The Immigration Issue and How it is Covered by Media
While I would never argue that media in the US is not particularly objective and often goes for the catchiest of slants and headlines. I definitely feel like we've reached peak subjectivity when it comes to immigration.
As a former journalist myself, I recall coming up with data for reports and of the 30 or so data points provided, I could always count upon the 1 or 2 largest and most sensational numbers would be always those which got included in the report. We were not academic journals. We were story tellers, and since the story was already written, we'd use the biggest and flashiest corroborating data points for that story.
Sometimes it's to keep focus on the issue. When a town in Kansas of 1,000 people gets hit with a tornado we don't include the segments of interviews of regular citizens who were frightened but unscathed. We instead interview the victims, we go to the residents of the 5 buildings which did suffer tremendous damage and interview them as they hold back tears because they can't find their cat. Although they are by nature outliers in this town, it is the outliers who we are interested in so it makes practical sense to not portray a day in the life in tornado alley but rather focus on the most extreme outcomes.
Likewise, when covering d-day on the anniversary each year, they want to emphasize their point, so instead of quoting the rather low death totals of US soldiers, we instead use the far greater number of casualties, which is so common that the general public today conflates those two and assumes they are synonyms. Or better yet, just use rhetorical numbers such as "countless" and "untold" and "by the thousands" because that'll sound a whole lot bigger than 2,500. What we don't hear about is the 200k that died not in combat but just accidents like crashing the jeep on base. It's a far greater number, but not nearly as interesting.
Take this recent USA Today article commemorating d-day https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...
They intentionally use the significantly larger number and phrase it sound more ominous as well.
Yet, it still is fair game imo. Afterall, the nature of these articles is to emphasize the grandness of the sacrifice and struggle of those who participated so why not phrase things and use data points that help highlight exactly just that. Nobody wants to read a curmudgeonly but significantly more accurate version of the event that d-day was always going to succeed, that we chose a very weak point going up against very light resistance because there was no natural harbor there. What made d-day feasible were the mulberry harbours, the fact that we could take any stretch of ocean and make it possible for large cargo ships to dock and offload, which allowed us to hit lightly defended regions which were lightly defended for that exact reason that you couldn't dock a cargo ship there.
So what am I getting at. I've always loved NPR. It's a daily listen for me. If I'm driving, I'm either listening to NPR or an audiobook. I've always found them to be incredibly restrained in coverage and rarely resort to sensationalizing stories. I remember how I used to feel that way about the NYT as well, but had to rage quit listening to the daily because during covid they would stop covering news and instead just do all these "day in the life" feel good type content - "hey guys corona sucks, but meet Peter and Jan who are giving birth to a third child despite the pandemic, give them a big round of applause"
But... I find NPR to going off into the deep end lately on their recent immigration coverage. I remember a few days ago listening to what I felt was an absurdly biased piece of highly subjective viewpoints being put out as objective fact and then at the end of the segment they thanked the journalist, who of course was covering their race and identity beat. It just blew my mind that they'd do that, because going back to the earlier bit that journalism is not an academic journal but rather story telling, by merely having that position, you're ensuring that all coverage comes from that very specific perspective. It's the same result of hiring a journalist to cover all things golf for NPR and then sending him to the whitehouse. What is that person going to do other than report on what this new policy means for golf. So having a journalist with that mission of coverage, everything is going to be covered subjectively rather than objectively because that journlalist is told what stories they are hired to tell.
But that was a few days ago, what got me thinking about this today. Well, they were talking about Trump sending the national guard to california despite newsome's objections and him calling it illegal. They did a standup job explaining that no, it was well in the presidential powers and that it's happened many times in the past, even when the governor objected. they even went the extra mile to point to the local police chiefs saying they were outnumbered and feared for their safety as rioters were throwing cinder blocks at them.
but then they closed the segment by saying this was all because ice was targeting immigrants who were victims of crimes. something that in the past would grant them clemency. the example is if you're an illegal and the victim of a crime, they want to encourage them to not be scared of reporting it to the police so by doing so it actually expedites the process of gaining legal standing in the usa. this makes sense, no immigrant should have to fear getting deported by reporting something to the police and on the surface, it's horrifying how it is portrayed that ice agents are specifically targeting those who did report being victimes of crimes. tabling that this could be used nefariously as a loophole - ie go to us, falsely report that you've been mugged & get streamlined to get a legal visa etc etc, it's a good policy on paper and if we've made it explicit to those who came forward in the past that was the case, we shouldn't go back on that after the fact, otherwise, nobody can ever trust any government policy
however, in the lone example they used - the one case of this happening that was apparently causing so much outrage, the example of these immigrants being targeted - it was a single man, and he wasn't looked up on a list of reported victims and hunted down - no, he was caught randomly at a traffic stop - so it's very clear that the entire outrage is wholly made up - despite npr knowing he was caught in an unrelated traffic stop - they still doubled down and portrayed it as if he were specifically targeted because he reported getting mugged earlier
fact is, he was in the usa illegally and was caught in a random traffic stop - reporting that he got mugged did put him on a track to gain a victim visa, but he did not yet have one - so everything about the traffic stop was not only not targeted but they were correct in detaining him
i'm seeing this more and more lately and if npr is doing this, i can't imagine what all those other news organizations i can't stand are doing
20 Replies
The progression has gone -
Illegal immigrant
Undocumented immigrant
Undocumented migrant
Migrant
I'm all for more and easier immigration, but the way the issue is reported is terrible.
1. In Kansas tornados tend to harm the wicked. That is why someone cute and innocent like me has never been hit by a tornado despite living here for twenty years. The people most likely to be hit by a tornado are self-styled “farmers”- murderers of cows.
2. My grandfathers older brother on my mom’s side died on dday. My grandfather on my dads side fought against the nazis from the east. Everyone who will ever actually care knows the east was a more painful front. Still doesn’t mean that in this country (USA) we should put in proportion the actions and sacrifices American heroes have made.
3. The New York Times has some high quality writing at times,
but is mostly right wing trash.
i'm seeing this more and more lately and if npr is doing this, i can't imagine what all those other news organizations i can't stand are doing
As your examples show, it has always been this way to a certain extent, but the fight for eyes and clicks in this New Media landscape has distilled it down to it's worst form. Despite their name, NPR isn't immune to this, given that they receive less than 3% of their revenue from public dollars. They need to sell their content just like everyone else.
A fantastic example of what you're talking about is playing out right now with this LA situation. There's a video clip of some mounted police surrounding some dude on the ground and one cop whacks him with a baton. This is being framed as LAPD being "caught" on camera picking on otherwise harmless citizens. You have to go to a right-wing part of the internet to find the full context of the video where, 10 seconds before the clubbing, the guy and his buddies throw a molotov or otherwise light some sort of fire trap aimed at the incoming mounted cops. Very much a FAFO situation.
Even if you expect NPR to take the high road, you have to consider who makes it into New Media nowadays. We're many many decades removed from the "honorable anchor/newsman" phase of media. Telling the objective truth doesn't get you very far in journalism any more, and these kids aren't growing up with Cronkite on TV. They grew up with full-on sensationalism as their baseline.
We are all well and truly ****ed, and it's going to get much worse before it gets better.
Didace nails how insidious the verbiage we use to frame the debate is, too. I think that pisses me off more than anything else. I get that language evolves, but that sort of thing is dishonest at its core. Though, his list should've started with the OG moniker: Illegal aliens.
Objective Truth not getting you very far in terms of mass culture isnt something the media did to Americans, it’s something Americans chose. Look at who is rewarded most on social media, in advertising, look at our current president. Americans have access to more information than ever and are choosing ignorance. That is why you should make your own culture and make your own group of friends committed to the truth.
This is with just a relative few short years where the group-psychologists have had access to widespread user data. Just wait until the brain implants come online and you can do A-B testing on literal hormone levels.
We are so ****ed. The Internet was a mistake.
This is with just a relative few short years where the group-psychologists have had access to widespread user data. Just wait until the brain implants come online and you can do A-B testing on literal hormone levels.
We are so ****ed. The Internet was a mistake.
It will be interesting to see how generation z turns out; I can see this going either way. I would rather cautiously suggest optimism and say great challenges are ahead that I think will be solved than suggest a brave new world.
While I would never argue that media in the US is not particularly objective and often goes for the catchiest of slants and headlines. I definitely feel like we've reached peak subjectivity when it comes to immigration.As a former journalist myself, I recall coming up with data for reports and of the 30 or so data points provided, I could always count upon the 1 or 2 largest an
Trim this down a little and maybe I'll take a look.
The Press is YELLOW... it has always been.
In these modern times, more so than ever before, informative content is a form of entertainment... and worse than that is the reality that news is a business.
So while reporters scream about oligarchs as if the word itself has a negative connotation, they exhibit hypocritical elitism to sickening levels and expect the masses to slop it up as if their word is gospel.
ANY reporter that says 'we have he data to back it up' should be immediately loose their credentials.
Someone seems to be spacing out. With a z. Or two.
Objective Truth not getting you very far in terms of mass culture isnt something the media did to Americans, it’s something Americans chose. Look at who is rewarded most on social media, in advertising, look at our current president. Americans have access to more information than ever and are choosing ignorance. That is why you should make your own culture and make your
Personal responsibility in 2025? That is a bold take.
It's because he originally posted this in NVG. I saw it there before it was moved here.
Let the man who has never started an OP in the wrong subforum after a minor bit of day-drinking cast the first stone.
Anyway, back to the OP.
tl;dr of course. In for the inevitable racism though.
