National Ledger

News & Tech

The Pro Illegal Immigration Media

May 4, 2006
A few weeks ago, the pollsters for NBC and The Wall Street Journal asked this question:

"If thousands of immigrants in the U.S. do not show up for work on May 1 in protest of immigration policy, do you think this will do more to help their cause, do more to hurt their cause, or have no real effect either way?" Fifty-seven percent said it would hurt their cause. Only 17 percent said it would help.

But that point is being roundly and deliberately ignored by the national media. Tossed and turned by internal diversity police who demand a greater minority presence and minority consciousness in the newsrooms, those who report the "news" are doing their level best to ensure that the protesters for "immigrant rights" get the best possible publicity boost.

So when the May 1 boycott and protests occurred, it was just another syrupy, sugary turn for the pro-illegal alien media. The Big Three network evening news shows all led Monday night with multiple favorable stories about the day of protests and shutdowns by those who would legalize their criminal behavior.

ABC's Elizabeth Vargas led off with pom-poms shaking: "We begin with an economic show of force by America's illegal immigrants ... altogether, close to a million people took to the streets in more than 30 cities. And that number could still rise. It was the newest wave of protests against legislation that would increase the penalties for being in the U.S. illegally."

Bob Schieffer opened the CBS newscast by touting: "From coast to coast, from north to south, they wanted us to know what America would be like without them, and so millions of immigrants missed work, skipped school and marched in the streets. They want America to find a place for those who came here illegally."

Over on the "NBC Nightly News," which put no less than six reporters on the story in six different cities across America, Brian Williams heralded: "Stores closed as workers headed out the door, and live television covered it all, all day long. We have comprehensive coverage tonight from coast to coast."

In short, the networks were nothing less than stenographers to protest, because they don't see it as their role to question the demonstrators, only to celebrate them. Show me one example -- one example in the past 30 years -- where anyone in the national news media has accorded the same courtesy to the tens of thousands who annually protest the horror of abortion.

And if the media's job is simply to report without prejudice, then what of the views of the vast majority of Americans, outraged by the sight of illegal aliens demanding "rights" from the government they refuse to obey?

The language gets all mangled in these stories. Tuesday morning, NBC's Kevin Tibbles actually referred to illegal aliens with this P.C. gibberish: The protests were for "those who critics call illegals." If you came into America without going through a legal process, you are here illegally. But minority-journalist groups are actually demanding that the press drop the I-word. Ivan Roman of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists says this word gives the "implication of something criminal or worthy of nothing but suspicion. That helps to predetermine the credibility or respect given to one of the protagonists of this debate, which is not conducive to good journalism."

Isn't it odd that our liberal media run around in horrified circles about "illegal wiretaps" or "illegal leaks" of Valerie Plame's name, but when it comes to immigration, illegal aliens are just patriotic folks exercising their free speech, devoid of controversy?

The media insist the controversy is not over the protesters, it's over Congress for failing to accede to the illegal-alien lobby's demands. On CBS, morning show host Hannah Storm pressed Sen. Bill Frist: "Monday, over one million immigrants skipped work and skipped school and marched in streets across America. What is it going to take, Senator, for Congress to come together and institute some meaningful immigration reform?"

"Meaningful immigration reform" simply means amnesty for illegal aliens, and encouraging more illegal immigration in the future. These people seem to have no finger on the pulse of average Americans, who don't like illegal-alien cheaters having the audacity to first come into the country illegally, and then demand their "rights."

Reporters don't ask the question: Doesn't the rally present a terrific opportunity to round up and arrest illegal aliens for deportation? (More public opinion ignored: MSNBC made this their unscientific online poll question, and two-thirds said yes.) Don't the businesses shutting down for the rally suggest terrific targets for immigration enforcement visits? Couldn't some reporter somewhere ask of our political leaders, "What's it going to take, Senator, for Congress to come together and institute some meaningful immigration enforcement?"

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.

Got an opinion? Share your thoughts now.  


 

Today's Most Popular Stories

 

Leave A Comment

 

Reality TV Shows

About Ledger

About
National Ledger