HOW THE MEDIA INFLUENCES ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Election In The Streets
How The Broadcast Networks Promote Illegal Immigration

By Tim Graham, MRC Director of Media Analysis

---

Spurred by a passionate public outcry against the tide of illegal immigration, on December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives passed a bill to curb the flow of illegal aliens and give the federal government more responsibility for detaining and deporting them. On that night, ABC, CBS, and NBC didn’t cover the vote. But when left-wing advocacy groups for illegal aliens organized large protests against the House bill in the spring, as the Senate considered its own immigration bill, the networks suddenly, fervently discovered the issue and gave the advocacy groups not a mere soapbox in the park, but a three-network rollout of free air time. Protest coverage, often one-sided, stood in stark contrast to polling data showing that a stricter approach to illegal immigration was broadly popular in the country.

To determine the tone and balance of network coverage of illegal aliens, MRC analysts evaluated every ABC, CBS, and NBC morning, evening, and magazine show news segment on the immigration debate from the outbreak of protest coverage on March 24, 2006 through May 31, 2006. In 309 stories, analysts found the following trends emerged:

■ While they celebrated "massive" immigration protests with "huge" crowds, the broadcast networks largely avoided scientific polling data that showed the protesters were in an overwhelming minority. The USA Today-Gallup poll asked whether illegal immigration is "out of control" or "not out of control." Fully 81 percent said "out of control." Fox News asked how serious illegal immigration was as a problem: 60 percent said very serious, 30 percent said somewhat serious. That's 90 percent. These polls were never cited by ABC, CBS, or NBC. In contrast to hundreds of words emphasizing a huge "wave" of "pro-immigrant" activism, the networks aired only 16 mentions of nationwide polls on immigration that considered the opinion of non-protesters. Two of them were CBS polls emphasizing support for a "guest worker" program after a long list of conditions.

■ Advocates of opening a wider path to citizenship were almost twice as likely to speak in news stories as advocates of stricter immigration control. Advocates for amnesty and guest-worker programs drew 504 soundbites in the study period, compared to just 257 for tighter border control. (Sixty-nine soundbites were neutral). On the days of pro-illegal-alien rallies, their critics nearly disappeared from the screen. For instance, on the night of April 10, the soundbite count on the three evening newscasts and ABC’s Nightline was 43 to 2 in favor of the protesters. When the debate shifted to Capitol Hill in May, coverage grew more balanced.

■ While conservative labels were common, liberal labels were rarely or never used. In the study period, reporters referred to "conservatives" or "conservative" groups 89 times, most intensely during legislative debate in May, when President Bush was presented as having to "appease" his "conservative" base. NBC’s Matt Lauer even referred to Bush’s base as the "far right." By contrast, the "liberal" label was used only three times – all of them by ABC. CBS and NBC never used the word, even as hard-left protest organizers described the House bill on public radio as full of "horrendous and macabre clauses, fascist clauses."

■ While protests centered on underlining the vital role illegal aliens play in the American economy, the burdens of illegal immigration in added government costs or crime were barely covered. While the networks poured out their air time to the sympathetic stories of hard-working immigrant families, only six out of 309 stories mentioned studies that illegal aliens cost more to governments than they provide in tax dollars. Only six stories gave a mention to the problem of the cost or threat of criminal aliens.

■ The networks have not dropped the word "illegal" in favor of "undocumented" immigrants, although some reporters struggled to adopt clumsy liberal-preferred terminology. Groups like the National Association of Hispanic Journalists have urged their colleagues to never use the word "illegal," but the word was still more than five times more common than "undocumented." In 309 stories, there were 381 uses of the word "illegal," and 73 uses of "undocumented." But some reporters struggled to please: NBC’s Kevin Tibbles actually referred to protests by "those who critics call illegals."

The report concludes with recommendations for a more balanced picture in network news coverage of the immigration debate. Newscasters need to acknowledge that protests, even large ones, are often an incomplete measure of public opinion. Both sides of the debate deserve a chance to speak in news stories, not just voices "emerging from the shadows" that reporters sympathetically promote. On this issue, as well as many others, network newscasts ought to reflect the reality that the political debate is between conservatives and liberals, not conservatives and supposed nonpartisans painted in gauzy terms like "immigrant rights groups" – even as they decried "fascist" opponents.

WHY DEMS CAN'T BE TRUSTED

A huge hat tip goes out to Jack Kelly for his brilliant Sunday column on why Democrats can’t be trusted with national security matters. I’ve read alot of Jack’s stuff over the years and I’ve always been impressed but this might be Jack’s best work yet.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor illustrates why Democrats cannot be trusted with political power in time of war. Judge Taylor, who is the chief judge of the federal district court in Detroit, ruled Aug. 17 that it is unconstitutional for the National Security Agency to listen in, without warrants, on telephone conversations between terror suspects abroad and people in the United States. Her ruling was praised by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats.

I wrote about Taylor’s ruling last week. I thought it was flimsy then and I’ve seen nothing to change my opinion since. In fact, I’m more convinced now than ever. the fact that Pelosi and Reid think that this was a great ruling is telling.

Let’s not forget what Russ Feingold said about the Democrats filibustering the renewal of the Patriot Act:

“Today’s vote is a great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism. If you don’t have the confidence of the American people when it comes to this fight against terrorism, if they fear that somehow we’re going too far and going after the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will weaken our ability to win in that all-important battle.”

And Democratic strategists wonder why they lose the national security debate?

President Bush has made mistakes in his conduct of the war on terror. But thanks in part to Judge Taylor’s ruling, voters this November will be asking themselves whether they would rather be governed by a political party that thinks Islamic terror is the greatest threat to Americans, or by a political party which is more concerned about Wal-Mart.
I don’t think Democrats will like their answer.

Jack, I’ll bet a tidy sum of money that they’ll not only not like their answer but that Democrats will be positively beside themselves with their answer.

PAT BUCHANAN: ILLEGAL ALIEN OVERLOAD?

On page 240 of Pat Buchanan’s stunningly logical new book, “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America” (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2006) appear the following words:

“One of the truly major issues with which America must deal [is] the vast tidal wave of human beings coming from the Third World. There is a fragmentation going on in this country. At what point does cultural, racial diversity become a kind of social anarchy? How do you get national cohesion this way?”

But those are not the words of my friend and political sparring partner Pat Buchanan. They are words he quoted from a 1987 interview in The Christian Science Monitor with Eric Sevareid, the CBS correspondent and close associate of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.

Only 19 years ago, one of the nation’s most respected public liberals could unself-consciously utter words that today could be a scandalous career ender for a public figure.

And it is around that issue — race, ethnicity, language, culture and immigration — and the problem of talking honestly about it, that Buchanan has constructed his most important book to date.

— Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan’s “State of Emergency”,
Townhall.com, August 16, 2006

Folks, it is time to start the real discussion about illegal aliens. To date, the debate has been about whether or not we should enforce our laws, should we open the borders or close them. Then we get into the economic costs of illegal aliens and the fact that this has harmed our children, parents and the morality of a nation.

Pat Buchanan is opening up the BIG question, how does the illegal alien flood across our borders affect the future of our nation and the future of freedom? No longer is this a question of 40,000 illegal aliens in California prisons or do we give them drivers licenses. We need to concentrate on the effect of this violence to our laws, in the long term. Yet, this had been discussed twenty years ago, by certified liberals, who sounded like an early day Buchanan. What has changed in the past twenty years?

Could it be that liberals and radicals today so hate America that they prefer to see it destroyed? Note that they seem to prefer Osama to the President. Radicals believe the US military is an out of control gang and that members of the US military are moments away from killing them in their beds in Bel Air or Greenwich (Lamont really doesn’t like a strong military, prefers the French version). Why is it that radicals and US Senators like Kerry, Feingold, Chaffee, Kennedy and especially the Clinton’s have more faith in the United Nations and Kofi Annan then in the US Congress and George Bush?

The issue of illegal aliens is just one part of the puzzle of a terrorist run global government. The United States is the last bulwark of freedom and compassion. If it weren’t for Bush pushing Britain’s Blair, then Saddam would still be killing Iraqis just for the fun of it. We should be looking at the promiscuity of supporters of illegal aliens in the context of world domination, not just this one issue.

The next time you find someone who is for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, you will most likely find someone who trusts Annan, believes the US is wrong in promoting freedom–just ask Boxer, Stark, Susan Davis, Loretta Sanchez, Phil Angelides. Lets us start looking at this issue in the broader scope of public policy, not as a stand alone issue. I believe that is the message of Pat Buchanan in his new book.

What do you think? Should we open our borders and stop fighting terrorism? Does Kofi Annan provide you more comfort than the US military?

—

Steve Frank is the publisher of California Political News and Views and a Senior Contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is also a consultant currently working on gambling issues and advising other consultants on policy and coalition building.

THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE SLIMES

The San Francisco Chronicle slimes

By Michelle Malkin ·

This is Peter Hartlaub. He is the San Francisco Chronicle's pop-culture critic and "helps cover movies, television and the media," according to his bio. In addition to his newspaper duties, Hartlaub blogs for the paper's "Culture Blog." One of his latest posts is an astonishingly ugly, ad hominem attack on Ann Coulter--emblematic of the unhinged, intolerant Left. And it's posted on a "culture" blog.

The jerk compares Coulter to a horse at a children's zoo. He mocks her weight and her face by linking to sophomoric left-wing bloggers deriding her looks--including this, this, and this. He posts photos he took of the horse alongside photos of Coulter, then sits back and waits for Chronicle blog commenters to pile on. Here are a few screenshots of the post and comments as of 12am Sat. Aug. 26. The post has been up since 2am Wed. Aug. 23:

***

File this one away the next time the journalistic elite attacks bloggers as an unruly, uncivilized mob of hate-mongers in need of adult supervision. Under the guise of "culture" commentary, San Francisco Chronicle staffer/blogger Peter Hartloub displays the true colors of the moonbat mainstream media: slime green. Naturally, the anti-Coulter-obsessed staffers at media industry publication Editor and Publisher think Hartlaub's post is funny.

Do you?

Contact:

Reader representative: If you have comments on The Chronicle's coverage, standards or accuracy, please call Dick Rogers, the readers' representative, at (415) 777-7870. Written comments can be e-mailed to readerrep@sfchronicle.com, faxed to (415) 442-1847, or addressed to Readers' Representative, c/o San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.

Letters to the Editor should be addressed to letters@sfchronicle.com. Due to space considerations, only letters of less than 250 words will be considered for publication. Please provide your name and telephone number along with your letter. You will be called if your letter is being considered for publication.

SFGate.com executive:

Peter Negulescu - VP Digital Media pnegulescu @ sfgate.com

***

Related: Mark Finkelstein looks at a Jeff Danziger hit.

WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE SITTING THIS ONE OUT

It should be clear that the Democrat Party simply does not want to be engaged in the war against Islamic fascism. The Democrat Party is clearly becoming the Democrat-Appeasement Party. Good for the Islamic murderers. Bad for us.

Why, though, do the Democrats find it so terribly difficult -- almost impossible -- to even so much as admit that we are actually in a hot, shooting war with Islamic fascism? They simply view this as something that can be settled if we just sit down, be nice, and talk a lot.

Noodle it out. It's all about power. Political power. Regaining power and then retaining it.

Democrats know that the voting public views the Republicans as more likely to act to defend our country when we are under threat. The trick, then, is to make sure that the voters don't feel we're under a threat. Democrats know that if the voters come to understand that there is a grave threat to the security of the American people -- a threat, for instance, from Iran's nuclear program, and from Islamic radicals around the world -- then these voters are not going to be likely to vote for a party that they view as weak on defending America.

Democrats like John Kerry are trying to convince the people that Islamic terrorism is no more than a simple law enforcement problem. Find them. Arrest them. Try them. Jail them. Oh, and by the way, make sure they get their full plate of Constitutional rights in the process ... even though they most certainly aren't entitled to them.

Listen to these appeasers! "The war in Iraq is wrong." "We need to talk to Iran." "We need to make Israel stop killing all those innocent civilians."

Listen, friends. There is no "war in Iraq." There is no "War in Afghanistan." There's the Iraq front and the Afghan front in the world-wide war against Islamic fascism. Instinctively, you know this.

That's what scares the Democrat-Appeasement party so much.

BORDER ENFORCEMENT....FINALLY

Based on these articles, I’d say that it’s sounding more like the Bush Administration is finally taking border security seriously. Here’s what Reuters is saying:

Elite U.S. Border Patrol units armed with assault rifles and stun grenades may be set to play a more prominent role as authorities gain greater control over the porous border with Mexico, border police say. Little known outside law enforcement circles, the Bortac tactical teams have been deployed to remote reaches of the border to hunt drug and human traffickers using out-of-the way routes since the 1980s.
The Bortac members wear full battle-dress uniforms and carry state-of-the-art night vision and thermal optics. They are armed with weapons including M4 assault rifles and “flash-bang” stun grenades developed for the special forces.

Based on the article, these teams sound like they’re as capable in performing their duties as a Navy SEAL is in performing their job.

In a bid to gain control over the Mexico border, President George W. Bush ordered 6,000 National Guard troops to help the Border Patrol guard the international line in May. Since then, apprehensions have fallen by more than 40 percent.

Fewer apprehensions are the direct result of fewer attempts being made, not because of the ineffectiveness of President Bush’s policies.

Here’s what the AP article said:

Nearly all non-Mexican illegal immigrants caught sneaking into the United States are being held until they can be returned to their home countries, the Bush Administration said Wednesday. DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said this marks the end of the so-called “catch-and-release” policy that for years helped illegal immigrants remain in the United States unhindered.

I rejoiced when President Bush announced during a speech that catch-and-release was over. People criticized the President then for not doing enough. It appears his critics were wrong. People like Michelle Malkin rightly criticized the administration for not enforcing the borders and for their catch-and-release policy. That criticism should now fall silent because the administration is doing what their critics were asking them to do.