The Washington Post typically boosted a leftist rally for amnesty for illegal immigrants, with one major difference – they utterly ignored the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and the National Park Service closing open spaces in Washington, unless a left-wing protest was scheduled.
It sounded like 2006 all over again: liberals and leftists plan a rally for illegal immigrants gaining an amnesty, and The Washington Post applies the usual liberal formula of pre-protest buildup: it’s going to be massive! And no one who’s organizing this is a liberal!
If the protests are large – and they were in 2006 – some credit should go to the free advertising the Post gives in advance. In this case, it was a story on the front page of Sunday's Metro section with a color photo. “Activists riding a fresh wave of optimism ahead of immigration rally,” promised the headline:
The Sunday Washington Post issued a set of "Best of 2011" lists, and in the Arts section listing of the 100 most notable books (50 in fiction, 50 in nonfiction), the Post fulfilled its annual tradition of promoting its own staffers. In the fiction category was Bloodmoney by Post columnist David Ignatius.
On the nonfiction list were Playing With Fire by Pamela Constable, The Triple Agent by Joby Warrick, Never Say Die by blogger Susan Jacoby and Rawhide Down by Del Quentin Wilber (on the 1981 Reagan assassination attempt). Former Post reporter Robin Wright was mentioned for Rock the Casbah (which was not about the Clash). The selections were made from among books that received book reviews from the Post, so this is a double-dip for Post staffers, a little publicity in the Christmas stocking.
It's possible I missed something in history class, but I'm pretty sure Davy Crockett never urinated in public as a sign of protest.
I say this because the Washington Post's Pamela Constable and Fredrick Kunkle today compared the Occupy D.C. movement to the Texan freedom fighters at the Alamo in today's 25-paragraph front-page story (emphases mine):
Does anyone have a dollar to lend the Washington Post? It needs to buy a clue, apparently, as it sees "legal immigrants" as the "Unlikely foes of Md. Dream Act," an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants that voters may toss out next November in a ballot initiative.
Here's how Post staffer Pamela Constable opened her November 28 story:
Hundreds of Coptic Christians traveled to Washington D.C. yesterday "from as far as New York and Chicago" to call on President Obama to push Egypt's government to protect their brothers and sisters from persecution.
Kudos are in order for the Washington Post for devoting a 14-paragraph story on page B3 of the October 20 paper. Editors also published a large photo from the demonstration, headlined, "At the White House, Coptic Christians demand an end to 'horrible nightmare,'" on the front page of the Post to direct readers to the Metro section story.
As an MRC study has proven, liberal broadcast media has a strong record of skewed coverage of illegal immigration. Print coverage in major metropolitan broadsheets in no different. In her August 30 article, Washington Post staff writer Pamela Constable featured English-speaking illegal immigrants lamenting "hateful talk against immigrants."
"Many have no legal documents," Constable conceded of the day laborers waiting at 5:30 a.m. outside a Gaithersburg, Md., work center operated by "the nonprofit CASA de Maryland." Constable failed to note anywhere in her article the pro-illegal immigration, pro-amnesty stance CASA consistently promotes.
Indeed, Constable's mission was not to report both sides of the immigration debate, but rather to paint a stark, emotional account full of loaded language, including comparing the plight of illegal immigrants to Jews hiding from Nazi persecution: