "who" in this article are the migrant families stationed in Matamoros, Mexico, who seek asylum in the U.S. I felt that Fiske presented this area very well by incorporating several families suffering from Trump's "Remain in Mexico" program. The "what" factor was depicted within each family's story who Fiske had interviewed. The first chunk of the story is deliberately focused on trials and tribulations that each family had to endure.
Fiske soon begins to intertwine specs of death tolls from this event and other prominent and authoritative people who could help create a solution for this ongoing extremity. Additionally, the "when" factor isn't explained in this story, or better yet, Fiske should have explained when Trump's "Stay in Mexico" program was created to explain further when these deaths truly started taking place and the multitude of people crossing the border, to gain asylum in the U.S.
Next, the “where” factor was captivated in the lede of the article. "why" this event took place was mentioned towards the end of the article when Fiske mentioned how some families had to return to wait out their immigration cases under Trump's "Remain in Mexico" program.
I honestly wish this information was mentioned in the leade of the story as a refresher for the readers of the Los Angeles Times. Now, the "how" factor was not articulated in this article, but I'm assuming it was illustrated in an earlier news article about Trump's immigration program. People say the truth always comes to light, and I truly believe since the photo surfaced on Oscar Martinez Rameriez, the 25 – year old Salvadorian father who drowned with his daughter a week ago, according to Ms. Fiske. This sharpened the lens focus by zooming into Trump's immigration plan. However, I truly enjoyed how Fiske illustrated significant short stories of each family she came across while gathering interviews and information for her story. Not only did this story include the right capacity of statistics and facts, but it also illustrated a story to create awareness, inspire, and help. In addition, the information she had gathered for this story did not seem worthy enough to submit a FOIA request since Trump's immigration program has been a major focus in the media lately. I find this story free from libel because "truth is the best defense against libel" (Brooks, Kennedy, Moen & Ranly, 2017). However, if Ms. Fiske did submit a FOIA request, I’m pretty sure it would take years to possess the truth behind Trump’s immigration plan as well as the structure of it.
This FOIA request can lead to another lawsuit like the one back on January 10, 2019, when Human Rights Watch filed suit on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement for their failure to provide the requested information. Normally, it should take 20 days to a month to respond to a FOIA request; however, "the time it takes to respond to a request will vary depending on the complexity of the request and any backlog of requests already pending at the agency" (www.foia.gov). The interviews conducted for this article painted the pain, suffering, and struggle of the families in the "Remain in Mexico" program. Additionally, each story illustrated specs of information that tied the article together in an effortless way. Overall, I enjoy when a writer knows how to conduct good interviews to the capacity of formulating a story from them instead of just gathering facts and voices to fill up a story more so, tell one, and that's what Ms. Fiske did.