Robert Samuelson has an interesting column today (hat tip Captain's Quarters) on how the media have completely failed to report a significant fact about the Senate's recently passed immigration bill, that it likely will double the number the number of legal immigrants coming into the United States each year. Nowhere was this fact prominently reported.
The Senate passed legislation last week that Sen. Edward Kennedy
(D-Mass.) hailed as "the most far-reaching immigration reform in our
history." You might think that the first question anyone would ask is
how much it would actually increase or decrease legal immigration. But
no. After the Senate approved the bill by 62 to 36, you could not find
the answer in the news columns of The Post, the New York Times or the
Wall Street Journal. Yet the estimates do exist and are fairly
startling. By rough projections, the Senate bill would double
the legal immigration that would occur during the next two decades from
about 20 million (under present law) to about 40 million.
of journalism is to inform the public about what our political leaders
are doing. In this case, we failed. The Senate bill's sponsors didn't
publicize its full impact on legal immigration, and we didn't fill the
void. It's safe to say that few Americans know what the bill would do
because no one has told them. Indeed, I suspect that many senators who
voted for the legislation don't have a clue as to the potential overall
increase in immigration.
Democracy doesn't work well without good information. Here is a classic
case. It is interesting to contrast these immigration projections with
a recent survey done by the Pew Research Center. The poll asked whether
the present level of legal immigration should be changed. The response:
40 percent favored a decrease, 37 percent would hold it steady and 17
percent wanted an increase. There seems to be scant support for a
doubling. If the large immigration projections had been in the news,
would the Senate have done what it did? Possibly, though I doubt it.
Samuelson balks, however, at saying the reason for the failure was liberal bias. Yet, the reason he offers instead seems to be just that, if not in name.
One obvious question is why most of the news media missed the larger
immigration story. On May 15 Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama
held a news conference with Heritage's [immigration researcher Robert] Rector to announce their
immigration projections and the estimated impact on the federal budget.
Most national media didn't report the news conference. The next day the
CBO released its budget and immigration estimates. These, too, were
largely unreported, though the Wall Street Journal later discussed the
figures in a story on the bill's possible budget costs.
explanation is that the media's "liberal" bias creates a
pro-immigration slant. I think it's more complicated. Stories generally
mirror the prevailing political debate, which has concentrated on
"amnesty" for existing illegal immigrants and the guest-worker program.
Increases in other immigration categories were largely ignored.
Reporters also cover legislative stories as sports contests -- who's
winning, who's losing -- rather than delve into dreary matters of
substance. We've had endless stories on how immigration might affect
congressional elections and whether there will be a House-Senate "deal."
note the irony: The White House's projected increases of legal
immigration (20 million) are about twice the level of existing illegal
immigrants (estimated between 10 million and 12 million). Yet, coverage
overlooks the former. Here, I think, Rector has a point. Whether or not
the bias is "liberal," groupthink is a powerful force in journalism.
Immigration is considered noble. People who critically examine its
value or worry about its social effects are subtly considered
small-minded, stupid or bigoted. The result is selective journalism
that reflects poorly on our craft and detracts from democratic dialogue.