CBS needs to drop talk on 1210 WPHT

[Small Market Guy]

My family is Hispanic, and all are citizens or legal immigrants. But we find the term "illegal" to be a bit harsh and prefer "undocumented".

And I prefer the term "wildly successful and rich famous talk show host with a supermodel wife and NFL cheerleader mistress". Instead I get "small market AM station morning host that drives a 10 year old car". Because it's more accurate.

I know the AP style book (and all the rest, I'm sure) prefer the politically correct term for illegal immigrants, but that doesn't make it any more right.

And I'm not even IN the "deport them all" crowd, since that's impossible and stupid. I just like to use the best words to describe whatever I'm talking about. If someone is offended at being called an illegal immigrant, maybe they should have come here legally. If someone is here legally, the term doesn't apply to them. No offense should be taken.

Since you used the analogy of speeding, if I get caught speeding, I wouldn't be offended a bit if someone calls me a speeder. If I got caught peeking in the neighbor's window, I would have no room being offended if someone called me a peeping Tom.

 

[davideduardo]

Since you used the analogy of speeding, if I get caught speeding, I wouldn't be offended a bit if someone calls me a speeder. If I got caught peeking in the neighbor's window, I would have no room being offended if someone called me a peeping Tom.

You are missing my point. If a law is not enforced, then we have a de facto change in attitudes. The immigration laws have not been enforced to any effective degree since prior to the Reagan years.

When there is no enforcement, and major companies hire undocumented immigrants with impunity, then what may be on the books as "illegal" is actually "tolerated" and reduces the threat of enforcement for all.

Just as an over-the-speed-limit tolerance zone redefines lawbreakers ("illegal drivers") not as "speeders" but as "abusive speeders".

 

[Avid Listener]

My family is Hispanic, and all are citizens or legal immigrants. But we find the term "illegal" to be a bit harsh and prefer "undocumented".

Harshness or mildness has nothing to do with the fact that your ancestors came from Spain, Germany, or any other European nation. Or, for that matter, if your ancestors came from a continent other than Europe. My family is Germanic, and are all legal citizens. We find that the correct term for being in violation of the law is "illegal".

"Undocumented" simply implies that one misplaced one's papers. When I misplaced my birth certificate, I was "undocumented" until the county clerk where I was born sent me a new copy.

And why would being "Hispanic" have anything to do with the subject of illegal aliens? Aren't all people who are inside the US in violation of the law "Illegal aliens"? Weren't some of the terrorists who conducted the September 11 attack "illegal aliens" who overstayed their student visas?

However, all that is totally beside the point. This isn't the forum to discuss what the immigration laws should or shouldn't be, or whether or not the government should enforce the law or not. That's grist for "Take it Outside". The point is that the use of politically correct euphemisms like "undocumented immigrant" instead of what had been (and continues to be) the plain, simple definition of someone in the country illegally is a sign of bias towards one side of a political debate. The fact that you, or even a large number of people might agree with you doesn't change the fact that bias is bias. Even bias towards a majority view is still bias.

NPR, and its supporters, cannot make the claim that they are unbiased if it is plainly apparent that they are biased. The adoption of politically correct euphemisms is plainly a form of bias. The fact that you and your relatives prefer the euphemisms doesn't change anything.

 

[TheBigA]

Regardless of the semantics, the point of this discussion had to do with NPR's coverage. A visit to their web page will show that they use the term "illegal immigrant" as well as "undocumented immigrant," depending on the circumstance. Their Steve Inskeep story that ran last week used "illegal." The usage was obvious since Steve was shadowing a border patrolman in Texas. They wouldn't have police assigned to a location if the purpose was to simply greet legal immigrants.

 

[Small Market Guy]

You are missing my point. If a law is not enforced, then we have a de facto change in attitudes. The immigration laws have not been enforced to any effective degree since prior to the Reagan years.

When there is no enforcement, and major companies hire undocumented immigrants with impunity, then what may be on the books as "illegal" is actually "tolerated" and reduces the threat of enforcement for all.

Just as an over-the-speed-limit tolerance zone redefines lawbreakers ("illegal drivers") not as "speeders" but as "abusive speeders".

I get the point. But I think you're missing my point. Unless said person is actually here illegally, the term "illegal immigrant" shouldn't be offensive. And for those here illegally and are offended, too bad.

The only reason the term has been deemed unacceptable is that a portion of the political class has decided to drive yet another wedge into the populace in order to pander for votes and campaign donations. The mainstream media, always wanting to suck up to the political class, gladly goes along with the divisiveness.

 

[Avid Listener]

Webster's definition of immigrant doesn't deal with the legal or illegal aspect: "immigrant (ˈɪmɪɡrənt) —n: 1. a. Compare emigrant a person who comes to a country in order to settle there"

If one intended to "settle there" in reference to a new country, that implies a desire to conform to the laws of the new country. Embracing and following the local laws and customs is a major component of "settling". One simple definition of "alien", from Miriam Webster, is "from another country". The full definition of "alien" includes (again from Miriam Webster) "b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government". It is an example of bias to presume that those who enter the US illegally, and therefore are not in compliance with our laws, do not, in fact, owe their allegiance to another country or government, since they have disregarded American laws.

Again, this isn't about what the laws should or shouldn't be, nor about how they should or shouldn't be enforced. But it is more definitely about NPR demonstrating palpable bias by their choice of the word "immigrant" instead of the more neutral "alien". To put it most simply, all immigrants are aliens, but not all aliens are immigrants. Using the term "immigrant" instead of "alien" implies that all aliens are immigrants, which is not accurate. All foreigners in the US are aliens, including tourists, diplomats, students here temporarily, etc. All aliens in the US who are not in compliance with our laws, including tourists and students who overstay their visas, are correctly referred to as illegal aliens. That is the correct neutral, non-biased, and objective term.

 

[davideduardo]

"Undocumented" simply implies that one misplaced one's papers. When I misplaced my birth certificate, I was "undocumented" until the county clerk where I was born sent me a new copy.

A person who has lost their documents is hardly "undocumented". They are, rather, lacking a legal copy of the document that resides in some official office. The original never ceased to exist, so you are not undocumented.

This points out a number of issues that NPR or any serious news gathering organization faces. There are legal definitions, and there are often colloquial or everyday meanings that differ in some aspect. And there are terms that are generational and regional or related to education levels.

To be able to convey a news story, the writers and producers have to strive for language that is neutral enough to allow the story to be told without inflaming sensitivities or creating biases. So if there are several ways of saying something, the one that has less charge on it will and should be used. "Undocumented" conveys the point, without arousing the resentments that "illegal" cause among some in the immigration areas.

And why would being "Hispanic" have anything to do with the subject of illegal aliens? Aren't all people who are inside the US in violation of the law "Illegal aliens"?

First, not being in an Ethiopian or Vietnamese home, I can't give anecdotal experience about how other cultures may react to language in newscasts. But I can relate to and relay experiences from an Hispanic perspective. And since Hispanics now number around 50 million, and account for about 9 million of the 11 million undocumented persons, the opinions of that group are of considerable importance.

NPR, and its supporters, cannot make the claim that they are unbiased if it is plainly apparent that they are biased. The adoption of politically correct euphemisms is plainly a form of bias. The fact that you and your relatives prefer the euphemisms doesn't change anything.

The fact that there are more universally accepted terms reflects both a changing society and a desire to integrate all sectors into the national mainstream. And, of course, language changes over time. In 1959, the station I worked for proclaimed on its letterhead that it was "Cleveland's Negro Station" and it advertised in the trades as playing "race music". Neither term is used today, as usage and society have changed.

The same changes are taking place in the way we speak of Hispanics and other immigrants today.

 

[TheBigA]

That is the correct neutral, non-biased, and objective term.

Except that the US government ALSO uses the term "illegal immigrant" in terms of someone who is in fact residing in the country illegally. They use the term "alien" if the person is a transient.

NPR's coverage is grouped under the term "immigration," which is also the term the Congress and President are using in discussing legislation.

 

[Avid Listener]

Except that the US government ALSO uses the term "illegal immigrant" in terms of someone who is in fact residing in the country illegally. They use the term "alien" if the person is a transient.

NPR's coverage is grouped under the term "immigration," which is also the term the Congress and President are using in discussing legislation.

Yes, one political party, which happens to have one of their members in the White House, uses a biased term that reflects their political objective when crafting legislation. It is partisan politics at its best, and an excellent example of one political party pursuing a particular agenda, and NPR marching in lockstep to support that agenda. Your post simply confirms the assertion that NPR shows bias in supporting one particular political faction.

 

[Avid Listener]

To be able to convey a news story, the writers and producers have to strive for language that is neutral enough to allow the story to be told without inflaming sensitivities or creating biases.

More specifically, they don't want to inflame the sensitivities of those who are on one particular side of a currently controversial issue. And that is what is meant by the term "bias".

Aside: I wonder how long it will take until someone tells me that (1) It's George Bush's fault and (2) I'm a racist.

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, one political party, which happens to have one of their members in the White House, uses a biased term that reflects their political objective when crafting legislation.

Except it's also the term the opposing party is using in crafting their House legislation. And the reason the government uses the term "immigrant" is because the agency is called the Immigration Department. It has nothing to do with politics, agendas, or parties. You keep trying to make something that doesn't exist.

 

[Avid Listener]

Except it's also the term the opposing party is using in crafting their House legislation. And the reason the government uses the term "immigrant" is because the agency is called the Immigration Department. It has nothing to do with politics, agendas, or parties. You keep trying to make something that doesn't exist.

The Immigration Department is in charge of LEGAL immigration. Foreigners who get the proper visas and who enter the country legally with the intent of living here permanently (and LEGALLY) and possibly even becoming citizens are immigrants.

The bottom line is that you keep ignoring the fact that the mis-use of the word "immigrant" when applied to "aliens" is a form of bias. You keep defending the bias, which is off-topic in this thread and forum, yet you won't address the fact that it is bias. Instead, you and David seek to defend the point of view without addressing the bias of the use of the word. Basically, you're saying that as long as other biased sources use the term, that means it isn't biased. That sort of circular logic makes no sense.

 

[TheBigA]

The bottom line is that you keep ignoring the fact that the mis-use of the word "immigrant" when applied to "aliens" is a form of bias.

But that's not true. When both political parties use "immigrant" and not alien, then it's not a form of bias. It is the accepted term. You really like to talk yourself into things.

 

[Avid Listener]

But that's not true. When both political parties use "immigrant" and not alien, then it's not a form of bias. It is the accepted term. You really like to talk yourself into things.

"Accepted" is not a synonym for "unbiased", especially without declaring who did the accepting. Party affiliation is not the only indicator of political division in the country. Therefore, you are incorrect about NPR's bias twice.

 

[TheBigA]

"Accepted" is not a synonym for "unbiased", especially without declaring who did the accepting. Party affiliation is not the only indicator of political division in the country. Therefore, you are incorrect about NPR's bias twice.

Now you're parsing MY words, as if I'm the one making the distinction here. You've talked yourself into believing NPR is biased, so it really doesn't matter what I say or how many examples I give. I've demonstrated how this word is not biased. I've given you loads of examples, so there is no question as to who is doing the accepting. Here's another one from GOPUSA, a major conservative group, talking about immigration, and they never once use the word "alien." Instead they say "immigrant." So is this biased reporting? You tell me:

"House Speaker John A. Boehner announced Tuesday that he has hired a longtime advocate of legalizing illegal immigrants to be an adviser, signaling that the Republican is still intent on trying to pass an immigration bill during this congressional session. Immigrant rights advocates cheered the move as a sign of Mr. Boehner's dedication to action. Those who want a crackdown on illegal immigration said the top Republican in the House has moved closer to embracing amnesty by hiring Rebecca Tallent, a former staffer for Sen. John McCain and fellow Arizona Republican Jim Kolbe."

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/12/05/boehner-prepares-to-push-amnesty-bill-through-house/

 

[Avid Listener]

And overall, I wish everyone would please understand that there is nothing wrong with a radio station demonstrating bias that appeals to their listeners. As David and the BigA keep pointing out, radio seeks to preserve their audience. If the audience of a particular radio station tends to have a certain bias, then the content of that station will be biased in the same direction as their audience. There is nothing wrong with a station doing that. Public radio has a target audience that responds well to the bias that public radio puts into their programming. Commercial news/talk stations have a target audience that responds well to a different bias. That's why this thread that has ended up comparing and contrasting the approaches of those two very similar formats is so informative.

The only real objection I have is the hypocritical claims that public radio is neutral and unbiased while commercial news/talk is highly biased. Just because one agrees with one of the two sides doesn't mean that the one biased towards one's own side is neutral and unbiased.

 

[TheBigA]

Just because one agrees with one of the two sides doesn't mean that the one biased towards one's own side is neutral and unbiased.

But they agree with BOTH sides, as you yourself have admitted. In that way, it's unbiased.

So answer my question: Was the story from GOPUSA.com biased or not?

 

[Avid Listener]

But they agree with BOTH sides, as you yourself have admitted. In that way, it's unbiased.

So answer my question: Was the story from GOPUSA.com biased or not?

John A. Boehner, John McCain, and Jim Kolbe are all RINOs, on the same side as the Democrats. So, I would say that anything those RINOs say is not evidence that the "other" side says the same thing, since they are not really on the other side. As I've said earlier, the issue of "sides" in the modern political arena are far more complicated that simply which of the two major parties someone belongs to.

 

[TheBigA]

John A. Boehner, John McCain, and Jim Kolbe are all RINOs, on the same side as the Democrats.

I was asking about the reporting, not the people. Is the way the story was reported by GOPUSA.com biased?

 

[Avid Listener]

I was asking about the reporting, not the people. Is the way the story was reported by GOPUSA.com biased?

The story was reported by the Washington Times, and repeated by GOPUSA. The original reporting, by the Washington Times, was biased. Rerunning it as it was originally written, wasn't as biased, but it did repeat the original bias.