O Lord our God arise, Scatter our enemies And make them fall; Confound their politics, Frustrate their knavish tricks, On Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all!
NPR's coverage of immigration is not very good from an objective journalism standpoint, with the occasional lean toward the very bad end of that spectrum. An example of the latter might be yesterday's interview with Chertoff on 'All Things Considered', where he actually says that one consequence of not getting an immigration 'reform' bill would be that growers who couldn't get their fruit picked would 'decide they want to move their farms to south of the border or north of the border into Canada'. Earlier he says the administration will continue to enforce immigration law 'as vigorously as we have been'. Of course there has been little vigor in that effort all along. During all of Chertoff's ridiculous statement, the NPR interviewer never called him on any of this.
Ace points to the New York Times' inevitable spin on the story and how quickly Harry Reid's suggestion that the media "not focus on Democrats" was apparently taken up.
...more to blame than NPR about what Chertoff said in the interview.
There was a general comment about the lean of NPR's coverage -- feel free to agree, disagree, whatever. For another relevant data point here, take note of this commentary.
Also, there was a specific complaint about the Chertoff interview:
...the NPR interviewer never called him on any of this.
NPR was not held responsible for what Chertoff said, rather for not questioning him just a bit about the obvious hyperbole & nonsense.
"...where [Chertoff] actually says that one consequence of not getting an immigration 'reform' bill would be that growers who couldn't get their fruit picked would 'decide they want to move their farms to south of the border or north of the border into Canada'."
Let me get this straight (putting aside any questions of the easy geographic portability of all crop growing):
1)growers don't employ Americans 2)growers dump all the social costs of their "cheap" labor on Americans 3)an abundant supply of affordable imported produce is already available at American grocery stores, and
4)growers are threatening to off-load the social costs of their industry from the backs of Americans and go dump them on Canadians and Mexicans.
Appealing openly on racial/racist grounds to certain groups is OK: blacks, Hispanics, etc.
But don't bother appealing to whites that way: the press will roast you. But "minorities" should enjoy their status while it exists. Whites won't always be sitting on the sidelines. One day we'll demand a chance to play that game, too.
I don't think it's a situation that representative democracy can survive. Perhaps that's the whole idea.
Interesting that you've brought up Chertoff. I dreamed about him during the Katrina catastrophe when his political leanings were as murky as the floodwater. (BTW, Chertoff, his sallow face in stark contrast to the rising tide, was perched on the railing of a bridge presumably in NO, as the water rose and pulled people, dogs and debris along in its currents.) I've avoided spicy food before bedtime ever since.
I've had people tell me that NPR is a balanced news source. Thanks to this interview I now have evidence to the contrary.
Chertoff recently declared that anyone who wasn't for the bill was for mass deportations that will leave "teary eyed children" orphans. The same man who is now discussing a "silent amnesty" remininscent of Obama's "quiet riot" leaves no doubt about his pro-Amnesty stance.
A look at the NPR commentary on June 7th by economist Russell Roberts was even more telling. Roberts fails to mention any economic theory to support thinking with his heart about quotas. To him, they're a communist tool to prevent future socialists from entering the country.
NPR has provided us with a detailed analysis of the various approaches to being pro-Amnesty. Meanwhile, Chertoff's vehemence in promoting the bill has left me convinced that the US is down to a single political party.
The Wall Street Journal had yet another article up - an interview with Sen. Kyl - endorsing the mass amnesty today.
What amazes me is this: where the hell are all the pro-legalization voices in the repsonses to that article? Save for lone idiot Michael McCaffrey, who writes a letter about everything, there aren't any. Yet this happens time and time again: when the Urinal publishes a pro-amnetsy piece, all the letters are against. Whne they publish an article about it by their lone anti-amnesty voice - the brilliant Peggy Noonan - all the letters support her.
So, besides business groups, and people who don't speak Spanish, where's the support?
i would not worry about anything chertoff says. he is out of touch with reality. so far out of touch that judging by the interviews he gives, he actually seems to think his job is not even possible - that homeland security cannot be achieved and that americans should simply learn to live with an open border, illegal aliens, drug runners, and terrorists.
every time i think i have seen it all, along comes a new politician to blow me away. i mean the US now has a man in charge of homeland security who was gone on record several times saying that homeland security is not possible. what is happening here?!
Amusing moment this AM while listening to a bit of "Meet The Press" on the magic talking box,the host(not sure who it was--Bob Scheiffer,or somebody)--summed up the panel with this: "Americans WANT immigration reform,they WANT a viable guest worker program...a CBS/NEWS NY TIMES POLL SAYS..." HA! I read about that poll in Steves blog a few days ago! It was a completely fraudulent question where you practically HAD to give the guy the answer he wanted;totally unreliable. How many people out there thought,"Hmmm..this poll says that,maybe I'm outta touch!" :O
NPR's coverage of immigration is not very good from an objective journalism standpoint, with the occasional lean toward the very bad end of that spectrum. An example of the latter might be yesterday's interview with Chertoff on 'All Things Considered', where he actually says that one consequence of not getting an immigration 'reform' bill would be that growers who couldn't get their fruit picked would 'decide they want to move their farms to south of the border or north of the border into Canada'. Earlier he says the administration will continue to enforce immigration law 'as vigorously as we have been'. Of course there has been little vigor in that effort all along. During all of Chertoff's ridiculous statement, the NPR interviewer never called him on any of this.
ReplyDeleteAce points to the New York Times' inevitable spin on the story and how quickly Harry Reid's suggestion that the media "not focus on Democrats" was apparently taken up.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that Chertoff, and the guy that hired him, Bush, would be more to blame than NPR about what Chertoff said in the interview.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that Chertoff, and Bush, the guy that hired him, would be more to blame than NPR about what Chertoff said in the interview.
ReplyDelete...more to blame than NPR about what Chertoff said in the interview.
ReplyDeleteThere was a general comment about the lean of NPR's coverage -- feel free to agree, disagree, whatever. For another relevant data point here, take note of this commentary.
Also, there was a specific complaint about the Chertoff interview:
...the NPR interviewer never called him on any of this.
NPR was not held responsible for what Chertoff said, rather for not questioning him just a bit about the obvious hyperbole & nonsense.
eh
"...where [Chertoff] actually says that one consequence of not getting an immigration 'reform' bill would be that growers who couldn't get their fruit picked would 'decide they want to move their farms to south of the border or north of the border into Canada'."
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight (putting aside any questions of the easy geographic portability of all crop growing):
1)growers don't employ Americans
2)growers dump all the social costs of their "cheap" labor on Americans
3)an abundant supply of affordable imported produce is already available at American grocery stores, and
4)growers are threatening to off-load the social costs of their industry from the backs of Americans and go dump them on Canadians and Mexicans.
Okay.
The New Political Reality in America
ReplyDeleteAppealing openly on racial/racist grounds to certain groups is OK: blacks, Hispanics, etc.
But don't bother appealing to whites that way: the press will roast you. But "minorities" should enjoy their status while it exists. Whites won't always be sitting on the sidelines. One day we'll demand a chance to play that game, too.
I don't think it's a situation that representative democracy can survive. Perhaps that's the whole idea.
Interesting that you've brought up Chertoff. I dreamed about him during the Katrina catastrophe when his political leanings were as murky as the floodwater. (BTW, Chertoff, his sallow face in stark contrast to the rising tide, was perched on the railing of a bridge presumably in NO, as the water rose and pulled people, dogs and debris along in its currents.) I've avoided spicy food before bedtime ever since.
ReplyDeleteI've had people tell me that NPR is a balanced news source. Thanks to this interview I now have evidence to the contrary.
Chertoff recently declared that anyone who wasn't for the bill was for mass deportations that will leave "teary eyed children" orphans. The same man who is now discussing a "silent amnesty" remininscent of Obama's "quiet riot" leaves no doubt about his pro-Amnesty stance.
A look at the NPR commentary on June 7th by economist Russell Roberts was even more telling. Roberts fails to mention any economic theory to support thinking with his heart about quotas. To him, they're a communist tool to prevent future socialists from entering the country.
NPR has provided us with a detailed analysis of the various approaches to being pro-Amnesty. Meanwhile, Chertoff's vehemence in promoting the bill has left me convinced that the US is down to a single political party.
The Wall Street Journal had yet another article up - an interview with Sen. Kyl - endorsing the mass amnesty today.
ReplyDeleteWhat amazes me is this: where the hell are all the pro-legalization voices in the repsonses to that article? Save for lone idiot Michael McCaffrey, who writes a letter about everything, there aren't any. Yet this happens time and time again: when the Urinal publishes a pro-amnetsy piece, all the letters are against. Whne they publish an article about it by their lone anti-amnesty voice - the brilliant Peggy Noonan - all the letters support her.
So, besides business groups, and people who don't speak Spanish, where's the support?
i would not worry about anything chertoff says. he is out of touch with reality. so far out of touch that judging by the interviews he gives, he actually seems to think his job is not even possible - that homeland security cannot be achieved and that americans should simply learn to live with an open border, illegal aliens, drug runners, and terrorists.
ReplyDeleteevery time i think i have seen it all, along comes a new politician to blow me away. i mean the US now has a man in charge of homeland security who was gone on record several times saying that homeland security is not possible. what is happening here?!
Amusing moment this AM while listening to a bit of "Meet The Press" on the magic talking box,the host(not sure who it was--Bob Scheiffer,or somebody)--summed up the panel with this: "Americans WANT immigration reform,they WANT a viable guest worker program...a CBS/NEWS NY TIMES POLL SAYS..." HA! I read about that poll in Steves blog a few days ago! It was a completely fraudulent question where you practically HAD to give the guy the answer he wanted;totally unreliable. How many people out there thought,"Hmmm..this poll says that,maybe I'm outta touch!" :O
ReplyDelete