Election In The Streets
How The Broadcast Networks Promote Illegal Immigration
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2006/report082806_p1.asp

Tim Graham, MRC Director of Media Analysis
August 28, 2006

Executive Summary

Spurred by a passionate public outcry against the tide of illegal
immigration, on December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives passed
a bill to curb the flow of illegal aliens and give the federal
government more responsibility for detaining and deporting them. On
that night, ABC, CBS, and NBC didn't cover the vote. But when left-wing
advocacy groups for illegal aliens organized large protests against the
House bill in the spring, as the Senate considered its own immigration
bill, the networks suddenly, fervently discovered the issue and gave
the advocacy groups not a mere soapbox in the park, but a three-network
rollout of free air time. Protest coverage, often one-sided, stood in
stark contrast to polling data showing that a stricter approach to
illegal immigration was broadly popular in the country.

To determine the tone and balance of network coverage of illegal
aliens, MRC analysts evaluated every ABC, CBS, and NBC morning,
evening, and magazine show news segment on the immigration debate from
the outbreak of protest coverage on March 24, 2006 through May 31,
2006. In 309 stories, analysts found the following trends emerged:

¦ While they celebrated "massive" immigration protests with "huge"
crowds, the broadcast networks largely avoided scientific polling data
that showed the protesters were in an overwhelming minority. The USA
Today-Gallup poll asked whether illegal immigration is "out of control"
or "not out of control." Fully 81 percent said "out of control." Fox
News asked how serious illegal immigration was as a problem: 60 percent
said very serious, 30 percent said somewhat serious. That's 90 percent.
These polls were never cited by ABC, CBS, or NBC. In contrast to
hundreds of words emphasizing a huge "wave" of "pro-immigrant"
activism, the networks aired only 16 mentions of nationwide polls on
immigration that considered the opinion of non-protesters. Two of them
were CBS polls emphasizing support for a "guest worker" program after a
long list of conditions.

¦ Advocates of opening a wider path to citizenship were almost twice as
likely to speak in news stories as advocates of stricter immigration
control. Advocates for amnesty and guest-worker programs drew 504
soundbites in the study period, compared to just 257 for tighter border
control. (Sixty-nine soundbites were neutral). On the days of
pro-illegal-alien rallies, their critics nearly disappeared from the
screen. For instance, on the night of April 10, the soundbite count on
the three evening newscasts and ABC's Nightline was 43 to 2 in favor of
the protesters. When the debate shifted to Capitol Hill in May,
coverage grew more balanced.

¦ While conservative labels were common, liberal labels were rarely or
never used. In the study period, reporters referred to "conservatives"
or "conservative" groups 89 times, most intensely during legislative
debate in May, when President Bush was presented as having to "appease"
his "conservative" base. NBC's Matt Lauer even referred to Bush's base
as the "far right." By contrast, the "liberal" label was used only
three times - all of them by ABC. CBS and NBC never used the word, even
as hard-left protest organizers described the House bill on public
radio as full of "horrendous and macabre clauses, fascist clauses."

¦ While protests centered on underlining the vital role illegal aliens
play in the American economy, the burdens of illegal immigration in
added government costs or crime were barely covered. While the networks
poured out their air time to the sympathetic stories of hard-working
immigrant families, only six out of 309 stories mentioned studies that
illegal aliens cost more to governments than they provide in tax
dollars. Only six stories gave a mention to the problem of the cost or
threat of criminal aliens.

¦ The networks have not dropped the word "illegal" in favor of
"undocumented" immigrants, although some reporters struggled to adopt
clumsy liberal-preferred terminology. Groups like the National
Association of Hispanic Journalists have urged their colleagues to
never use the word "illegal," but the word was still more than five
times more common than "undocumented." In 309 stories, there were 381
uses of the word "illegal," and 73 uses of "undocumented." But some
reporters struggled to please: NBC's Kevin Tibbles actually referred to
protests by "those who critics call illegals."

The report concludes with recommendations for a more balanced
picture in network news coverage of the immigration debate. Newscasters
need to acknowledge that protests, even large ones, are often an
incomplete measure of public opinion. Both sides of the debate deserve
a chance to speak in news stories, not just voices "emerging from the
shadows" that reporters sympathetically promote. On this issue, as well
as many others, network newscasts ought to reflect the reality that the
political debate is between conservatives and liberals, not
conservatives and supposed nonpartisans painted in gauzy terms like
"immigrant rights groups" - even as they decried "fascist" opponents.

For the Full Report and a version in pdf format see
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2006/sum/sum082806.asp

--
EMAIL THESE LINKS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW:
http://www.predatoryaliens.com
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org
http://www.daylaborers.org
http://www.newnation.com/index2.html
"The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave" by Heather Mac Donald
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
http://idexer.com
www.AmericanPatrol.com
www.SaveOurState.org
www.escapingjustice.com
http://reportillegals.com/
www.deputydavidmarch.com
www.kriseggle.org