Example of Media's Bias

The title of the article is "Immigrant Protection Rules Draw Fire" and is supposed to be about how some city governments refuse to report illegals when they are arrested for other crimes.

First, the NY Times, conviently forgets the group under fire are illegal-immigrants. They do their best to eliminate any sort of distinction. Then the article starts off with three paragraphs of a sob story which pre-emptively tries to deflect attention away from the look-the-other-way policy. The average Times reader may think that the policy is needed because they read one story of out millions where illegals were adversely affected and afraid to come forward. It attempts to use one example to drive national policy.

This is what I'm going to call the Cider House Rules Strategy (message of the movie.... abortion on demand at any time is needed because in 0.0001% of abortion cases are the result of fathers raping their daughters).

If the NY Times was FOR the change in policy, the article would have looked much different. The article would have began with the criticism. The sob story would have been about a mother who's daughter was killed because an illegal was stopped for speeding but wasn't detained for being illegal and 3 days later the illegal raped and killed the daughter. They might have mentioned the murder of indie actresss Adrienne Shelly. The reported sob story could have even been after the discussion of the groups criticizing the policy.

While the Times may be fooling some readers, the ever declining readership means that many people are catching on. Abe Lincoln famously said: "It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time."

Immigrant Protection Rules Draw Fire
By JESSE McKINLEY
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 9 — Dr. Stephen B. Turner built a profitable business here by providing low-cost “immigrant medical exams,” including immunizations and blood tests, to hundreds of newcomers to America. Many of his clients did not speak English, but they paid in cash, spending a total of nearly $250,000 at Dr. Turner’s practice from 2003 to 2005.

It was only later, after a tip from a suspicious client, that the San Francisco police and the district attorney’s office learned the truth: Dr. Turner had been throwing out his clients’ blood samples and injecting them with “inoculations” of saline.

Kamala D. Harris, the San Francisco district attorney, said the case, which led to a seven-year prison term for Dr. Turner, was one of many her office had been able to pursue under San Francisco’s so-called sanctuary policy, which forbids police and city officials from asking people they encounter in the course of an investigation about their immigration status. It is a protection Ms. Harris says has made immigrants — legal and illegal — more willing to come to forward about crimes.

With immigration continuing to flare and frustrate as a national political issue, sanctuary cities like San Francisco may soon be the next battlefront. Critics argue that sanctuary policies discourage the police from enforcing laws, though about 50 cities and counties have enacted variations on sanctuary, according to the National Immigration Law Center. They include Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and Washington. A handful of states have similar policies, including Alaska, Maine and Oregon.... NY Times