Immigration Reform, the Boston Marathon Bombings, and Twitter

By James Witte and Randy Lynn

Beginning in February 2013, researchers at the Institute for Immigration Research (IIR) at George Mason University began tracking the national immigration reform conversation on Twitter. Our view was that Twitter would be one of several social media venues where the evolving immigration reform debate could be tracked and analyzed. Since then, using DiscoverText and NodeXL, two different data mining applications, we’ve collected over 750,000 tweets containing the word “immigration.”

The Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, 2013 provided an unexpected opportunity to examine how this event has affected the immigration reform debate. We compared conversations about immigration on Twitter before, during, and after April 15.

Below we provide a series of NodeXL network graphs that illustrates the shifting Twitter conversation. Each visualization depicts the relationships between tweets containing the word “immigration” over the course of a four-hour period. NodeXL not only collects the content of the tweet and the identity of the tweeter, but also who follows whom, who is retweeting whom, and who is having a conversation with whom.

To represent these relationships, NodeXL uses an algorithm to group the tweeters into clusters. Tweeters belonging to the same cluster are highly interconnected; they tend to follow each other, retweet each other’s tweets, have conversations with each other, and use similar words in their tweets. Green lines represent connections between tweeters in different clusters, while the text overlaying each cluster represents the most common content among the tweets in that cluster.

Two Weeks Before the Bombing

The first visualization below is typical of what we saw in early April, before the bombing. In the lower right corner, there are small clusters with very few connections to other tweeters. In the lower middle area, there are tweeters who aren’t connected to anyone else tweeting about immigration.

Most of the tweeters, however, belong to one of three main clusters. The cluster in the lower left corner is a liberal cluster, as evidenced by some of its most common content (e.g., “timeisnow”). The cluster in the upper right corner is a very conservative cluster dominated by the Tea Party. These two clusters have very few connections between them, indicating that there are very few conversations between their members.

The third cluster, in the upper left corner, includes such diverse tweeters as the RNC, the AFL-CIO, and Bloomberg. It’s best described as a mainstream cluster that includes both liberal as well as conservative viewpoints. These tweeters tend not to be as extreme, and they have many connections with the two more ideological clusters, which suggests that this the mainstream cluster acts in part as an informational bridge between them.

The Day of the Bombing

This visualization, based on tweets collected between 4 and 8 p.m. on April 15, 2013, tells a very different story. Tweeters in all clusters were tweeting about the bombing in relation to immigration — even though there was not yet any evidence of such a connection. As the left half of the visualization shows, there was a large influx of tweeters who weren’t connected to any other immigration tweeters. Words like “deportation,” “amnesty,” “terrorism,” and “borders” point to possible risks associated with immigration seen by these newcomers, as well as moderates and conservatives (lower middle), but not among liberals (upper right).

The Tea Party cluster (middle right) seems to have diminished in size. Tea Partiers on Twitter were still tweeting about immigration, but it appears that more moderate, mainstream tweeters and more conservative tweeters had converged into a single cluster. However, it was unclear at this point whether this change would persist, or whether it was a temporary shift in the conversation.

Ten Days After the Bombing

Our evidence suggests that after a temporary deviation in the days immediately following the bombing, the immigration conversation on Twitter has largely returned to its pre-bombing appearance. The visualization below is from April 25, and it shows a decrease in the number of unconnected tweeters (lower left), as well as the reestablishment of a liberal cluster (lower middle), a conservative/Tea Party cluster (upper right), and a bridging, mainstream cluster (upper left). Note, however, that “bostonbomber” is still one of the most frequently used words in conjunction with immigration in the most conservative cluster. On the other hand, the bombing does not appear as prominent in immigration tweets among unconnected, mainstream, and liberal immigration tweeters.

Twitter and Immigration Reform in the Future

In the mainstream media, the evidence that Chechen immigrants Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing has led to speculation that comprehensive immigration reform might be delayed, derailed, or even abandoned in Congress. But in the short run, we found no indication that this connection has left a permanent mark on the immigration reform conversation on Twitter. In fact, we found that the immigration conversation quickly returned to patterns similar to those we saw before the bombing.

To the extent that Twitter activity reflects sentiment among influential politicians, journalists, and activists, proponents of comprehensive immigration reform can feel encouraged. On the other hand, conversations on Twitter are not necessarily representative of public opinion. In fact, the Pew Research Center has recently released a study that highlights notable disconnects between public opinion polls and views expressed on Twitter.

As the national conversation on immigration reform continues, so too will our efforts to monitor this debate as it takes place in various venues, including Twitter and other social media forums. Clearly there are many passionate, influential individuals and organizations that regularly tweet about immigration and immigration reform from many varying points of view. Continued analysis of these conversations is important for tracking the progress of immigration reform, but also for better understanding the relationship between social media and public opinion.

This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post May 1, 2013

Onions, Apples, Tomatoes and Immigration Reform: We Owe it to Ourselves

By Jean Boucher and James Witte

If you own a garden, have ever experimented with gardening, or are even vaguely aware of fluctuations in availability and prices of produce in your supermarket, you know that different fruits and vegetables have different seasons. April will soon be upon us, the beginning of another spring, and harvest time for many crops in the U.S.

For instance, if you happen to live in Vidalia, Georgia — “The Sweet Onion City” (population 10,503 in 2010) — you know that onion season, your name sake, has officially begun. You might even celebrate and attend the annual onion festival, where you can have a burger, enter the cooking competition, or just enjoy some deep fried rings while watching the battle of the bands.

Georgia takes much pride in its agriculture. According to the Georgia Farm Bureau, Georgian agriculture is a $68 billion industry — Georgia’s oldest and largest industry for almost three centuries. One in seven Georgians works in agriculture, forestry, or a related field, and with its ideal mix of climate and soil virtually any crop will grow. But crops neither plant nor pick themselves and, as illustrated by the prized Vidalia onion, our broken immigrant worker system presents significant challenges for agriculture.

The issue came to a head last year, when due to the crackdown in immigration laws, labor shortages were experienced during harvest time. Some of the sweet Vidalias weren’t getting picked, crops were lost, and some farmers were reconsidering their means of livelihood. Should they try new methods of attracting workers? How much more could they afford to pay? Should they change crops to less labor intensive and less lucrative peanuts? Onion picking is not automated, it’s “back breaking,” and most people avoid the work if they can.

Agricultural labor shortages weren’t only felt in Georgia last year. On the other side of the country, while Washington state was enjoying its second largest crop in history, some apple growers experienced a 40-50 percent shortage in labor and experienced crop losses of up to 25 percent. Though picking pay was raised, the increases were not enough to attract sufficient workers. Martin Estrada, manager of Monkey Ridge Ranch, a huge apple plantation on Snake River, commented that pickers drove by, checked the picking pay, and often drove off dissatisfied. Though Washington produces many fruits and vegetables, apples are its top farm commodity: supporting nearly 60,000 jobs and generating an estimated $7 billion annually. Though growing capacity has increased, labor has decreased. In response to last year’s shortage of labor, the state government intervened and allowed prison labor to be used — as did the Vidalia onion farmers in 2012.

In 2011, a similar shortage happened in Alabama — rumored to be the perfect place for growing tomatoes. Brian Cash, whose family owns a 125 acre farm atop Chandler Mountain, estimated a $100,000 loss due to the immigrant crackdown and shortages in labor. He was unable to find replacements for the grueling field work. In response to what some considered a commercial disaster, smaller crops — to compensate for the reduced labor — were planted in 2012. One squash producer reported moving production to Tennessee; while Jimmy Miller, a tomato grower, switched crops to cotton and peanuts as these are more easily automated and less labor intensive.

Should America’s farmers be dealing with these obstacles to production? Should American consumers be paying higher prices for produce due to these same obstacles?

This is not an argument in defense of undocumented farm workers. Though some farmers might prefer the lower costs of an undocumented worker, others have expressed their support of tighter borders and a proper legal process. Bottom-line: farmers don’t want to lose their crops, whether their workers are legal or not.

Some farmers — having annually applied through the visa system for the appropriate number of guest workers — have complained that governmental constraints get worse each year. R.T. Stanley, a Georgia onion grower, explained how he had applied for 60 workers, but only 17 arrived — allegedly the paperwork got lost.

Rumors of immigration reform are in the air with much discussion focused on high-skill workers in science, technology and engineering. The agricultural industry illustrates, however, that comprehensive immigration reform affecting workers with varying levels of skill will be to our country’s economic advantage. Immigrant workers, besides their contribution as workers, also contribute economically as consumers. Workers need to be housed, pay rent, buy clothing, and eat. In addition, immigrant consumers often have different tastes than the native-born, opening new markets and expanding the range of consumer options. For example, Wal-Mart reported carrying beef tongue and tripe to satisfy a growing Latino market. New markets spur growth, economic development, and broader consumer choices.

If we don’t fix our immigrant worker system, then onion, apple, and tomato farmers may make decisions that, though good for them, lead to higher prices and less choice for consumers. Perhaps it is time for the onion to leave Vidalia, Georgia, and be replaced by the peanut; maybe we ought not fight it. Maybe it’s an easy switch to enjoy ourselves at a peanut festival instead. But does this make sense when fixing the broken immigration system can benefit both producers and consumers? It’s time for comprehensive immigration reform; we owe it to ourselves.

This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post April 3, 2013

Is Media Consolidation in the Public Interest?

By April Glaser and Jason Smith

How does media consolidation affect women and minority ownership opportunities and local reporting?  Experts debate proposed FCC rules, at forum on “Media Ownership and the Public Interest.” [The event can be viewed here]

Minorities now account for 37 percent and women over 50 percent of the United States population.  According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau the number Hispanics and African-Americans is set to rise.  Over half of all babies born in the country are from African American, Hispanic, mixed race and other minority backgrounds.  In light of the recent presidential election, media outlets have been keen to draw attention to the changing demographics of America.  They point to how the shifting racial make-up of the country accounts for a dwindling base of voters for candidates who oppose support for contraception, immigration reform and other programs popular with women and minorities.

The growing diversity of America, however, has no parallel in the nation’s media.  When it comes to representation, employment and ownership of America’s news and entertainment industry, recent data gathered by the FCC shows that women and minorities are grossly underrepresented across the board.  Women, over half the population, own less than 7 percent of broadcast outlets.  Hispanic communities own less than 3 percent of broadcast stations, while African Americans, Native Americans and Asian Americans all hold less than 1 percent of the broadcast licenses.  What policies need to be put in place to advance the longstanding public interest goal of media diversity?

The New America Foundation’s Media Policy Initiative and the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy co-hosted a conversation, “Media Ownership and the Public Interest” at the Newseum on 24 January 2013.

The discussion was sparked by rule changes proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2012 that would allow for greater consolidation of media ownership, and by a number of letters from members of Congress, the public interest and the civil rights community protesting the proposed changes.

“The civil and human rights community cares about media ownership,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in his opening remarks. “The way the public looks at issues, indeed whether the public is even aware of issues like voter discrimination, immigration reform, or fair housing is directly related to the way these issues are covered by the media.”

The FCC has discussed correcting the disparities in media ownership for the past thirty-five years, yet little has been accomplished.  Since 1999 minority television ownership has dropped by 50 percent and minority radio ownership has dropped by 9 percent in the past three years.  Recent statistics from the FCC are not encouraging.   The latest FCC report confirmed that women and people of color remain woefully underrepresented in broadcast ownership.  For example, African Americans own just five full-power television stations, a mere 0.4 percent of full-power TV stations.

A proposal to relax the rules, again

In 2007 and 2011 the commission was told by a federal court of appeals to assess the impact of its existing media ownership policy on women and people of color before moving forward with a 2007 proposal by then FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to relax the ban on newspaper-broadcast cross ownership.

“When the court last threw out these FCC rules they said to the FCC deal with diversity first,” said Craig Aaron, president of Free Press and panelist at the Newseum event.  Still the FCC has neglected to complete these studies.

Despite lacking the research, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed that a single company be allowed to own a major newspaper and television station in the same market.   Genachowski further proposes the elimination of the rule limiting radio-television cross ownership.

The latest proposal would allow for a major newspaper in the top 20 U.S. markets to be purchased by a television station in that market, so long as that station is not one of the top four television stations in that market.  Genachowski’s proposed new rules grant a single corporation the ability to own up to eight radio stations, two television stations, a major newspaper and provide Internet service in the same market.

According to Steven Waldman, a former senior advisor to Genachowski, “The rationale for that is that there are more players in the larger markets.”  If a large market has 9 station owners and it decreases to 8, Waldman said, “if it were to help to get a combined entity of a newspaper and TV station to do more local news that would be a good trade off.”

Yet, when the moderator, Adam Clayton Powell III of USC-Annenberg, questioned why the policy only pertained to the top 20 markets and not 25 or 15, Waldman could not provide an answer.  Waldman also made clear that he was not in a position to speak for the FCC.

“What the FCC is proposing would allow somebody like our friend Rupert Murdoch,” said Aaron, who was alarmed about the proposed rule change, “to buy the L.A. Times and the Chicago Tribune because his TV stations are outside of the top four.” Such a deal is illegal by current cross ownership bans since Murdoch owns two Fox television stations in both Chicago and Los Angeles, America’s second and third most populated cities.

To consolidate or not to consolidate

What happens when fewer companies are allowed to own more media outlets? Is it possible that more consolidation would best serve the public interest?

“When we talk about public interest and policy that effects public interest,” according to Waldman, “one of the important contexts for this discussion is that we are in a crisis of local accountability journalism.”  Pointing to massive layoffs in newsrooms across the country in recent years, Waldman noted that local coverage has been cut in the process—reporters on schools, courts, hospitals, and other issues of profound importance to local communities.  “The watchdog function of journalism is eroding,” he said.

Waldman’s diagnosis of the cause of these serious transformations in American news is not media consolidation, “I would say that the cause is the Internet and the fact that readers and advertisers have other places to peddle their wares and get their news.” Still, newspapers have had to find ways to stay profitable.  Therefore, according to Waldman, the solution is not to block company mergers but to find creative ways to jumpstart local journalism and minority media start-ups.  Waldman suggested imposing a transaction fee with each merger, collected to be used as an endowment to subsidize local media.

Waldman’s acceptance of more local consolidation did not sit well with Bernie Lunzer, President of the Newspaper Guild. “This current idea increases the value of the current properties, but it’s not going to add to any employment,” Lunzer stated. “It’s not going to bring anything back to communities.” Consolidation has traditionally led to newsroom layoffs that are 33 percent more likely to affect a person of color in an industry that is comprised of about a 10 percent minority workforce.  Lunzer added, “I can tell you on a anecdotal basis that women have left newsrooms in a huge way, as well as people of color.”

One in three newsroom layoffs effected minority staff.  Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans and Native Americans account for about 22 percent of television employees and 12 percent of the radio workforce.  About 90 percent of newspaper industry staff is white, according to 2012 data compiled by the American Society of News Editors.

Arguing that media consolidation is ultimately in the public interest, Jane Mago, Executive Vice President of Legal and Regulatory Affairs at the National Association of Broadcasters, the largest advocacy group for broadcasters in the nation, pointed out that women and minorities are gaining higher positions in the broadcast industry.  A stronger industry, she argued, is better for the public interest.

On behalf of the NAB Mago said, “We have looked at the minority ownership situation and said it’s abysmal.” The problem, she said, is not consolidation, but lack of access to capital.  As a solution to the disparities, the NAB proposes “incubator programs” that train minority leaders how to work in the industry and increase access to capital for future investment.

Looking to what media consolidation has accomplished in the recent past—when large companies buy smaller ones—Aaron argued that mergers have amounted to less local coverage.  “The results,” said Aaron, “are tens of thousands of working journalists losing their jobs. We are seeing the number of minority owners, diverse owners dropping and so I think continued media consolidation and relaxation […] is a big deal.”

The newspaper industry used to report 30 to 40 percent profit margins and instead of investing that profit in web innovation and their newsrooms, the newspaper companies bought up smaller papers, acquiring mountains of debt in the process. “We’ve seen its damage to journalism,” Aaron said speaking about media consolidation, “It is bad for business.  Look at the Tribune Company, a company that got so big, took on so much debt, and now it’s drowning in it.”  The economic downturn and a failure to keep up with a changing marketplace resulted in profit loss combined with an acquired massive debt.  The industry’s solution has been dramatic newsroom layoffs.

Where is the data?

The courts have twice now ruled that the FCC should conduct comprehensive studies to determine the reasons behind the lack of women and minority ownership. According to Mago, the National Association of Broadcasters supports conducting these studies.

“We agree.  This is exactly something that needs to be done,” said Mago. But she argues keeping the current rules have not solved any problems.

“How come consolidation is always the first priority?” asked Aaron in response.

The FCC proposal does refer to a study to support their decision to consolidate.  According to Waldman, the FCC relied upon a study showing, “that combined entities of newspapers and broadcasters did produce more news then they were before.” However, even Waldman, a defender of the FCC proposal, suggested the findings were not definitive.  The Poynter Institute found: “Individual television stations that are cross-owned with newspapers air more local news than comparable stations in the market. However, the television markets that contain these cross-ownership relationships do not air any more (or perhaps air even less) local news programming than comparable markets (presumably due to a reduction in news from the non-cross-owned stations).”

Policymaking

The Federal Communications Commission already permits the granting of waivers in the broadcast-newspaper cross ownership policy in circumstances where entities can demonstrate a public interest need.  “So why change the rules?” inquired an audience member.  Another audience member, a representative from the National Newspaper Association (a group in favor of the proposed rule change) suggested that the option to apply for a waiver for cross ownership might be too much of an impediment for an investor.  If a radio station is not producing local news, he suggested, it simply made sense for the local newspaper to provide local news for the radio station.   In that case, a waiver might block a seemingly harmless and natural partnership.

Lunzer had reservations, pointing to the fact that these partnerships in no way solve the problem of diversity or a lack of journalism.  Rather they are ultimately designed to increase profits.  “I still would like to see some better dialogue about things that are actually going to create new content, bring in new voices, and create some kind of way to get new messages out,” Lunzer remarked.

Craig Aaron brought the conversation back to the need for more data. “We cannot continue the discussion until the FCC conducts the studies and stops rushing into these rules changes,” he commented. “You’ve actually got to actually make the case and get past this hypothetical.”

The NAB, the courts, and the public interest community all agree that the FCC should conduct studies on the effects of media consolidation on diversity and the ability of a consolidated market to meet public interest needs.  The disagreement is one of timing.  While the NAB says that the rules on the books are old, should be updated promptly, and that the studies can come after the new rules have taken effect, the civil rights community, the public interest community, and some members of Congress thinks it’s imperative that the studies come first in order to inform any rule changes.

A moral issue and a congressional issue

Members of the audience agreed that these issues require serious consideration because of their serious consequence.  Those who own media outlets control who have access to those outlets.  “When people of color can’t speak for themselves or own their own outlets, when they are close to 30-40% of the population,” commented a member of the audience, “I think it’s a very moral question.”

Studies suggest that the diverse public is not represented in the media industry in terms of employment or ownership, and some question whether public interest obligations can be met when those providing news and information represent a different set of interests than the public being served.  “When people of color can’t speak for themselves, when other people have to tell our stories,” said a member of the audience, “it marginalizes our community.”

Forty-eight members of the House of Representatives and 13 Senators have written letters to the FCC regarding Chairman Genachowski’s new ownership rules.  Jane Mago, who worked at the FCC for twenty-six years, and Steve Waldman, former advisor to the Chairman, both agreed that letters from Congress should be taken very seriously at the commission.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of the most active congressional voices on the issue of media consolidation, closed the event.  “It will be a disaster when in a given community we have one large multi-national conglomerate owning local television stations, radio stations, and newspapers,” Senator Sanders said, “essentially being the only voice of information for that given community.”

“A vibrant democracy is not going to survive unless we have a vibrant media, where we hear different points of view, where it is owned by different segments of our society, women, minorities,” the Senator told the audience.

The discussion at the Newseum offered industry leaders and leaders from the public interest an opportunity to voice their stance on this immediate policy concern. When one-third of the nation’s adults lack a reliable broadband connection, broadcast media and newspapers continue to provide an essential service to the country.  What hangs in the balance is the fate of America’s most relied upon news and information outlets, TV and newspapers are still where most Americans go to learn about their communities, their country, and the world.

This post originally appeared on the New America Foundation’s Media Policy Initiative blog, on January 31, 2013