One doesn't have to look very far to see opinionated assertions in the supposedly objective Old Media coverage of yesterday's immigration-bill failure in the Senate.
Here's part of what an unbylined AP report said almost immediately after it was clear that the bill would not get the 60 votes needed for cloture: "The carefully crafted compromise was left for dead after a similar vote three weeks ago but was revived by Bush and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who gave opponents more chances to change it."
To say that there is disagreement over whether the bill was "carefully crafted" is quite an understatement.
A report in the Seattle Times "compiled from The Washington Post, Gannett News Service, The Associated Press and McClatchy Newspapers" made this claim about yesterday's vote: "In a mark of lawmakers' ambivalence, however, the outcome was substantially different from a test vote Tuesday, when a 64-35 vote revived the bill."
Was it lawmaker "ambivalence," or constituent persuasiveness? And how do they know?
But the biggest error, as often is the case, was one of omission. Senator Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts lit into opponents on the Senate floor yesterday with this over-the-top riff (video is at Hot Air; bold is mine):
..... We know what they're against, we don't know what they're for. Time and time again they tell us "We don't like this provision, we don't like that provision, we don't want that part. Well they ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for.
What are they going to do with the twelve and a half million who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world? More than $250 billion dollars, buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Try and find them, develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows. That's their alternative?
Based on this Google News search on "Kennedy Gestapo" (without quotes), only the New York Times (may require free registration) and its sister publication the International Herald Tribune among Old Media outlets reported the Senator's outburst. The Times reported an abbreviated version of what Kennedy said (without ellipses) at the end of its article, while the IHT, to its credit, gave it context:
The debate just before the vote Thursday was intense, and even personal.
"We know what they're against. We don't know what they're for," Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said of the bill's opponents. Perhaps, he suggested, the bill's opponents envision some kind of "gestapo" to round up illegal immigrants.
"That's their alternative?" Kennedy shouted. "That's their alternative?"
I highly doubt that a conservative reference likening liberal opponents to Gestapo would get the scant coverage Kennedy's hit on immigration-bill opponents received.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Teddy's last laugh
June 29, 2007 - 12:14 ET by Cool Arrow"We know what they're against. We don't know what they're for,"
Of course Teddy's right. The Publicans bought in to something agreed to for still unknown reasons against the shouts of their constituency.
We were very clear in our wishes "Build the Damned Fence Mr. President". But the Publicans agreed with Ted Larva Kennedy to make the issue a humongous con.
Ok Amnesty is RIP Now let Enforcement come
June 29, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Lame CherryGreat in sticking the fork in amnesty, but now let immigration be shut down to those peoples who are only going to add to the United States and are part of our Judeo Christian base to proport our continued melting pot.
and let enforcement begin in mass in fining these profit raping companies from construction, to farming to even Boeing in using Chinese slave labor. Pay American workers a good wage and that will clear up the millions of minorities in American prisons because illegals are stealing American start up jobs.
Come on Tancredo and company, now is the time to fix this robber baron plundering of America and institutional slave labor. Let the enforcement now begin as cheering about this when there are millions of criminals roaming America is nothing to cheer about.
Start filing the bills and start protecting law enforcement from being railroaded for protecting the United States.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
2 parts to the illegal issue
June 29, 2007 - 12:35 ET by LionKingThere are two parts to the illegal immigration issue:
Give Whistle-Blowers a TAX FREE percentage of the fines
June 29, 2007 - 14:07 ET by Ten7sOk, I know it's not rocket science
June 29, 2007 - 14:15 ET by sarcasmoOk, I know it's not rocket science, but I'm still not quite getting the logistics of an illegal turning-in another illegal and actually getting the payoff, though I can certainly understand him not paying taxes on it! And suppose both of 'em turned eachother in at once!??!
JMR
}}----> Alien Rats
June 29, 2007 - 14:18 ET by Cool ArrowAnn Coulter suggested Illegals participate in the proceeds from lawsuits they bring against employers who pay less than minimum wage. Sounds sensible to me.
Pay'em off with the money fro
June 29, 2007 - 14:21 ET by Ten7sPay'em off with the money from the fines, and ship'em home. The goal is to make it so expensive for the companies that they CAN'T hire them, and Illegal Aliens DON'T come back. Who cares if a couple of Illegal Aliens profit? We just want to solve the systemic problem.
It's a fascinating idea, I
June 29, 2007 - 14:26 ET by sarcasmoIt's a fascinating idea, I must admit...And you're right, without the magnets of employers and what wasn't mentioned but I'm sure you'd agree, social/medical programs, they'd be less likely to break the law and come. But I don't mind if Mexicans want to visit legally, go to DisneyWorld with the kids, etc., so I really WANT people to be able to cross borders, just legally.
JMR
Legal foreign tourists, welcome w/ reservations (prior deposit)
June 29, 2007 - 14:35 ET by Ten7sYes, I guess that I was just assuming that any such measure would include no Gov't assistance to Illegal Aliens, as a matter of course. Its so absurd in the first place. But I suppose that there'd need to be similar due diligence requirements placed on gov't w/ firings/loss of pensions and jail time as there's no profit motive in gov't. And sure, Legal foreign tourists would be welcome w/ resort reservations (prior deposit required).
Ambivalence, my foot. I rem
June 29, 2007 - 12:38 ET by mattmAmbivalence, my foot. I remember when Clinton tried to downplay his Vietnam protester days by saying that he and his maoist brethren were ambivalent about the war....
Excuses, excuses...
Has Teddy been "drinki
June 29, 2007 - 12:49 ET by happyuscitizenHas Teddy been "drinking while legislating" again? Kennedy has been ruining and eroding organized and lawful immigration laws since the 1960s. He and his ilk this time couldn't conceal the stench radiating from this legislation on the floor of the Senate. All the while they stood there with straight faces saying "All is well", whilst something was "rotten in Denmark", er, D.C.
Instead, like the over grown petulant child this "Senator" is, he alludes to those against his legislation as being bigots who cannot wait for a "Gestapo" to pop up tomorrow. Typical hate speech from a talking head whose soul was bought and paid for years ago.
What is so hard for the Senate to grasp. We don't need new laws we need enforcement. Here is what I call "Immigration Reform for Dummies".
1. Secure the border along with internal security measures. Arrest employers who hire illegal immigrants. Cut federal funding for sanctuary cities.
2. Implement some form of a National ID immediately (within 180 days. If they are not sure how to do it, get some kid and his PC that has been popped making fake IDs, just look at the overnight police blotter in a colleg town for leads!). No legal ID then you are not here legally. No Consular Cards only valid passports with entry stamps will be acceptable.
3. Deport criminal illegal aliens, in custody, on probation, and those whom have had warrants issued for their arrests.
4. Clear backlog of visa applications for residency and other forms legal entry into the country by providing sufficient manpower to cope with applications. There should be no idle Immigration employees, however, just processing the incoming paperwork and documentation cause a chokepoint as it is correctly sent to the appropriate department for action.
5. Then when all of these measures have been met then we can deal with illegals here, and a clearer picture has been established as to who is still here, then on a case by case basis will be given to those who have usurped the law and put down roots, and other than this been productive and steered clear of trouble with the law as what is required for legal alien as terms of permanent residency.
That is what you call compromise. All those who really want to be here will tough it out and will be an open book for scrutiny by the American people. No need for the buses Teddy, those who don't meet the criteria will leave on their own volition you fossil!
"...was revived by Bus
June 29, 2007 - 13:02 ET by kevcad"...was revived by Bush and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid"
You notice that "they" keep calling our President as "Bush" only, not "the President" or "President Bush", and the democrat in the proper salutation?
It's been a while, but did "they" ever do this before with Bill Clinton?
This has been irksome to me for a long time.
Reminds me of another headlin
June 29, 2007 - 13:11 ET by JerryReminds me of another headline .... "Bush to meet with President Ahmanenjad". That nutcase from Iran gets treated respectfully but our own President does not.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Well you have to remember t
June 29, 2007 - 13:18 ET by The Wicked ConservativeWell you have to remember that according to these moonbats in the press, George Bush isn't the president because he stole the election. What a bunch of clowns, it's only sad because there are still some that take them seriously.
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice.
Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
I think it has more to do w
June 29, 2007 - 13:24 ET by balboaI think it has more to do with name recognition. Everyone knows who "Bush" is, but not everyone recognizes the name Harry Reid or Ahmadinejad.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!
June 29, 2007 - 13:26 ET by MightyMouthYOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!?!? OMG! balboa!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You rang?
June 29, 2007 - 13:29 ET by balboaYou rang?
I'll ring... Indeed...
June 29, 2007 - 13:33 ET by Army BratI'll ring... Indeed...you must be kidding! Thanks...I needed a good giggle this morning, (still mornin' in Alaska.) and you provided it! Happy Trails...
If you mean did I call you
June 29, 2007 - 13:34 ET by MightyMouth"You rang?"
If you mean did I call you a "ding-a-ling"? Well damn near!
If anything the headline should have read: "President Bush to Meet with President dinnerjacket" or "Bush to meet dinnerjacket". Don't you think?
You see balboa there's a segment of the population that dosen't understand that "Bush" is their President!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Why? Why do you have to call
June 29, 2007 - 13:37 ET by balboaWhy? Why do you have to call him President Bush in every reference? Everyone knows Bush is the president.
outta respect for the office
June 29, 2007 - 13:39 ET by florida_chadOh, let's see...ummm...how
June 29, 2007 - 13:40 ET by MightyMouthOh, let's see...ummm...how about... RESPECT! Especially when used in the same headline as a fascist dictator. Good Grief!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Hilarious!!!!
June 29, 2007 - 13:44 ET by sarcasmoSee, Bal, he's proving my point just-below! Well-channeled from the late-'90s, MM! ;) You're both in an unwitting conspiracy to amuse me today.
JMR
Sarcasmo, could you please
June 29, 2007 - 13:50 ET by MightyMouthSarcasmo, could you please let me in on your little amusement? Or keep it to yourself if you must.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Writing headlines have nothin
June 29, 2007 - 13:46 ET by balboaWriting headlines have nothing to do with respect for the office of the president. It's about accurately summing up the article in a small amount of space with as much clarity as possible. Thus "Bush" and "President Ahmadinejad".
Why not Mr. Bush and Pres Ahm
June 29, 2007 - 13:50 ET by florida_chadWhy not Mr. Bush and Pres Ahmadinejad?
You think Tony Snow would h
June 29, 2007 - 13:51 ET by MightyMouthYou think Tony Snow would have written the headline that way?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
If Tony Snow were working for
June 29, 2007 - 14:01 ET by balboaIf Tony Snow were working for a newspaper, sure. Not as an employee of the president.
Yeah, and?Why don't you jus
June 29, 2007 - 14:24 ET by MightyMouthYeah, and?
Why don't you just admit this could be OR might possibly be another example of bias?
Wait you just did... you said an employee of the president probably would respect the office but a liberal headline writing journalist doesn't because he can be biased! (paraphrased you of course)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
It's not bias. Sorry. Mostl
June 29, 2007 - 14:30 ET by balboaIt's not bias. Sorry. Mostly because I don't think a headline writer puts that much thought into finding ways to get a dig in against Bush.
If you can show me that Clinton was always referred to as President Clinton in headlines, or that Bush is always just Bush, and that Reagan, Bush 41, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc., were treated differently based on party, then I'll agree.
Sorry Only have time for on
June 29, 2007 - 14:41 ET by MightyMouthSorry, Only have time for one example, and its right on topic.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Clinton
June 29, 2007 - 20:24 ET by Two Strings LeftLike my favorite headline from The Onion: "Clinton to Drop Da Bomb on Iraq"
the punchline, of course - turns out to be George Clinton, not Bill
I swear, Bal, switch some n
June 29, 2007 - 13:41 ET by sarcasmoI swear, Bal, switch some names around & I'm getting a powerful late-Clinton-administration deja-vu... From a libertarian viewpoint, if you can imagine being cursed as I am for a moment, I hope you'll understand just how amusing that feeling is -- at both "major" parties' expense! ;)
JMR
It's the context we are at
June 29, 2007 - 13:46 ET by MightyMouthIt's the context we are at odds with. The headline referenced two heads of state giving one less respect then the other. And it always seems to be one particular head of state that it happens to.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yes, but it's the flashback
June 29, 2007 - 14:31 ET by sarcasmoYes, but it's the flashbacks to what the exact opposite parties were saying to eachother -- with a few words changed -- that's amusing me. It's probably best to ignore me, since I think it always happens to THE head of state, usually around the end of his 8 year term, and that party -- in this case -- doesn't seem to matter.
JMR
Got it. Point taken. "
June 29, 2007 - 14:37 ET by MightyMouthGot it. Point taken.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
}}----> feigned ignorance again Balboa?
June 29, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Cool ArrowAccepted journalistic practice is to refer to him as President Bush when he is first mentioned in the article. Thereafter Mr. Bush, or The President is acceptable. It is silly to Refer to BUSH and then use the rest of the headline to longhand PRESIDENT AHMADEMOCRAT
Again, it's for clarity.
June 29, 2007 - 14:19 ET by balboaAgain, it's for clarity.
"Again, it's for clari
June 29, 2007 - 14:28 ET by MightyMouth"Again, it's for clarity"
Says the person who did not write it. And to save you some time, I know I didn't write it either, all I did was read it, and it appears more bias than it appears clear.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I guess the press should star
June 29, 2007 - 13:33 ET by JerryI guess the press should start referring to the globally recognized Queen Elizabeth as Liz and can start leaving off the "Pope" part when talking about the well known Pope.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
It seems to me that the MSM p
June 29, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Chris NormanIt seems to me that the MSM pushing the notion that what defeated this disaster-in-the-making was "lawmaker ambivalence", over the American people's revolt, is the perfect illustration of how they put more faith in the power and wisdom of the government over that of the citizenry. No surprise, as most in the MSM probably think that government creates wealth.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Maybe he meant to say "Gazpac
June 29, 2007 - 14:11 ET by Tim GrahamMaybe he meant to say "Gazpacho."
Considering the recently-fa
June 29, 2007 - 14:33 ET by sarcasmoConsidering the recently-failed Amnesty Bill, that's entirely possible!
JMR
Gestapo - Gazpacho - both mak
June 29, 2007 - 15:04 ET by Chris NormanGestapo - Gazpacho - both make you run... I didn't just say that, did I?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
"We know what they're ag
June 29, 2007 - 14:14 ET by Galvanic"We know what they're against. We don't know what they're for," Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said of the bill's opponents. Perhaps, he suggested, the bill's opponents envision some kind of "gestapo" to round up illegal immigrants. "That's their alternative?" Kennedy shouted. "That's their alternative?"
What absurd hyperbole. No one suggested rounding up the illegals with a Gestapo. They're already here, and most of them will end up staying here til they die or go home.
You don't know what we're for? Are you flippin' deaf, or just ignorant, Senator? Fix the border security that you neglected for 40 years. After that's fixed, we can carefully and fully discuss how to deal with the other stuff.
What can be plainer than that?
Here's an idea, Teddy. Afte
June 29, 2007 - 15:08 ET by drillanwrHere's an idea, Teddy. After the fence is built, those here won't be able to head
back without showing legal papers at the gate ... Guess we'll see who is who then.
We know what they're against
June 29, 2007 - 19:26 ET by skclewisKennedy's blathering is easily understandable given his drinking and that underwater swim. You know that both contribute to damaged brain cells. That's why I moved out of Taxachusetts a long, long time ago. I mean this is the same guy that promised the same thing back in 1965 and again in '86.
It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. Mercy Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution, 1805
With Ted Kennedy he wakes up
June 29, 2007 - 19:30 ET by drillanwrWith Ted Kennedy he wakes up and doesn't know what year it is. Keeps thinking the immigration bill is there for the first time.
Hell, he probably still thinks he has to go pick up Mary Jo ...
OMG! Did anyone else see Tomm
June 29, 2007 - 15:04 ET by drillanwrOMG! Did anyone else see Tommy Chong on FNC's Neil Cavuto yesterday?
I don't know how many brain cells Chong started out life with, but I can firmly say there are barely enough for his brain to operate his involuntary organs.
Yeah, man, this country was their before the white man took it ... Bush is a moron ... Yeah, I smoke everyday, Neil. You should too ... Bush is a moron... I was an illegal alien too when I'd cross the border to work here ... Did I say Bush is a moron? ...
Neil: Yeeaaahhh ... we're out of time, Tommy thanks for ...
Chong: WAIT! You didn't hear my solution for the border ... Bush is a moron ...
Neil: ... Yeeeaahhh ...
I thougt he was in jail for selling bongs
June 29, 2007 - 15:07 ET by florida_chadMissed it. Why did Neal have him on??
To discuss the border problem
June 29, 2007 - 15:10 ET by drillanwrTo discuss the border problem ... I know ... <PWAAAHAAAHAAA!!!>
I gotta turn on Cavuto to see the emails he got for that segment.
WOW - thanks
June 29, 2007 - 15:15 ET by florida_chadWOW - thanks
Listen up Teddy boy!!
June 29, 2007 - 16:14 ET by c5thenFIX THE FRIGGIN' BORDER AND BUILD THE FRIGGIN' FENCE!!!!
Then, we can have a civil discusion on what to do with the 12-20 million crimnals that have already snuck in since the last amnesty deal. You see we have historic empiracle evidence that unequivocaly shown that if you grant amnesty and don't fix the border holes, even more will come accross and wait for the next amnesty deal.
If we grant amnesty to the criminals that are here without having control of the borders, it only guarentees that in 15-20 years we will have another 20 million criminals awaiting their shot at amnesty.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic