Alarming News

October 26, 2006

Biased much?

Washington Post:

President George W. Bush signed legislation on Thursday to build 700 miles of fencing along the US-Mexican border, an election-year move against illegal immigration aimed at helping Republicans.

Emphasis mine.

Posted by Karol at 03:31 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Well, unless Bush is doing it out of a sincere commitment to securing the border and keeping illegals from entering the country, election-year politics is the most likely expanation.
And while I bear the guy no ill will, I’ve never really gotten a “tough on illegal immigration” vibe from the Prez.

Posted by: Gib at October 26, 2006 at 4:52 pm

Yeah, Karol. He’s certainly not signing it as part of HIS policy, which was all amnesty all the time.

Posted by: Ken at October 26, 2006 at 5:13 pm

Hotair is also perceiving it as an election year token gesture.

Posted by: Amer at October 26, 2006 at 6:23 pm

Here’s the thing; it’s one thing for Ken, Gib, Hot Air to speculate on why Bush signed this bill, and offer their opinions on such. But, last I checked, Washington Post was claiming to be a NEWSpaper. Offering their OPINION on why Bush signed the bill is what was wrong with this piece–regardless of whether other people agree with the opinion.

Posted by: Karol at October 26, 2006 at 6:57 pm

Also, just to add, the bill won’t actually result in a wall being built. It says he can build one. Which he won’t (thank God). One more reason it’s just election year pandering. Hehe, I’m in agreement with Gib and Ken. Wow.

Posted by: Sam L. at October 26, 2006 at 8:02 pm

It should have said:
“an election-year move against illegal immigration aimed at helping all Americans.”
MSM filters all events through lens designed to see only political tactics. If something bad happens to America, they gleefully exaggerate it with a feeding frenzy believing that it will hurt Republicans.
If something good happens, MSM suppress the news or disparage the event. They perceive that good things happening to Americans hurt Democrats so they will have none of it.
MSM deserves the economic crash they are experiencing as Americans desert their hateful product in droves.

Posted by: Jake at October 26, 2006 at 8:02 pm

Naturally, the Post is injecting its opinion into the news page.
But what is so frightening about the Post’s opinion is that it suggests that the USA securing its border is some sort of election-year stunt, rather than an obligation to the citizens of the United States.
And if I were a Democrat, I might be offended that the Post suggests that securing the nation’s border is explicitly a concern of Republican voters.

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at October 26, 2006 at 8:57 pm

The article has changed it now says:
Republicans hoped the legislation would give them a boost as they try to head off a strong Democratic attempt to take control of the U.S. Congress in November 7 elections.

Posted by: PAUL at October 27, 2006 at 9:50 am

And if I were a Democrat, I might be offended that the Post suggests that securing the nation’s border is explicitly a concern of Republican voters.
Wow, it’s been a highly entertaining morning at the Dawn and Karol show.
You ever BEEN to the Mexican border, BBIS? Have you seen the plan? They are building a monument to ideology.
They are going to erect 700 miles of fencing on a 2100 mile border, at a cost of $2.2B, and how is this going to be effective? The CBP just awarded the SBINet program to Boeing. You know how much of the Boeing plan is based on building fences? Zero.
5000 people escaped through the Berlin Wall, the most heavily fortified border in history, and this patchwork fence is supposed to ’secure’ the border? The Maginot Line didn’t do much for the French, these walls won’t do much for us.
One can only hope that this is an election year stunt, because the alternative is to believe that this will actually be a useful way to spend money. I think that Bush is getting the benefit of the doubt here.

Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 at 10:04 am

The article should have said:
“In an election move year to placate conservatives turned off by his Judas like treaon on big government, putting America last, suggesting hacks with no records to the Supreme Court and proposing amnesty, a frightened President Bush….”
Score one for real Americans, real conservatives and real patriots. Nice of you to join us rich boy cheerleader.

Posted by: Von Bek at October 27, 2006 at 1:48 pm

David,
Sir, I’ve been to the southern border many times.
But we were commenting on the journalistic ethics of the Post inflicting its opinion into a news story—a practice which violates “Journalism 101.”
The Post suggests that the border issue appeals exclusively to Republicans—and that is what I was commenting on.
You responded with an opinion about the potential effectiveness of the fence legislation—however, that is a different animal, altogether.
Your last sentence was, “I think that Bush is getting the benefit of the doubt here.”
And my point is, the Post ought not be ‘benefitting doubt’ about any issue in the first few sentences of a NEWS story—that is what the opinion pages are for.
Just out of curiosity, if you insist the fencing will be ineffective, how would you propose the US should best go about securing its southern border ?
Respectfully yours.

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at October 27, 2006 at 3:03 pm

Biased much?

President George W. Bush signed election-year legislation on Thursday to build 700 miles (1,126 km) of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border to combat illegal immigration. It’s about damn time Bush!
“We have a responsibility to secure our …

Posted by: People Pundit at October 28, 2006 at 5:19 pm

Mr. Suit, I tried to send you an email and it bounced. Do you have another email address? I cc’d Karol, maybe she can forward it to you?

Posted by: David at October 30, 2006 at 11:44 am

I’ll summarize the email that I sent you.
The article that Karol referenced was actually a report off the Reuters Newswire. So, by extension, any paper that ran this article could be accused of liberal bias. That is until you read this article from the Washington Times, which flat out states that the bill is an election gimmick:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061018-123040-8481r.htm
The people at the Times would probably be mad if you called them liberal.
Controlling the border directly is an economically unfeasible task. There are too many avenues of approach. The best you can really hope for is to get an idea how many people are coming, and make sure that you can capture and detain the really bad guys (i.e. terrorists).

Posted by: David at October 30, 2006 at 11:50 am
Post a comment