When an Election Becomes a Forum on Immigration by Peter Applebome
Read the Article at NYTimes.com
This article is quite possibly the most unequivocally biased one I've read so far. Nearly every paragraph includes some aspect I studied in my Journalism 101 class...under what to AVOID.
"One reason is Matthew Neuringer, who graduated from nearby Carmel High School in 2005 and last year ran the virulently anti-immigrant State Assembly campaign for Greg Ball."
Don't be fooled: Applebome omits the word "illegal" from "virulently anti-immigrant" to convey a sense of xenophobia to the readers. It makes Neuringer and Ball appear intolerant of all immigrants, and virulently so, when immigrants comprise 99% of the US population or their ancestors. "Virulently" somehow quantifies how "anti-immigrant" he is without the use of statistics, and the diction associates his position on immigration with disease, death, and decay. Obviously there's some negative connotations with that one!
The journalist also commits my #1 most offensive "error" (in this case, it is clearly done purposefully): he unnecessarily mentions age. In Journalism 101, we learn never to mention age, sex, orientation, handicap, etc. unless it is directly associated with the story. To do otherwise reveals an underlying prejudice; it exposes the journalist's belief that most people of a certain age would/could not be in situation "x." Liberals would cry discrimination! In this article, Applebome obviously mentions Neuringer's age to somehow discredit him, or to show that these "ignorant" Republican constituents follow the lead of a 20-year old. The journalist fails to realize that young adults can also wield great talent and power, as is shown throughout history. Case in point: I graduated highschool in the same year as Neuringer, and I'm finding basic errors in a New York Times journalist's article. That has to hurt Applebome's ego.
By the way, check out Ball's website to see what he ACTUALLY says. He seems quite concerned with the exploitation of illegal workers, an issue the journalist says is "a note not often heard in his campaign" even though it's right on his website. Apparently, Applebome is too lazy to do his homework.
"This year, both advised Mr. Rights and his S.O.S. — Save our Southeast — slate, which for months inundated voters with dark mailings and urgent robo-calls about illegal immigration, crime and social decay. Mr. Rights, who has declined to say how much of his own money he spent on the race — estimates run well upward of $100,000 — says voters are fed up and want someone who will address the immigration issue."
The journalist glutted the first sentence with so many negative images-- "inundat[ing] voters", "dark (subjective word) mailings", impersonal, annoying robots--that not much needs to be said here.
The second sentence, however, is simply repugnant. Applebome is playing to class-warfare sentiments, as there is absolutely no alternative reason for mentioning personal finances. It is certainly irrelevant to the rest of the article. He likely wants to evoke dislike toward the politician. Indeed, I would not be surprised if many readers thought at this point, "I can't believe this politician, probably born to an old-money family and raised with a silver spoon, used mommy and daddy's money to support his intolerant campaign!"
"And it’s possible that Mr. Rights and Mr. Ball are sincerely voicing the frustrations many people feel about an immigration system almost everyone agrees is broken.
But, you also hear another view, that much of the jockeying has to do with power and development, with immigration just the hot-button issue used to rouse the populace to turn out one team and put in another."
"It's possible, BUT..." God, I hate the way the New York Times journalists often disguise their own opinions by stating "some say" or "you hear." WHO says? WHERE do you hear? Tell me, and give me quotes, or I condemn you a journalist without integrity...but with an agenda.
