Robert Samuelson’s Scathing Critique of Media Immigration Coverage

Samuelson’s language isn’t particularly strong or biting, but his overall critique certainly is.

He takes the WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, known to most as The Mainstream Media) to task, certainly including his own paper, in a definite read-the-whole-thing-and-save-it piece:

What You Don’t Know About the Immigration Bill

The Senate passed legislation last week that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) hailed as “the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history.” You might think that the first question anyone would ask is how much it would actually increase or decrease legal immigration. But no. After the Senate approved the bill by 62 to 36, you could not find the answer in the news columns of The Post, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Yet the estimates do exist and are fairly startling. By rough projections, the Senate bill would double the legal immigration that would occur during the next two decades from about 20 million (under present law) to about 40 million.

One job of journalism is to inform the public about what our political leaders are doing. In this case, we failed. The Senate bill’s sponsors didn’t publicize its full impact on legal immigration, and we didn’t fill the void. It’s safe to say that few Americans know what the bill would do because no one has told them. Indeed, I suspect that many senators who voted for the legislation don’t have a clue as to the potential overall increase in immigration.

Democracy doesn’t work well without good information. Here is a classic case. It is interesting to contrast these immigration projections with a recent survey done by the Pew Research Center. The poll asked whether the present level of legal immigration should be changed. The response: 40 percent favored a decrease, 37 percent would hold it steady and 17 percent wanted an increase. There seems to be scant support for a doubling. If the large immigration projections had been in the news, would the Senate have done what it did? Possibly, though I doubt it.

But if it had, senators would have had to defend what they were doing as sound public policy. That’s the real point. They would have had to debate whether such high levels of immigration are good or bad for the country rather than adopting a measure whose largest consequences are unintended or not understood. What arguments would they have used?

….. The doubling of legal immigration under the Senate bill that I cited at the outset comes from a previously unreported estimate made by White House economists. Because the president praised the Senate bill, the administration implicitly favors a big immigration expansion. The White House estimate could be low. Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation has a higher figure. The CBO has a projection that the White House describes as close to its own. But all the forecasts envision huge increases, diverging only because they make different assumptions of how the Senate bill would operate in practice.

….. One obvious question is why most of the news media missed the larger immigration story. On May 15 Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama held a news conference with Heritage’s Rector to announce their immigration projections and the estimated impact on the federal budget. Most national media didn’t report the news conference. The next day the CBO released its budget and immigration estimates. These, too, were largely unreported, though the Wall Street Journal later discussed the figures in a story on the bill’s possible budget costs.

Rector’s explanation is that the media’s “liberal” bias creates a pro-immigration slant. I think it’s more complicated. …..

But note the irony: The White House’s projected increases of legal immigration (20 million) are about twice the level of existing illegal immigrants (estimated between 10 million and 12 million). Yet, coverage overlooks the former. Here, I think, Rector has a point. Whether or not the bias is “liberal,” groupthink is a powerful force in journalism. Immigration is considered noble. People who critically examine its value or worry about its social effects are subtly considered small-minded, stupid or bigoted. The result is selective journalism that reflects poorly on our craft and detracts from democratic dialogue.

I know I wasn’t aware of the increases in the number of legal immigrants allowed. I personally don’t have problem with going from 1 million to 2 million per year, as long as that 2 million does NOT include those who are here illegally butting in line in any way, shape, or form. The 1 million figure was, I believe, established decades ago when the USA’s population was well below 200 million, so doubling it would be roughly a matter of proportionality, and would be a number we could easily absorb and assimilate (again this is assuming all are going through the full-blown legal process of becoming citizens).

If it’s really Rector’s number of 3 million, I think that’s going overboard.

Samuelson’s point is that this is a debate we should have had, and didn’t. The whole discussion of immigration during the past few months has had an air of unreality to it that Samuelson has done a public service by exposing and explaining, and by exploring the less-than-noble motivations involved.
______________________

June 2 Update: Porkopolis notices that the WaPo decided to address at least one of Samuelson’s complaints the day after his column appeared in this article: “Senate Bill Would Add 20 Million Legal Immigrants, Report Says.” That’s better, but not good enough. It takes five pararaphs before you learn that the 20 million is ON TOP OF the 950,000 legal immigrants who become citizens each year under current law. Better headline — “Report: Senate Bill Would Lead to Additional 20 Million Legal Immigrants.” 10 more characters, infinite improvement in communication.