[Immigration] Washington Post Stenographers

Leave it to the miserable establishment media to predictably rely on their out-of-the-box, already-assembled "objective journalism" artifact as a tool of covering any story, that is: weighing opposing arguments as if they merited the same factual standing, and thereby failing to inform the public.

This Washington Post article presents just one more example of how, by resorting on the "he said, she said" story covering ploy, these so-called liberal media stenographers (posing as journalists) misinform and often provide cover to the conservative/republican frame of reference. Incredulously, the Washington Post stenographer (see Steven Colbert's comment on the media, "He's the decider, he announces the decisions, and you type them up and report") begins with:

While a series of marches focused much of the nation's attention on the plight of illegal immigrants, scores of other Americans quietly seethed. Now, with the same full-throated cry expressed by those in the country illegally, they are shouting back.

Let's read that second sentence again: [W]ith the same full-throated cry expressed by those in the country illegally, [opponents of undocumented immigrants] are shouting back. This sentence is laughable and deserving of my contempt. Seriously. Let's consider what the pro-citizenship rallies that I and other American citizens, including documented and undocumented immigrants, looked like (from the LA Times, see here and here) and let us just imagine what it must have sounded like:

Yet, according to this Washington Post stenographer, the hundreds of thousands — if not millions — that marched all across America on May 1st, 2006, merit the same factual weight as the immigrant opponents that. The WP stenographer writes:

Congressional leaders in Washington have gotten bricks in the mail from a group that advocates building a border fence...


[S]trong sentiment was heard across the country, on a radio program in Los Angeles, where talk-show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou encouraged listeners to participate in a "Great American Spend-a-Lot" to offset the effect of the boycott. They vowed to reimburse listeners picked in a drawing.

In the Washington area, African American radio listeners kept bringing up the immigration issue as Leila McDowell, a guest host on the Joe Madison show, tried to discuss abuse of black and Latino workers at a North Carolina meat-processing plant.

"I would say that the majority of comments were hostile, but it wasn't an overwhelming majority," said McDowell.

So, some anecdotal evidence, where we don't even know the number of bricks that were mailed to the congress person, nor the number of callers to the show, is somehow factually the same as hundreds of thousands of people petitioning to become full members of our society? How does that make any reasonable sense? Fuck if I know, but in the mind of these WP stenographers, am sure it does. And then there's this gem:

[Anti-immigrant opponents were] particularly disturbed by Monday's boycott and civil action, attended in large part by people who entered the country illegally and are now demanding rights enjoyed by U.S.-born citizens and immigrants who entered the country legally.

I simply can't believe that am reading that on a so-called paper of record, such as the Washington Post. How in hell can these stenographers quantify that "in large part" the rallies across America were attended by people that "entered the country illegally." Did these poor excuses of so-called journalists, er, stenographers, take a poll? Did they conduct a random sample? How in hell can they make the claim that the rallies were attended in large part by people that entered the country illegally? Man, that is seriously shameful.

And, finally, there's this:

In Kansas City, Mo., Joyce Mucci, the executive director of the Mid-America Immigration Reform Coalition, said she didn't see much impact from the march in her city.

"Frankly I think they're overplaying their hand," she said, adding, "I think people who may have been sitting on the fence are not sitting on the fence anymore. These marches are not helping the people they're intending to help."

First, Joyce Mucci's statement is clear speculation on her part; yet, the article treats her opinion as supporting evidence to make the case that the pro-citizenship rallies have somehow backfired and that they'll have no impact on the immigration debate — this only a day after the marches, of course. Moreover, the WP stenographers fail to mention that Joyce Mucci's organization supports the legislation that the pro-citizenship march organizers are rallying against — see this message board posting announcing an anti-immigration rally and this USA Today article that mentions Joyce Mucci.

If these WP stenographers were practicing something other than so-called journalism, they would've left themselves wide open to malpractice suits for failing to do their job.

Tags: immigration, journalism, liberal media, mainstream media, Media Watch, MSM (all tags)


Advertise Blogads