"After Immigration Protests, Goal Remains Elusive" is the title of Sheryl Gay Stolberg's piece in this morning's New York Times. It's dubbed a "news analysis" which is a misnomer. It should be dubbed "More Attacks On Immigrants."
What's missing today?
Reality. That's a given. But in her "news analysis," Stolberg can't find the immigrants. Now she can flat out LIE and call what the Chamber of Commerce (gee, whose interests do you think they represent?) supports as "bills to legalize immigrants." She's a liar, the whole damn paper wants to lie day after day.
There's nothing new about the Senate proposal or, for that matter, the Chamber of Commerce's 'backing.' It's the same crap that was rejected last decade when we were all a little more informed and, apparently, a little smarter.
It probably helped that we had a greater influx (percentage wise) of immigrants then. It probably helped that we had a bit more diverse of a media. The nonsense of creating a class of serfs that you'll dangle the notions of citizenship in front of didn't play last century. Will it this century? If the Times has its way. They're throwing everything they can behind this propaganda effort in a manner that recalls their demonization of senior citizens in their efforts to destroy Social Security (see the eighties particularly).
Stolberg clucks over the 'damage' that immigrans may have done to the cause.
As if the Times ever gave a damn.
As if Dianne Feinstein gives a damn.
Cindy Sheehan should have ran against the war profiteering Feinstein. Maybe her Republican opponent will make something out of her husband's sweethearts deals?
Feinsteain tells the Times that the immigrants went about it all wrong. Hold off on the laughs, it gets better. DiFi explains: "I think what changes votes is coming down, sitting down, talking about it, as opposed to students' staying out of school. I happen to think that students' staying out of school is counterproductive."
Yeah, talking with her as been so helpful when it comes to changing the hawk's opinion on the war, right?
DiFi may find those protests (that haunt all of her offices in California) increasing with her latest bit of nonsense. Realizing the very real problems she's facing and the very weak support she has among Californians, she's tried to make some sort of noise to suggest that she really was a Democrat recently. It rings about as hollow as does her 'advice' today.
Stolberg finds all sorts of interesting voices, doesn't she? She can't find anyone supporting the immigrants. She can find people who tsk-tsk. She calls it reporting but it's just her attempt at toeing the paper's line.
Is Stolberg as stupid as she comes off in print this morning? No, she's not. But she's not reporting or "analyzing." She's the paper's designated water boy today.
The whole point of the article is to present their one-sided cheerleading for the Senate bill -- not to report, not to analyze.
That's why she can line up the voices that she does. That's why she can "report" of how maybe a one day protest didn't mean much. Historically and socially ignorant in the paper today, Sheryl Gay Stolberg does something really vile. And just as many at the paper disgraced themselves inventing a Social Security "crisis," Stolberg disgraces herself today joining in the paper's efforts to distort.
The thing I keep being asked is, "But the paper, Ochs wasn't 'Smith.' How can they do this?"
People are apparently under the misconception that the paper was there, in an earlier time, attempting to highlight the tragedies of Jews under the Nazi regime in Germany. They weren't.
There was money to be made for American corporations then too. Green (money, not eco) trumps everything else at the paper from time to time. It was shameful then and it's shameful now because we're talking about human beings and the paper wants to concern itself with profits.
They all ought to be ashamed.
The "balance" is and has been a joke. But it really becomes clear how much of a joke when money's to be made and the supposed 'social justice' paper of the nation distorts and presents one-sided 'reporting' day after day.
It's all very similar to an earlier time. And we'll leave it at that for today. (Yes, this is in reference to a piece coming up this Sunday at The Third Estate Sunday Review.)
Remember to listen, watch or read (transcripts) of Democracy Now! today. We'll close with Juan Gonzalez's latest that was noted yesterday on Democracy Now! -- but, if it makes it up at Common Dreams and you see it there, please note it. His writing is available at The New York Daily News for a brief time before you have to pay to read it. From his "On streets of New York, solidarity reigns:"
They march even though they risk being fired or being detained and deported by immigration authorities.
They boycotted schools and jobs and shut down stores yesterday even though Catholic Church officials and union leaders and politicians who support their cause urged them to ignore the call for May Day protests.
They took to the streets even though the pundits and the so-called experts in Washington warned of a political backlash from middle-class America.
Some have even tried to pit black Americans against the undocumented. But key African-American leaders like the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Transport Workers Union chief Roger Toussaint all attacked those divisive tactics at yesterday's Union Square rally.
"You can't talk about globalized capital and exporting jobs and not talk about global human and labor rights for immigrant workers," Jackson said. "Immigrants aren't sending good jobs overseas, corporations are."
Time and again this new immigrant movement has taken the politicians, the church and labor leaders by surprise with its discipline and its fury.
The experts, you see, are missing the point.
This movement is already a backlash -- against decades of anti-immigrant scapegoating and hysteria in Washington. Congress ignores this cry for recognition at our country's peril.
As Rachel wrote (she noted the piece), "one of the few reporters at a NY paper actually attempting to tell the story."
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.
the new york times
sheryl gay stolberg