The paper's that never shown any interest in the immigratants involved in the struggle for immigration rights continues to flaunt it's sneering "don't give a damn" attitude. Having allowed Monica Davey to twice tell us how it feels to be . . . big business, Randal C. Archibold (who has more problems than his name) comes along with "Immigrants Take to U.S. Streets in Show of Strength" to reassure readers it was no big thing.
From the beginning, the issues and the realities are underplayed. You get that with "hundreds of thousands" in Archibold's first sentence. Try over a million. I've heard as low 1.1 million and as high as one and [a half million] -- eye balling the rough figures I've heard from friends across the country, I think a case could be made for two million or more. Just do the numbers out of Los Angeles and Chciago alone and you grasp that.
But we mustn't say "million" in the Times. Not after they've ignored and mocked the issue in ALL their coverage from reporting to editorials. "Uppity" seems to be the attitude of the paper. Stil hurt that the nation didn't rush to get on board the Senate plan that the Bullies of 43rd Street were pushing as 'reasoned' and 'well thought'?
The moral equivalency of allowing a smeer in the seventh paragraph from a spokesperson for a xenophobic organization may be the thing most people can't get past. The "Minuteman" as reliable sources? I guess readers can look forward to the Grand Dragon of the KKK being consulted in future stories and being treated as just another source.
Bully Boy doesn't like boycotts and neither does the Times. So they trash and smear while minimizing.
We get people sniffing that it wasn't all that. As you read the construct of this story, you grasp that the Mean Girls/Heathers have crossed over from the op-ed pages and now pose as reporters.
It's funny they missed what happened in Bakersfield. (A lot of us didn't but someone didn't see it as "all the news that's fit to print.") Just as they miss that march that took place in the evening after police harrassment (and that's putting it mildly), they also miss the rumors of police harrassment that were put out ahead of time to attempt to clamp down on the numbers.
The biggest bold face lie (a tough choice, granted)? This:
Most of the demonstrators' ire was directed at a bill passed by the House that would increase security at the border while making it a felony for an illegal immigrant to be in the country or to aid one. The marchers generally favored a plan in the Senate, for which President Bush has shown signs of support, that would include more protection at the border but offer many illegal workers a path to citizenship.
The Times flat out lies. I was at multiple protests, I've spoken (and am speaking as I type) to people all over the country. The faction pushing the Senate proposal remains the Times editorial board. But the paper's refused to listen to immigrants from day one so why the hell should this morning be any different?
It's a flat out lie. They're not just doing their usual thing of coaxing and shaping coverage, they're lying. Forget speaking to individuals (the Times prefers polls where the people are at a distance), all they had to do was listen to speeches at the rallies.
But that would require a committment to the truth and truth and the Times are, if not strangers, opponents.
To tell the truth about the protests is just too much to them. They've favored that crappy Senate proposal from day one. They're going to shape every bit of coverage to attempt to manipulate readers into thinking that the immgrants, whom the paper's never interested in, favors it too.
They should be ashamed and embarrassed. From Archibold to everyone who supposedly contributed:
Reporting for this article was contributed by Cindy Chang from Los Angeles, Steve Friess from Las Vegas, Carolyn Marshall from Watsonville, Calif., and Gretchen Ruethling from Chicago.
What happened? Well though the paper dismisses it, business did shut down and were shut down. People gathered, many at great risk to themselves considering the rumors being put out all weekend of INS and police crackdowns. What you saw was bravery around the nation. You don't get that from liars for the Times.
Archibold also tells you that criticism of the Mexican flag resulted in it appearing less. He wishes. He and the press wish they had any power on this movement. They don't. Not only were Mexican flags in abundance in California, so were the flags of other nations as well. That will probably continue because the press that lies on your cause is hardly the press you take your cues from.
Javier Barajas should enjoy his moment in the sun. The Times trots him out to talk as a small business owner. He says there should be other ways to protest and that the ones really hurt are the small business owners. He actually says that.
People die each day coming across the borders, but the ones really hurt are the small business owners?
Don't believe the crap. People marched in huge numbers, the impact was felt. You can tell how much by the paper of no record's attempt to white wash.
Want to know what really took place? Democracy Now! is covering the protests today. So listen, watch or read (transcripts).
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
the new york times
randal c. archibold
[Jess note: Added, in brackets, the "and half million" took; "of" out of "all that."