Pre-Emptive Coverage? WashPost Highlights Anti-Illegal Immigration Rally In D.C.

Photo of Tim Graham.

For the last two days, The Washington Post has placed a small anti-illegal immigration rally on the front page of its Metro section – a Sunday story previewing the protest, and another front-pager on the events of the Sunday rally on Monday. Why the prominent play, given they estimated the protest crowd at 400? It could be a little pre-emptive publicity to head off complaints when the pro-illegal immigration rallies arrive on May Day, the socialist fun day. Last year’s left-wing rallies in Washington drew earth-shaking, flood-the-zone Post coverage in April and May.

Pamela Constable’s Monday report is fairly straightforward, and gives opponents of illegal immigration their say. (You might quibble that the quotes sound defensive, but is that the Post’s selection of quotes, or were the speakers largely defensive?) The other quibble would be the photo in the paper with a large poster of Sen. John McCain grimacing like he’s getting his chest waxed.

The Sunday preview report by Constable and N.C. Aizenman was more interesting, particularly this: they dug into the finances and interlocking directorates of the anti-illegal immigration movement – something the Post has failed to explore in all the breathless coverage of left-wing "immigrants rights" marches.

Many speakers scheduled to address the rally represent national or regional advocacy groups that draw on common sources of funding and have overlapping boards or staffs.

In many cases, the common denominator is John Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist who founded the influential lobbying group Federation for American Immigration Reform about three decades ago.

Of 15 speakers, at least seven have links to either FAIR or Tanton's private foundation, U.S. Inc. K.C. McAlpin is executive director of ProEnglish, a wholly owned project of U.S. Inc. Radio host Terry Anderson has received thousands of dollars in funding from U.S. Inc. and is a founder of a group of African Americans opposed to illegal immigration that FAIR helped create. Col. Al Rodriguez is chairman of a group that FAIR co-organized for Latinos opposed to illegal immigration.

So why can't the Post seem to find the time to examine the same vigor for investigating the left as it can for the right? It must be that persistent and pernicious liberal bias.

The Sunday article had all the flavor of someone being forced to do their homework instead of going to recess. Constable and Aizenman did report that a Post poll found  81 percent of people said the government was "not doing enough" to stop illegal immigration, but added that 62 percent also said "those already in the country" should get some kind of amnesty, a formalized chance to stay. But it's clear that Post editors are responding to the mail they get, as the reporters also explained:

Reports in The Post about the problems of illegal immigrants regularly elicit floods of angry e-mails and online messages, often anonymous.

Some of the worries are specific, such as complaints that immigrants overburden schools and hospitals or bring gang violence. Others are vague and emotional. They include fears of being inundated by foreigners, indignation at expensive accommodations made to newcomers who do not speak English and concern that the quality of community life is deteriorating. The complaints often express frustration with the government, which is seen as having done little to address the overall problem.

"Vague and emotional" is also a good set of adjectives for Post coverage of left-wing protests. The Post has certainly reported on some of these problems in detail: the rise of Salvadoran MS-13 gangs, and the burdens of immigrants on Washington-area health and education systems. As much as the Post reporters like to chronicle sympathetic immigrants, hard-working people trying to feed their children, they can be a little slight on the Big Picture of the costs (and not just the heart-warming benefits) of illegal immigration.

The reporters go on to list complaints from readers, some of them more compelling, and some less so -- including the complaint that the local aliens leave their Corona beer bottles all over the lawn.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I have a couple of friends

I have a couple of friends from The Netherlands visiting. They filed the proper paperwork but they have to leave this country within a week...because they are here legally.

What does illegal mean? I know what it used to mean. I don't understand how the US gov't could be anymore inept. I voted for Bush but this issue is where the President really dropped the ball.

Earth day and immigration

Earth day and immigration.

Tim, a considerable component of the pro immigration reform movement has always  been two very important issues - important issues to the MSM. Yet, even though they are looking them right in the face each and every day, they decide to look around the issue, to promote other agendas. These issues are:

1. Protecting the jobs and paychecks of working American citizens, and

2. Protecting the environment.

CA alone, according to the CA State Finance Department is expected to see an increase of more than 20,000,000 people by the year 2050. Some 97% of this increase will come from immigration, legal and illegal, and their offspring.

Even if each and everyone of them drives a hybrid car, only uses fluorescent light bulbs and limits their toilet paper to "one square" (thank you Sheryl Crow), their net impact on the average American worker will be extremely negative, and their impact on the environment will be devastating (according to the greens).

They are net consumers. They will pollute. They will emit more greenhouse gases, if you will.

There is absolutely no way to slow the growth of emissions, if a consuming  population continues to grow unchecked.

On Earth Day, 2007, the only folks I heard quoting the appointed Father of Earth Day, Gaylor Nelson, were the immigration reform hawks - the folks that the media so dislikes - Numbers USA.

Former Senator Gaylor Nelson, father of Earth Day, "We are preparing to celebrate the 32nd Earth Day just after the Census Bureau has announced that far from winding down in the 1990s, U.S. population growth boomed at its highest level in the nation's history! Not even the peak of the Baby Boom in the 1950s added as many people! This new population boom represents a profound failure in our nation's pursuit of environmental quality. Since 1970, another 80 million people have been added to the country. Every environmental goal has been delayed because of this failure."

Is the MSM actually interested in improving the lives of working Americans and in protecting the environment? Not on your life.

If the MSM did care, the debate on immigration reform would be long over. The borders would be closed, there would be no amnesty, and legal immigration would be rolled back to numbers like we had 40 years ago. The hypocrite Senator Harry Reid, understood that when he submitted his 1993 Immigration Reform bill to the Senate. Bill Clinton's chair, the late Barbara Jordan, of his Immigration Reform Commission understood that.

The MSM can't see past it own nose.