MCRI ·
Media's immigration bias "deeply self-serving, not accidental"
By Dave Gorak, 04/05/2013
"The columnist who looks back from 40 years hence will have to squint hard to find reason to be inspired by the courage of today's media ..."
So says Miami Herald columnist Edward Wasserman, who has spent 40 years doing what today's journalists are incapable of doing - living up to the news-gathering ethics and standards established years ago by members of their own profession.
I am no stranger to the media's unprofessional coverage of the immigration issue that went into high gear following the re-election of Barack Obama. When I first began criticizing the current generation of journalists - let's instead call them "water carriers" - I thought they were merely lazy and adverse to engaging in the process of critical thinking.
Their affliction, unfortunately, is far more serious than just a lack of work ethic. They have deliberately abandoned their own guidelines governing responsible news reporting and are shortchanging their audiences and endangering our democratic institutions that are supposed to serve as a conduit for an unfettered flow of information. They are the product, I believe, of being processed like canned pet food by an education system that eschews independent thinking in favor of "celebrating diversity" that we've been told repeatedly makes us stronger.
During the past two weeks I have been interviewed by reporters with the Chicago Reporter and London's Finanical Times. In both cases, I attempted to move the respective reporters to consider the question of how amnesty would help unemployed Americans. The Chicago Reporter journalist,María Inés Zamudio, wanted to know my position on those illegal aliens who were removed from the country without appearing before a judge. These are the illegals who are stopped at the border and sent back home within hours. I said if U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has no problem with any of this, then neither do I. Ms. Zamudio said if my comments would be used, a "fact checker" would call me. Nothing yet.
The Financial Times' Anna Fifield wondered how another amnesty would "benefit Wisconsin."as part of this story. I questioned her about her subsequent story that ignores the central question of how amnesty would benefit unemployed Americans. Her response was "simply" to quote open-borders advocate Dick Armey, whose profound quote was included in theRepublican Party's "autopsy" of the November election:"
“You can’t call someone ugly and expect them to go to the prom with you.”
When did enforcing immigration laws created to protect American workers come to mean that Republicans are calling Hispanics ugly?
In short, Ms. Fifield dismissed my concerns because she apparently was satisfied that Armey's view of the issue was enough to lend credibility to her "story." I asked for her thoughts as a journalist and instead got 205 words from the GOP's "leadership."
Are you getting a feel for how the programmed minds of today's media are working?
In any event, Abraham Lincoln's belief that the country would remain safe if the people are given the facts now seems pretty corny and genuinely out of step with today's political environment that proudly espouses amnesty for illegal aliens as being "the right thing to do."
As disheartening as my crusade against shoddy immigration coverage often is, I'm not about to throw in the towel because I know responsible journalists are out there.
Here's what one Washington, D.C., reporter who truly understands the real implications of the amnesty proposal now being kneaded by eight men posing as United States senators told me after I asked him why the media are not asking how what would be eighth amnesty since 1986 would benefit 22 million Americans unable to find full-time work:
"Most reporters focus on issues via their perspective & self-interest, and I think my peers see the immigrants and the 11 million (illegal aliens) as prospective Democratic-voters, not as competitors for jobs sought by working-class fellow-Americans. It's a form of class & cultural & political bias, I think. I really dislike it."
I then asked what sort of responses he receives when he poses my question to other journalists and politicians:
"Evasive and sentimental, because journalists -- like many politicians -- are eager to become the champion of (supposedly) downtrodden foreigners.
A response we'd never get if we were asking about racial equality or gays issues, or polluters. You can tell the answers by reading the articles, which include gauzy reassurances about the economy plus sentimental stories about hard-hit foreigners.
There's no point in complaining about bias, because the bias is deeply self-serving, not accidental."
There's no point in complaining about bias, because the bias is deeply self-serving, not accidental."
Reporters and editorial writers love to throw around catchy phrases describing the "plight" of "immigrants" who have ignored our immigration laws and now are demanding respect and dignity, e.g., "forced to live in the shadows." But it is the millions of unemployed Americans who have been pushed into the darkness by their own federal government that thinks illegal aliens are more deserving of being at center stage basking in the limelight provided by a media whose agenda is far out of step with mainstream America. A majority of the comments posted on any of the boilerplate illegal-alien sob stories quickly reveals the disconnect between those who take up space in the nation's newsrooms and ordinary Americans.
But don't read too much into this very wide gap between what the media are offering up and the comments that reflect opposition to illegal immigration. Posting comments or railing against Congress on radio talk shows are not the same as making your voices heard in the offices of your representatives and senators. The media are getting away with their one-dimensional brand of journalism because they know as do members of Congress that the American people are basically are too lazy to participate in their own democracy.
*******************
Memo to Associated Press Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll: The American people may be derelict in their civic responsibilities but they are not necessarily as shallow as your immigration coverage. They are by no means confused about the meaning of the term "undocumented immigrant." And they know that the "always evolving English language" has nothing to do with your news service's decision to kiss the feet of the illegal alien lobby whose agenda is a carefully orchestrated vendetta against American sovereignty.