'Fair and Balanced' goes south of the border

Fox News is branching out to the Latino media market. The Huffington Post reports the news channel will launch FoxNewsLatino this fall. According to the Fox News network, the website will "feature the latest breaking news, politics, economic and lifestyle stories that impact the Latino community." HuffPost reports the site will feature both English and Spanish-language videos, along with reports from Latin American countries.

While Fox News Senior Vice president for News-Editorial Michael Clemente said the network will not launch a companion Latino TV network, he stressed that the expansion is an "unprecedented opportunity" to broaden Fox News' reach and impact to a new audience.

I have to wonder just how smart a business decision this really is. From Arizona's new immigration law to a recent report showing a majority of Americans believe Latinos face the most discrimination, Latinos seem to take a lot of heat these days. How can the "Fair and Balanced" news network attract this new market when Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly wholeheartedly defends the Arizona law on his nightly O'Reilly Factor, or when pro-Arizona Sarah "Go Rogue" Palin is given her own show on the network?

Funny, also, that Obama was criticized recently by conservatives for reaching out to blacks, women, Hispanics and young people, and yet here Fox News takes a similar path. Hypocrisy much?

Something tells me FoxNewsLatino.com won't prove the unprecedented opportunity Clemente expects.

Photo Credit: FoxNews.com

Misplaced anger at Obama ignores white privilege, not to mention facts

The Washington Examiner called out President Obama yesterday, and not for what you may think. The paper did not take Obama to task for his handling of the mortgage crisis, health care reform or even the most recent immigration legislation in Arizona. No, they were angry at him for "leaving out white males" in his midterm election strategy.

Examiner White House correspondent Julie Mason details the recently-released speech in which Obama encourages his 2008 supporters, as well as women, blacks, Hispanics and young people to rally together in the midterm election season.

What about the good ol' white folk, Mr. President?

Conservatives were upset by Obama's comments, Mason writes, and many argued that had a president called for unity among white voters, public outcry would spread like wildfire. Mason tempers this criticism with a dose of reality from Aubrey Jewett, political scientist at the University of Central Florida. Jewett says Obama's approval among white men is down and, "realistically the Democrats don't think they have a chance of getting them back between now and November." Phew. Whites can relax. It's based in fact.

Not so fast.

Jewett's inclusion is a paltry attempt at balance for the Examiner, especially when the cover of the April 27 issue reads, "Obama disses white guys: Rallies blacks, Latinos, women" (see above). When this is your front page story, and you choose the word "diss," you've got a bone to pick with our President.

The Huffington Post gives some context to the newspaper's position, arguing that the Examiner caters to the whitest geographic markets of the D.C. area. So can we chalk this whole thing up to merely cheap-shot reporting, another case of "giving the public what they want?"

Sorry, but this isn't another sensationalist piece of smut about John and Kate plus God knows how many. This is a case of whiteness feeling threatened.

First off, Obama is half white, so let's keep in mind that if Obama is ignoring white people, he's ignoring half his lineage too. Secondly, "young people" is not race-specific, so whites may have been implied in his speech.

Thirdly, I believe Obama's critics are right to insist that had the President only referred to whites, public outcry would mount strong and hard. But what if Obama's words were uttered by a white president? Would whites be upset at the lack of reference to people like them? Or would they think the president was progressive and committed to helping historically disadvantaged groups? How much of this is due to Obama's own skin color, and white fear of being dismantled from the most privileged pillar of society? I have no definitive answers here, but I can't help but think this is yet another race-based double standard.

Finally, and most importantly, let's look at what is really at issue here: Obama did not explicitly mention white people, instead choosing groups that have been explicitly excluded from social programs, economic and political opportunities and upward mobility. In doing so, the President made whites aware of their oft-taken-for-granted whiteness, and threatened by its absence from his speech. Funny that whites don't acknowledge the privileges of whiteness, but man do they jump when they feel that privilege compromised even superficially.

For whites to say their President is ignoring them is to yet again overlook the advantages bestowed on them throughout history and continuing today.

Blacks in the Jim Crow South know what it's like to be truly ignored by the government. Pre-19th Amendment women know what's it's like to be ignored. Migrant workers today know what it's like to be ignored. Those feeling dissed by our President in this case? Not so much.

Photo Credit: The Examiner

Arizona governor approves immigration bill

As a follow-up to a previous post on Arizona's proposed immigration bill, Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law yesterday, sparking protests across the nation. From Boston to California, protesters compared the bill to South African apartheid and Japanese-American internment during World War II.

Brewer's response? According to The Boston Globe, the governor justified the bill saying, "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

The New York Times quoted the governor Friday, saying, "Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life."

President Obama called the bill "misguided," and The Huffington Post says the Justice Department will examine its legality.

While I salute the White House's opposition to the bill, I'm not so sure immigration--legal or not--is the problem here. Rather, I think rampant racism and coded language are the bigger issues. "Murderous greed of drug cartels"? What about mothers and children escaping abusive husbands or unsafe working conditions? Husbands trying to reunite with their families? "Kidnappings and violence?" What about service workers and domestic help? Why must we equate immigration--more specifically Latinos--with violence, drugs and crime? And at issue in this particular case: Why did a head of state endorse this image?

Racism, pure and simple. We attack drug cartels and we let Goldman Sachs off comparably easy. We label all Mexicans as drug smugglers, yet we don't assume all white-collar workers are wracking up billions in bonuses while their company spirals downward into debt. We think of Mexicans as dirty job-thieves, yet we take a softer hand to sexually abusive priests. Skin color, it would seem, dictates the boxes you can fall into and the punishment you can receive.

Let's just hope the Justice Department does its job better than the Securities and Exchange Commission. (Another shining example of white-collar workers at their best)

Photo Credit: The Associated Press

Arizona lawmakers approve racial and ethnic profiling

Arizona lawmakers approved the nation's toughest stance on immigration today, requiring police to determine a person's immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant.

The Los Angeles Times' Nicholas Riccardi reports that previous to this bill, known as SB 1070, police could only investigate one's immigration status if the person was a suspect in a separate crime. Under the new provision, lacking appropriate immigration paperwork would be a misdemeanor, and no city or agency within the state would have the jurisdiction to order police not to comply with the measure. In fact, citizens would be able to sue if they believed police agencies were not following the bill's orders.

As one would imagine, the bill has both staunch support and outraged opposition. As author of SB 1070, Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill, "takes the handcuffs off of law enforcement and let's them do their job." Outside of Arizona, Mark Krikorian of D.C.'s Center for Immigration Studies supports the measure, saying that Arizona's position as the number one passageway for illegal immigrants from Mexico necessitates harsher crackdowns.

According to Riccardi, those against the bill argue that it makes Arizona "a police state." Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network worry that the bill legalizes racial and ethnic profiling. President of the ACLU Alessandra Soler Meetze says the bill criminalizes "having an accent and leaving [one's] wallet [and immigration papers] at home."

SB 1070 passed 35 to 21 in the state House of Representative, and Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to sign the bill.

Now, let's put the shoe on the other foot. If I have a "reasonable suspicion" that a white man in a suit and shiny dress shoes is engaging in shady business practices--extortion, insider trading, doling out bonuses under the table--can I insist he show me his financial records? Surely we can think of enough times when white men in suits have committed such crimes to necessitate a law requiring such "finance screenings. (Bernie Madoff, Rod Blagojevich and Kenneth Lay, to name a few)

The answer is no. Lawmakers would never OK this. Laws this strict, laws that allow for the profiling of certain groups of people based on imprecise criteria like "reasonable suspicion," are laws driven by racism. Just as "with all deliberate speed" did little to desegregate southern schools after Brown v. Board of Education, "reasonable suspicion" allows ample room for police aggression toward innocent victims.

My feelings toward this bill are summed up in the last sentence of Riccardi's article. He quotes Rep. Tom Chabin, who says, "This bill, whether we intend it or not, terrorizes the people we wish to profit from."

This couldn't be more true. As I said in a previous post, nonwhite laborers (in this case immigrants) are willing to work harder, longer and for less. We make money off their willingness to do more for less. And now, we want to lump them all together and pluck out those about whom we have "reasonable suspicion." America, the land of opportunity, is looking less and less so.

The wording of the bill itself may be vague, but its purpose is not: SB 1070 is legal discrimination.

Photo Credit: Gerald L. Nino

Content analysis shows stark differences in immigration standpoint

As a complement to my last post, I thought I would include the results of a recent content analysis on immigration. I conducted this analysis as part of a class on mass media and public opinion. I chose to compare Mexican immigration coverage in both Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. I examined 25 articles for each publication, randomly selected from 2000-2009.

I studied both the frames and valence of each article. As for frames, I looked at whether the article presented the story within a political frame (emphasizing policy, political actors, etc), an economic frame (a cost-benefit analysis of reform or current immigration policy, mention of a financial component--need not include specific figures) or a social frame (impact on immigrant families or deported immigrants, the "human" side to the debate).

As for valence, I determined whether each article was pro- or anti-immigration. The pro-immigration articles used words like “legals,” “migrants” and “amnesty.” These articles emphasized Mexican immigrants as hard workers determined to find a better life. By contrast, “alien,” “illegals” and “deportation” signaled an anti-immigrant tone, as did mention of Mexican immigrants as “free riders” taking our jobs and draining our welfare programs. In the event that both pro- and anti-immigration words appeared in the same article, I determined valence by the more frequent of the two.

What did I expect to find? I wasn't entirely sure what I'd find with the frames, but I was confident that Newsweek would be more pro- and U.S. News more anti-immigration. My hypothesis and rationale:

"I expect to find more socially framed, pro-immigration coverage in Newsweek, and more politically framed, anti-immigration coverage in U.S. News. According to Pew Research Center’s 2004 News Consumption Survey, Newsweek is seen as a more liberal news source, and many user-generated comment sites (Epinions.com, Answers.com) regard U.S. News as more conservative. Pairing these findings with Ansolabehere’s assertion that “Democrats are seen as…protecting the rights of minorities and the underprivileged,” while “Republicans are generally considered better able and more willing to maintain the nation’s national security” (1993), I hypothesize that Newsweek’s coverage will stress the humanity of Mexican immigration (social) and the need for amnesty and pro-immigration reform, while U.S. News will focus on anti-immigration as a means of national security."

My findings partially supported this hypothesis. Newsweek's Mexican immigration coverage was overwhelmingly pro-immigration, most often framed politically or socially. U.S. News, on the other hand, was mostly politically framed anti-immigration coverage. (See graphs above)

Why might this be? Well, the valence of each publication's immigration coverage corresponds to its partisan bias. The lack of a landslide majority for any one frame reflects the diversity of newsmagazine content, which is frequently divided into politics, business, arts/culture and technology. The publications may also choose frames based on which would support their position on the issue, which may explain U.S. News' lack of economic frames. If they thought the economic angle would lend support to the pro-immigration side, U.S. News' editors may have scrapped that frame at the morning meeting.

My analysis stands as a warning to all your devout Newsweek and U.S. News readers: If you read one, read the other. You are not getting a full picture of the Mexican immigration issue from either of these magazines. Better yet, read and listen to a whole host of sources. Bias is alive and well, and if you want to make smart decisions, triangulate your news consumption.

Maybe I should look for post-grad work as a Merry Maid

As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) toil away at immigration reform, Ruben Navarette Jr. at the San Diego Union-Tribune is getting angry. He's not mad at the senators, who he says "are demonstrating real leadership." His beef is with me. And you. And all of us.

In an editorial for CNN.com, Navarette traces the recent history of immigration policy, from the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act to today's partisan platforms on the issue. While acknowledging policy change and progress, Navarette says that we will never resolve the immigration debacle without addressing one question: Why do we have so much illegal immigration in the first place?

The answer, Navarette argues, is an uncomfortable one for many. It has nothing to do with a fence and even less to do with NAFTA and Mexico's economy. The answer lies in Americans' willingness to work hard.

Immigrants both legal and illegal, he says, accept "hard and dirty jobs that our grandparents did without complaint--and that now, these many years later, most of us won't do without complaining." As immigrants mow our lawns, bus our tables and wash our dishes, many native-born Americans negotiate higher pay, come to work late and clock out early, check their email at work and surf the Web, all while sitting in what is most likely a comfortable, central-aired office.

Because this realization points the finger at the American people, Navarette argues that Congress, eager to please constituents, will never mention this facet of immigration. Instead, we'll proceed with our fences and border patrol.

Navarette makes a bold statement, and whether or not we are solely to blame for our immigration quagmire, we surely have a hand in it. As a soon-to-be-college graduate, I can vouch for the "I will work certain places for certain pay" mentality. Yeah, as an entry-level journalism major, my span of cities is probably wider and my desired pay a great deal lower than a 30-something corporate big-wig (or a finance major, for that matter). But still, the selective mentality holds true.

One thing Navarette doesn't answer is: How do we solve this dilemma? If Congress won't point out our role in the illegal immigration problem, who will? And even if the public knows about it, who's going to willingly say, "OK, you're right, I'll work as a dishwasher." No one.

Pointing fingers might be the first cathartic step, but there are many more along the way. Can we offer manual labor jobs with benefits packages and perhaps higher wages? Can we build some sort of education component into our immigration reform bill? How can we close the immigrant achievement gap?

These are loaded questions, implicating longstanding racism, Not In My Backyard thinking, economic concerns, and our own self concepts. And while I don't offer a comprehensive solution, each of us would do well to examine our own taken-for-granted expectations.

And consider giving our housekeepers a bonus next time...

Photo Credit: Paul Connors/The Associated Press