• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Biased terminology on KTRH

Status
Not open for further replies.
This country was able to absorb 15 million immigrants in the early 1900s. That was when the US population was a fifth of what is now. Back then we built Ellis Island to handle it. We need that now. It's not the number of people that is the problem. It's the government's ability to handle it, process the paperwork, and get people settled. That problem has existed for 25 years.
If you look at the statistics in percentage of total population vs. inbound immigrants, you will see that new arrivals have never represented as high a percentage as today.

1712521415863.png


Much of the issue today is about the kind of people who are arriving and who are admitted on their own recognizance. Just as Venezuela is exporting its criminals and social discontents, we are seeing many people who would not have been admitted upon review of their backgrounds.

And there are millions who have come in without being "registered". They come across, as they always have, in areas where there is an open border and little or no patrolling. Look at the area around the Big Bend and Ojinaga along the Río Bravo del Norte (Rio Grand to us) or in parts of southern NM or AZ and you can see how millions of immigrants have always passed through undetected.

Obviously, the economy of the US was different in the post Civil War through the WW I years. By the 1920's, it was determined that the country could no longer accommodate so many new arrivals and legislation and regulation were put into effect to limit it. Of course, the Great Depression and WW II also affected migration... again making the point that conditions were different..

It's also interesting to note that most of the Civil War to WW I immigrants were Irish, German, Italian in origin. They came from relatively similar racial and cultural backgrounds. Today's migration is much more diverse; some say that is a good thing and avoids cultural stagnancy while others find it divisional. And that's what makes for the content on different Red and Blue radio shows.
 
Last edited:
That's no excuse for something that purports to be a newscast.
Every newscast has the perspective of the news organization. Compare the reports on Palestine from Al Jazeera, AFP, Reuters, AP and TASS or Prensa Latina. Each is accurate, but as seen through the eyes of the reporter their organization.

I've described many times (too many?) here how a group of us in Ecuador who were involved with news and news agencies would compare the reports in international media whenever we had a coup d'etat, military takeover or some kind of international event that all covered. Some were so far from the reality we saw at street level that we would even have to laugh, despite the underlying violence and lack of stability.
 
Every newscast has the perspective of the news organization. Compare the reports on Palestine from Al Jazeera, AFP, Reuters, AP and TASS or Prensa Latina. Each is accurate, but as seen through the eyes of the reporter their organization.
But what you're describing is are decisions on what to cover, and on what to emphasize. The more credible organizations strive for descriptive language that is as objective as possible.

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, Enver Hoxha-era Radio Tirana would be just as credible as the Associated Press. Somehow I have difficulty accepting that.
 
If you look at the statistics in percentage of total population vs. inbound immigrants, you will see that new arrivals have never represented as high a percentage as today.
Once again, the immigration legislation that was written by Sen Langford would have put a cap on immigration and closed the border if numbers reached a certain point. It would have helped the situation. But today, congress isn't interested in solving problems. They'd rather cast blame. Makes for better TV. That's all they care about.
 
KTRH and Fox News have been noted to exhibit occasional instances of biased or discriminatory language, with some viewers perceiving them as leaning towards extremist viewpoints on certain occasions. However, in actuality, I believe that the majority of Americans perceive the two predominant political parties as equally extreme in their ideologies and agendas. I am of Mexican descent spanning 4th generations, and I am no longer perturbed by the content broadcasted by the media. I have just finished watching the documentary "Get Me Roger Stone" on Netflix, which reinforces the notion that politicians will go to great lengths in order to secure victory in elections.
The initial point to consider is that migration should not be viewed as a problem to resolve, rather, it is a significant contributor to sustainable development. However, decisive action is necessary to address the challenges associated with "open borders". The current situation, characterized by disorderly and irregular migration, has led to tragic outcomes such as the loss of thousands of lives along perilous migration paths and the rise of criminal activities like migrant smuggling and human trafficking, which are evident in the United States.
 
That's not really how iHeart works. They don't have a publisher who tells reporters what to cover.
I would never call iHeart a "news organization" in the manner of AP, Infobae, Reuters, France Press, Prensa Latina, TASS, etc. It is a collection of stations, some of which have rather individualized news operations along with a syndication network that is separate.
 
They’re appealing to their audience of old white racists.
Opposition to illegal immigration is hardly racist. If you even believe in the differences between "races", Hispanics are predominantly classified in the census as "white" yet the biggest oppodnants to open migration are Hispanics who came here legally.
 
Hispanics are predominantly classified in the census as "white" yet the biggest oppodnants to open migration are Hispanics who came here legally.

Keep in mind a lot of them didn't 'come here legally.' There were many similar mass migrations in history, just like this one. The Mariel boatlift was not legal migration. The Mexicans who came in during the 50s didn't enter legally. Yes, they went through the process to become legal, and it took a while. Nobody is expecting instant solutions now either. But you can't just deport everyone without hearing each of them individually. There are people who want to shut the door to citizenship. To tell even those who put the time in, and went through the process that they still can't be citizens because of where they came from. That's what's going on.

 
Keep in mind a lot of them didn't 'come here legally.'
Through the 80's and 90's, most migration was legal. "Some", yes. "A lot" no.

I was programming Lotus' KWKW in Los Angeles in the earlier 70's and we were very involved in the migration issue and most of the discussion was "how to get a green card".
There were many similar mass migrations in history, just like this one. The Mariel boatlift was not legal migration.
It was because all Cubans had been declared fugitives from the communist regime. I was managing a Spanish language station in Miami at the time and was on boats that escorted the refugees to the ports of Miami. I even hired, legally, a news person with excellent past experience in Cuba; he already had a work permit.
The Mexicans who came in during the 50s didn't enter legally.
Some did not come legally. Most did. All in the generation of my wife and her family had permits.
Yes, they went through the process to become legal, and it took a while.
No, most came already approved at the American consulates in Mexico and, in lesser degrees, much of Central America.
Nobody is expecting instant solutions now either. But you can't just deport everyone without hearing each of them individually.
They should not be let in until they do the paperwork in their home country as they did in the past. My wife and many of the people I worked with at Heftel, HBC and Univision, came exactly that way.
There are people who want to shut the door to citizenship. To tell even those who put the time in, and went through the process that they still can't be citizens because of where they came from. That's what's going on.
The potion there is if the person did not follow procedures to come to the U.S. legally with a residency permit or visa, they should not be rewarded.
 
The Wall Street Journal Radio Network shut down because blue-chip advertising wanted no part of the talk format after the Sandra Fluke fiasco and the WSJRN was collateral damage. Most network newscast spot loads are less than desiring. Newsmax has been an advertiser on ABC News Radio and that is not what I'd call a quality advertiser.

Having a six-minute hole at the TOH for a newscast that is at total odds with the format is not smart programming. It barely made sense in 1994. Just start the shows at :00 and give up any pretenses of trying to be something you are not.
The vast majority of talk stations have headlines at the top and often the bottom of the hour. This news when done well gives listeners weather, traffic, stocks, and a few news headlines. Since many listeners are driving, the news and traffic is useful to many listeners. It’s also a break from the intensity of most political talk shows.
 
Through the 80's and 90's, most migration was legal. "Some", yes. "A lot" no.

They changed the law in 1986 that made all the illegals who got in before 1982 legal under certain circumstances.

Following this 1986 law, almost 12 million undocumented workers came illegally across the U.S. border

So a lot of Hispanic immigrants got a break. This was during Ronald Reagan's administration. Then they changed the law again at the end of the 90s. That was really the last time the law was changed.

We need to do for immigrants today what was done for them then. We used to be the land of opportunity. Now we want to shut the border and keep only Hispanics out. This is all aimed at Hispanics. My friend from Australia is treated differently than people from south and central America. We need a law that has a path to citizenship that is fair for all immigrants.
They should not be let in until they do the paperwork in their home country as they did in the past.

It's too late for that. Their home countries are screwed up. The process is broken. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Some of these people have been here for 20 years and their case hasn't been heard yet. They've gone to college, they've had kids, their kids are citizens, and they are not. We've never treated people like this. Never. That's why the poster called it racist. Because it's all aimed at Hispanics. Yes Hispanics are not a race, but they are being targeted by their country of origin. The politicians have to fix the problem, and the problem won't be fixed by deportations. These people are doing the work needed to keep this economy moving and food on the table affordable. All 6 people killed when the Baltimore bridge collapsed were Hispanic immigrants, mostly from Mexico.

Having radio newscasters lump all immigrants on one category because they're Hispanic is unfair and discriminatory.
 
They changed the law in 1986 that made all the illegals who got in before 1982 legal under certain circumstances.
The keyword is "certain". The circumstances had mostly to do with regimes that were considered anti-American in the tail end of the Cold War. This was mostly politics about international relations, not immigration.
So a lot of Hispanic immigrants got a break. This was during Ronald Reagan's administration. Then they changed the law again at the end of the 90s. That was really the last time the law was changed.
Particularly if they were from socialist leaning nations. This was the time that Nicaragua had gone deeply socialist, El Salvador was having its "problema" (actually a civil war... I wore bullet proof vests when I visited my client there), Guatemala and Honduras were leaning left, we had the Noriega dictatorship in Panama and the FARC in Colombia. All those and others gave many a "free pass".
We need to do for immigrants today what was done for them then. We used to be the land of opportunity. Now we want to shut the border and keep only Hispanics out. This is all aimed at Hispanics.
No, it is not. Mexicans are migrating much less than before because their economy, despite the carteles, is prospering. It's just as much about Asians, Indians, Haitians, Africans and, particularly Muslims from both Arab nations and places like Indonesia.
My friend from Australia is treated differently than people from south and central America. We need a law that has a path to citizenship that is fair for all immigrants.
And, maybe, just maybe, your friend has followed the proper procedures and also has a "wanted skill" such as computer programming, technology, AI, and the like.

A relative of a friend from Colombia just graduated with a masters back there. He got a job at a tech support company in Miami and was easily granted a visa based on his skills.
It's too late for that. Their home countries are screwed up. The process is broken. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Some of these people have been here for 20 years and their case hasn't been heard yet.
That part does need fixing. And there is certainly an issue when it is suggested that children, raised and educated here with American customs and English as their main language might have to go back to a country where they don't know anyone, don't know anything but kitchen Spanish and have no skill useful in Latin America.

The real issue is regulating and qualifying those who want to come here now.
They've gone to college, they've had kids, their kids are citizens, and they are not. We've never treated people like this. Never. That's why the poster called it racist. Because it's all aimed at Hispanics. Yes Hispanics are not a race, but they are being targeted by their country of origin. The politicians have to fix the problem, and the problem won't be fixed by deportations. These people are doing the work needed to keep this economy moving and food on the table affordable. All 6 people killed when the Baltimore bridge collapsed were Hispanic immigrants, mostly from Mexico.
Actually, they were half from Central America... Honduras and Guatemala.
Having radio newscasters lump all immigrants on one category because they're Hispanic is unfair and discriminatory.
If I read the reports correctly, the person in Houston was referring to all those illegally entering across the Mexican border. A huge percentage are not Hispanic.
 
If I read the reports correctly, the person in Houston was referring to all those illegally entering across the Mexican border. A huge percentage are not Hispanic.

The media makes it seem as though they all are. When they're reported as "hordes of illegals,' you don't really know where they're coming from. The assumption is they're coming from countries below the border. But yes, I see this:

In fiscal year 2023, 46% of encounters were migrants from Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras, countries that regularly accept repatriation of their citizens. Venezuelans made up 10.7% of encounters.

Plus there are still Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and I imagine now we'll get some from Ecuador. Are they Hispanic?
 
Plus there are still Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and I imagine now we'll get some from Ecuador. Are they Hispanic?
I just texted my daughter in Ecuador and asked if she is "Hispanic". She said, in less polite language, "heck no. That word or term is some white gringo invention. I'm Ecuadorian."

My point: Hispanic is a term invented by redefining an obsolete term to create a category in the late 70's to show compliance with new EEO legislation in the United States. Not in Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico or any other Latin American nation.

While more people outside the U.S. know what the term means now, when I was working in Argentina in the earlier 2000's, the former owner of the Emmis stations, the host of the morning show and the now owner of the biggest Latin American news agency, INFOBAE, asked me what "Hispanic" meant and why the United States had needed to redefine "Latinos" in the first place. That is from the premier newscaster in Argentina and now the owner of the region's biggest news service!
 
My point: Hispanic is a term invented by redefining an obsolete term to create a category in the late 70's to show compliance with new EEO legislation in the United States. Not in Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico or any other Latin American nation.

Somebody needs to do some mass education. It doesn't help when newscasters lump them all into one group and show them all as appearing to be from the same country.
 
Somebody needs to do some mass education. It doesn't help when newscasters lump them all into one group and show them all as appearing to be from the same country.
Heck, I have spent all of my adult life explaining when I had stations in Ecuador that I did not live in Africa and then that Puerto Rico was a) not in Central America (that is Costa Rica) and b) is part of the United States.

This is an indictment of American education, for sure.
 
I think we've beaten this horse to death. The thread is no longer about broadcasting and is now almost exclusively about immigration.

Usually I wouldn't mind such a thread. But since this is a discussion based on opinion rather than facts, there are no right answers. The only thing this will cause is endless arguments.

Time to lock this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom