Media Bias? What Media Bias Meng?
As Coloradans collectively work to solve the puzzle of what to do about illegal immigration, they can be hindered by newspaper articles that report only part of the story. Consider, for example, two recent stories in The Denver Post.Can you smell the open borders desperation?
Because Colorado legislators have been looking to Georgia’s new laws about illegal immigration as a possible model for our state, the Post was smart to assign Karen E. Crummy to get a Georgia perspective (”Legislator: Ga.’s law no panacea,” June 29).
Unfortunately, Crummy interviewed a single Georgian, State Sen. Sam Zamarripa, who voted against the reform package. Crummy’s lead disingenuously described Zamarripa as “A Georgia state senator who helped draft a law that cracks down on illegal immigrants.” More precisely, Zamarripa earned the praise of the former Mexican consul in Atlanta for successfully working to weaken the law after it was apparent that it could not be defeated.
Crummy did not inform readers that Zamarippa has served on the board of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a pro-illegal alien lobby, that Zamarippa has pushed for giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, and that he is a founder and director of Banco Unido, a bank that has been criticized for making mortgage loans to illegal aliens.
Yet Crummy wrote: “Although Zamarripa helped refine Georgia’s illegal-immigration law, he didn’t vote for the final measure.” Her phrasing created the false impression that Zamarripa was a something other than Georgia’s leading opponent of restrictions on illegal immigration.
A complete story about the Georgia law should have included the perspective of a skeptic such as Zamarripa, but also should have included the perspective of a supporter, such as the bill’s sponsor.
H/T Beyond Borders Blog
Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, colorado, georgia, media bias, open borders, invasion