At a rally in support of Poland's anti-Soviet Solidarity movement in 1982, left-wing writer Susan Sontag argued that subscribers to popular newspapers and the pro-American Reader's Digest (whom we might call “the deplorables”) were unfair He was attacked by his comrades. They knew more about communism than readers of left-wing intellectual magazines like The Nation.
Similarly, Post readers are provided with more accurate information about America's immigration crisis than those who rely on traditional media outlets such as the New York Times.
Until this week.
After the successful election, the Times reported: I finally let my readers know Did you know that the immigration surge in recent years is the largest in U.S. history, and that the Biden administration's policies appear to have been the biggest factor?
Come on, let's knock me down with a feather.
Much like the legacy media's belated admission that the Post's Hunter Biden laptop story was accurate all along, American newspapers' efforts to publish the truth mean that the news is their favorite. This is after the candidate can no longer be harmed.
The story itself is well written and provides a lot of useful information. That information was available from the beginning to anyone who was interested. for example:
- “Even considering today's U.S. population growth, the recent surge is the fastest since at least 1850.”
- “About 60% of immigrants entering the country since 2021 did so without legal authorization.”
- “Mass immigration also has downsides, such as pressure on social services and increased competition for jobs.”
- “The scale of recent immigration helps explain why this issue has played a central role in American politics over the past few years.”
Captain Obvious, please call the office!
The scale of the betrayal of readers by the Times and other traditional media outlets over the past four years is clear from readers' online comments about this article. I now have a clear understanding of what the immigration situation is like. ”
How dare an institution that claims to provide “all the news fit to print” be indicted.
I've always understood “fit for print” to mean that the Times doesn't stoop to presenting its readers with the sordid or the trivial.
Rather, I think “suitable for print” actually means “consistent with our preferred storyline.”
Readers who were frustrated that they weren't getting the full story should have broadened their media diets by reading Jenny Tarr's report for the Post.
Or my colleague Steven Camarota Analysis of the exact same data examined by times. Or Todd Bensman's 2023 book Overrun: How Joe Biden unleashed the biggest border crisis in U.S. history.
Or my colleague Stephen Camarota's analysis of the very same data that the Times examined. Or Todd Bensman's 2023 book Overrun: How Joe Biden unleashed the biggest border crisis in U.S. history.
To be fair, David Leonhardt, who wrote the Times article, has been trying to warn his fellow liberals about the political and policy problems posed by pursuing unrestricted immigration.
He runs the Times' newsletter, The Morning, and managed to avoid dealing with immigration issues last year. couple of times.
But until this week, his most extensive treatment of the issue was not in the Times. by atlantic magazine.
In a democracy, it is not healthy for authoritative media (don't laugh) to tailor news coverage to meet political objectives.
If the Times' belated decision to tell its readers the truth about the border is a sign that things are changing, it could all be for the better. But I'm not holding my breath.
Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
