Denver Colorado Public Radio moves away from the term "migrant"

[fybush]

While I wait to get seated for dinner, I'll drop this here: I've spent a lot of time in recent years learning about my immigrant ancestors, who mostly came here in the second half of the 19th century when "the rules" amount to "show up, don't be Chinese, and don't be visibly diseased."

They lived in ghettos, they did menial work that earlier immigrants didn't want to do for very little pay, they spoke Yiddish, they were discriminated against, and in time their kids and grandkids did very well for themselves.

There's nothing that I hear today's xenophobes say about today's immigrants that didn't apply to my ancestors. The fullness of time showed that the xenophobes and bigots and racists who were opposed to my people in the 1890s were largely wrong. As a student of history, I believe the same will prove to be true of the descendants of those people saying the same things today.

And now my dinner is here, probably cooked and served by today's immigrants who are filling the jobs that "legal" Americans won't take in a time of record low unemployment.

 

[fybush]

Here's a shorter musical version of my thesis, courtesy of a son of Irish and Italian immigrants who did pretty OK for himself in New Jersey...

 

[TheBigA]

I still don't think it absolves Colorado Public Radio of its problems with lack of focus and sometimes taking a lofty approach to news coverage

The problem wasn't created by CPR. In 2021, the government put out a policy that the new immigrants shouldn't be called illegal. That was government policy. That led the Associated Press to address it in their stylebook. That was referenced in the article you linked. So the government caused this language problem. Then you have the anti-government who insists on their own language and definitions. If you don't do things their way, they call you a Marxist. Which by definition is Marxist. That's when the discission becomes political. The way to fix a political problem is have the politicians do their jobs.

ICE to stop using the term 'illegal alien' referring to immigrants

ICE on Monday was told to stop using the term "illegal alien" when referring to immigrants.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Mark Roberts]

The problem wasn't created by CPR. In 2021, the government put out a policy that the new immigrants shouldn't be called illegal. That was government policy.

Just for avoidance of doubt, I was referring generally to CPR's approach to news coverage, including that of the immigration issue, not the use of "new immigrant" or "migrant" which is what I began this thread with. "Migrant" appears to remain in use by some news outlets. Whether that's pejorative or not is a judgment call, based on what the present state of play appears to be.

No matter what the media do, there will be someone to find fault with them.

 

[davideduardo]

Throwing around meaningless (in this context) scare phrases like "sociological cultural Marxism" isn't what we do here, though.

Or at least it shouldn't be.

The issue here on this board should be how media treats the subject.

 

[bturner1]

The media tends to react to reflect general population norms.

When I lived on the border, those that came here legally (went through the process to enter the USA and then citizenship) and everyone else I came in contact with referred to those who had not gone through the process to enter the USA as illegals because they broke a law to enter the country. Whether those people snuck in to the USA in 1980 or last night, the act of entering our country by breaking one of our laws is illegal. Try going to Mexico without going through the proper process and you'll find yourself in jail (likely until your family can pay a hefty fee not unlike the coyotes charge to deliver these poor folks to US soil).

I recognize 'illegal' is about like any other racial slur today but all we have to hold this country together is respect for the law and a demand the law be upheld ethically.

If media chooses new words to make the 'meaning' seem otherwise, it's likely a reflection of what their audience has already done.

 

[fybush]

I have been working professionally in newsrooms, both commercial and public, for 33 years. There has never been a time when any of my newsroom style guides allowed the use of "illegals" as a standalone descriptor. It has always been considered politically charged.

If you actually take the time to read CPR's explanation for its change of style, it makes a tremendous amount of sense and fits with what I have always considered a journalistic obligation to treat the least powerful humans with the most sensitivity and compassion. ("Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" and all that.)

Even if you don't agree with CPR's choice, at least recognize that they're doing something few outlets other than public media do, which is to take the time and trouble to carefully explain what they're doing and why. (I would love to see examples from other media... prove me wrong!)

It's one of the reasons why I have been proud to be in public media for 20 years now: we're far from perfect, but we put in an effort to think deeply about the style and language choices we make, always with an eye toward becoming more inclusive and sensitive in what we do. What's the alternative? Deliberately treating the people we cover with disrespect?

(And bturner, as Americans we absolutely have the right to speak out against laws that we believe to be wrong. In this case, I am strongly opposed to the way in which our immigration quotas have been consistently narrowed in a way that makes legal immigration a near-impossibility. It's a historical anomaly for the US and a very sharp turn away from the way your ancestors and mine were welcomed here.)

 

[davideduardo]

I have been working professionally in newsrooms, both commercial and public, for 33 years. There has never been a time when any of my newsroom style guides allowed the use of "illegals" as a standalone descriptor. It has always been considered politically charged.

At KTNQ when we did talk, the term was "ilegales". Not "inmigrantes ilegales". Just "illegals" in a direct translation. It was and still is the normal, usual and common way of describing undocumeted immigrants.

If you actually take the time to read CPR's explanation for its change of style, it makes a tremendous amount of sense and fits with what I have always considered a journalistic obligation to treat the least powerful humans with the most sensitivity and compassion. ("Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" and all that.)

It's also considered totally unfair to those who came here via the lengthy and expensive and tedious legal method.

We have a conversational friendship with the lady who does common area gardening in our neighborhood. She is furious because many of the new illegal arrivals offer to work "off the books" for much less than the legal minimum wage and she's afraid of losing her job.

At the other end of the income scale, our Mexican-American realtor has mentioned that he is not dealing in certain ungated communities any more because he is now afraid to drive or park his car in those neighborhoods

Even if you don't agree with CPR's choice, at least recognize that they're doing something few outlets other than public media do, which is to take the time and trouble to carefully explain what they're doing and why. (I would love to see examples from other media... prove me wrong!)

True, they are giving their reasoning. Somehow I think that the people who wrote that explanation have had very little contact with illegals.

It's one of the reasons why I have been proud to be in public media for 20 years now: we're far from perfect, but we put in an effort to think deeply about the style and language choices we make, always with an eye toward becoming more inclusive and sensitive in what we do. What's the alternative? Deliberately treating the people we cover with disrespect?

We call thieves "criminals". I do not see disrespect in calling an undocumented person who has not legally entered the U.S. an "illegal".

 

[fybush]

BigA is an exception: at least he (she?) made a valid point about TV news being able to do some things that radio news can't do, though I still don't think it absolves Colorado Public Radio of its problems with lack of focus and sometimes taking a lofty approach to news coverage that kind of leaves out the people actually being covered. But it seems we can't have that discussion so I'm gonna let it rip.

I would actually love to have that discussion. It's one we should be having more, and I am very sympathetic to the challenges CPR and other media outlets face.

How many reporters were covering Denver 30 years ago? The Post and the Rocky probably had 100+ people in each of their newsrooms. Now the Rocky is gone and Alden has cut the Post to shreds. Maybe there were 15-20 street reporters at each of five TV newsrooms then, plus whatever KOA had.

Alone among traditional media, public newsrooms have at least generally held their own or grown in size while everyone else has been shrinking, but that's never enough. Even if CPR were still KCFR and still focused only on greater Denver, it's still a painful series of daily choices to figure out what you can reasonably cover with a fraction of the reporters any newsroom used to have.

Then you have the public radio sensibility that says you don't take some of the shortcuts commercial media takes - the stuff you or I would have spent an hour or less per story working on back in our commercial news days, grabbing two quick bites over the phone and moving on to what's breaking next? I still know how to do that pretty well, but it's not what public newsrooms are built to do. Longer stories with more audio and deeper perspectives take longer and so you get less overall productivity from any given size of newsroom, which means you can cover even less overall.

And then you get to the statewide expansion of CFR and the task starts to look impossible. If you can't begin to wrap your arms around greater Denver and all that it includes, how do you do any justice to a sprawling state with completely different audiences on the far side of the Rockies?

From what I can see from a distance, they were at least smart to try to keep KRCC in the Springs as a somewhat separate operation. It's certainly its own distinct community and politics and I'm sure it's much better served by continuing what KRCC had been doing, instead of merging Springs coverage into Denver.

It's a setup that's all but guaranteed to fully please nobody, though. I know there are far too many voids in my newsroom's coverage of the million or so people in our coverage area. I can't imagine what it must be like trying to cover a much more diverse population more than five times that size.

I'm interested in specific examples of where you think CPR falls short, or where the "typical public radio mindset" gets in the way of fuller coverage of a story or community. I've spent a lot of time in my 20 years in public radio with those ups and downs - for as much as my newsroom has changed to include more viewpoints and voices and community connections since I started there, there's always so much more yet to be done.

(And we're the lucky ones - unlike CPR and so many others, we have been spared newsroom staffing cuts so far.)

 

[fybush]

True, they are giving their reasoning. Somehow I think that the people who wrote that explanation have had very little contact with illegals.

Really, David? That seems at odds with what CPR sets out as its own reasoning:

"But one distinguishing feature we feel sets our coverage apart is how hard we've worked to talk to the people arriving, getting a sense of their hopes and dreams, what they want to do and how they want to contribute to the U.S. We are proud of the work we've done in humanizing this newcomer population."

You're certainly entitled not to take them at their word, but it seems pretty clear to me that the drive behind the linguistic shift at CPR came in large part because their reporters are actually spending time in these communities and listening to the human beings in them. And unless your goal is to avoid seeing or treating them as fellow humans, that seems like a pretty decent thing to me.

(But then that's what my non-Christian religious and cultural traditions have taught me about immigration, and I am well aware that mine is not the majority background or position in today's America. Had my immigrant ancestors been "vetted," which is always a morass of political decisions, I'm sure they would somehow have been found un-American according to the standards of the time. I'm very glad no such system was in place at the time.)

 

[davideduardo]

Really, David? That seems at odds with what CPR sets out as its own reasoning:

"But one distinguishing feature we feel sets our coverage apart is how hard we've worked to talk to the people arriving, getting a sense of their hopes and dreams, what they want to do and how they want to contribute to the U.S. We are proud of the work we've done in humanizing this newcomer population."

That is sort of like journalists flying in to talk with the survivors of an earthquake. They can quote them, interview them and photograph them, but they will never know the feelings that those survivors went through during the disaster and after seeing the destruction and loss of friends afterwards.

And, as I said, there are billions of people outside the U.S. who would love to come here to live better than they do in Paskistan or Rwanda or Honduras. And they will say all the appropriate things that the alien smugglers have told them to say in an attempt to qualify as refugees rather than what most are: people attracted by the promise of government housing, assistance and money.

You're certainly entitled not to take them at their word, but it seems pretty clear to me that the drive behind the linguistic shift at CPR came in large part because their reporters are actually spending time in these communities and listening to the human beings in them. And unless your goal is to avoid seeing or treating them as fellow humans, that seems like a pretty decent thing to me.

The issue here is "how many people can our economy, our current tax rates, our schools and hospitals support?" There have been plenty of studies on the impact of immigrants going back to the Italian "flood" from the 1880's through the first decade of the 20th Century, There are studies on the effects of immigrants who are of different cultures and faith systems as well as on the creation of massive cities inside a cities of groups that don't even bother to learn English and "become Americans".

I don't see discussions on radio and TV, from either side of our polarized nation, about our ability to assimilate a higher percentage of immigrants than ever before.

(But then that's what my non-Christian religious and cultural traditions have taught me about immigration, and I am well aware that mine is not the majority background or position in today's America.

I'm deeply familiar with Jewish traditions and, particularly, the Holocaust. My first "real" girlfriend in Ecuador had numbers on her arm, and I was recruited by one of the Israeli agencies because my news contacts gave me contacts with some of the Nazi's exiled in Ecuador who were still Third Reich "believers". Heck, many years later I was even invited to Israel by the government there because of my history with their "agencies".

Until one has seen a "home office" of a German exile decorated with Waffen SS emblems, portraits of Hitler and other WW II "souvenirs" it is hard to feel the fear that I feel about "our" government's lack of full support of the elimination of Hamas.

Had my immigrant ancestors been "vetted," which is always a morass of political decisions, I'm sure they would somehow have been found un-American according to the standards of the time. I'm very glad no such system was in place at the time.)

Yet we vetted the "Chinese" (meaning any Asian) in the 1880's out of fear of too many of "them" taking over. We turned away ships full of Holocaust survivors before we entered WW II and then during it. My consulting engineer in Ecuador was one of Telefunken's head design engineers before the War. He tried to come to the U.S.; he and his shipmates were refused entry into the U.S. even when his relatives had been sent to camps.

Yet now we want to accept everyone who thinks they can have more money and get on assistance programs here when the only thing they are fleeing is a lower standard of living.

 

[TheBigA]

And they will say all the appropriate things that the alien smugglers have told them to say in an attempt to qualify as refugees rather than what most are: people attracted by the promise of government housing, assistance and money.

Maybe you don't know this, but even in New York City, there is a limit on the amount of assistance they will be able to get. For example, they will only provide housing for 30 days. Housing is only for single migrants, not families. During that time, they're required to speak with a counselor.

“In each case, they are going to meet with a person and say ‘what have you done?’ They are going to give you as you come in a packet, and the packet is going to say, here’s are all the things you can do to try and move on. And then they will meet with you at the end and say ‘look we gave you this packet. What of these things did you do?” Goldfein said.

The issue here is "how many people can our economy, our current tax rates, our schools and hospitals support?"

Right now, we appear to be in very good shape. As Scott has said, the migrants are taking jobs that citizens won't take. There are still lots of job openings. The part of the story not being reported is how many of these migrants who are flown into blue cities end up transporting themselves to red states in order to find work. Places like Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Alabama. There is no government assistance there. But there are lots of jobs.

I don't see discussions on radio and TV, from either side of our polarized nation, about our ability to assimilate a higher percentage of immigrants than ever before.

Aren't you the one who tells us that Hispanics are fully Americanized by the next generation? They don't listen to Spanish language radio or live on the culture. It's been my experience that you are right about that.

 

[davideduardo]

Aren't you the one who tells us that Hispanics are fully Americanized by the next generation? They don't listen to Spanish language radio or live on the culture. It's been my experience that you are right about that.

No, I said "assimilated linguistically". In the larger cities, the huge Hispanic communities are parallel but different by the second generations: they tend to speak English everywhere but with the family, but retain customs, diet and other cultural aspects that are not "Americanized" at all.

And the culture of second generation Dominicans is vastly different in every aspect from that of, lets say, second generation Mexicans.

"Assimilation" means that people have blended in. It does not mean they have adopted a different culture as their own.

What this means to media is that there is a transitional group of second and third generation Hispanics who won't listen much to Spanish language stations, but who will love ones like WKTU in New York; that one appeals very strongly to later generation Puerto Ricans and even the growing second generation of Dominicans.

 

[TheBigA]

No, I said "assimilated linguistically". In the larger cities, the huge Hispanic communities are parallel but different by the second generations: they tend to speak English everywhere but with the family, but retain customs, diet and other cultural aspects that are not "Americanized" at all.

It depends on how religious they are. From my own personal experience, the church does that in a lot of cultures. I don't see how the government can force assimilation, or cap immigration in order to force assimilation. That begins to tread on some constitutional rights.

 

[davideduardo]

It depends on how religious they are. From my own personal experience, the church does that in a lot of cultures. I don't see how the government can force assimilation, or cap immigration in order to force assimilation. That begins to tread on some constitutional rights.

Capping immigration does not tread on any rights. Nobody has a right to move permanently to another country although the U.S. seems to be willing to let anyone and everyone in without much restraint.

When I moved to Ecuador, I first went as a student. When I started a business to build a radio station, I had to go through a string of requirements to get a residency visa and work permit. That included guarantees of not becoming a burden on the nation, requirements on taking classes in Ecuadorian civics, history and geography and lots more.

I am curious to see the outcome of the current crisis in Haiti. We already have a huge Haitian community in southern Florida and about a half dozen AM stations broadcasting in Kreyol already. The issue there is that the population of Haiti has an immensely low education level and is not used to living in a nation where there is "rule of law".

 

[TheBigA]

Capping immigration does not tread on any rights. Nobody has a right to move permanently to another country although the U.S. seems to be willing to let anyone and everyone in without much restraint.

It's not as simple as you think. The best proposal was the one written by Senator Langford, but that ran into political problems,'

Biden is looking to come up with a proposal that he can do by himself, but he knows it will be challenged in the courts:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/21/politics/biden-considering-executive-action-to-close-southern-border-sources-say/index.html

BTW they seem to have liberalized the visa rules for Ecuador. You don't have to learn the culture anymore.

A Simplified Guide to Ecuador Residency, Permanent and Temporary Visa Types

While Ecuador might be famous for the Galapagos island, Cotopaxi volcano, and its beautiful beaches, it is also popular with many foreigners wanting to get an Ecuador residency. Practically, most Ecuador visas apart from the

thevisaproject.com

 

[bturner1]

I ruffled a feather by use of the word Illegal noting it is what the border community I lived in called people who broke US law to enter the country (enter illegally). The fact is, compassion is an orange. I'm all for compassion. Apple is a person that breaks our laws...maybe criminal instead of illegal? Isn't that what we call lawbreakers?

 

[davideduardo]

It's not as simple as you think. The best proposal was the one written by Senator Langford, but that ran into political problems,'

It was a partial solution that only kicked the can down the road. And it gave unearned rights to illegals who have simply been here a while.

BTW they seem to have liberalized the visa rules for Ecuador. You don't have to learn the culture anymore.

They are trying to encourage retirees with minimum incomes to move there and pour dollars into the economy. But with the rampant violence, many of them are leaving now and no new retirees are arriving.

My two grandchildren have moved to Europe (France and Spain) to escape the violence. Maybe the new president, who imposed an all-night curfew, will have some success. One of the leading presidential candidates last year was assassinated by one of the cartel gangs, and the murder of police and officials is rampant.

 

[TheBigA]

It was a partial solution that only kicked the can down the road. And it gave unearned rights to illegals who have simply been here a while.

Only if they're from Afghanistan. The so-called dreamers would not be addressed. It was a bill that Lindsay Graham said was the best deal they could get under a divided congress.

The bill would also provide a pathway to conditional, lawful, permanent residency for vetted Afghan nationals who were admitted or paroled into the U.S. after July 2021.

Instead of getting something done, they chose to do nothing. That isn't governing. The repubs couldn't fix the border when they were in control of all three branches. All they could do was exec actions, and many of them were struck down by the courts.

 

[tbolt909]

At KTNQ when we did talk, the term was "ilegales". Not "inmigrantes ilegales". Just "illegals" in a direct translation. It was and still is the normal, usual and common way of describing undocumeted immigrants.

It's also considered totally unfair to those who came here via the lengthy and expensive and tedious legal method.

We have a conversational friendship with the lady who does common area gardening in our neighborhood. She is furious because many of the new illegal arrivals offer to work "off the books" for much less than the legal minimum wage and she's afraid of losing her job.

At the other end of the income scale, our Mexican-American realtor has mentioned that he is not dealing in certain ungated communities any more because he is now afraid to drive or park his car in those neighborhoods

True, they are giving their reasoning. Somehow I think that the people who wrote that explanation have had very little contact with illegals.

We call thieves "criminals". I do not see disrespect in calling an undocumented person who has not legally entered the U.S. an "illegal".

When the Pilgrims came here, there was "No long and tedious process" (Except crossing the Atlantic by ship).
Keep bending reality for your narrative. Many Americans don't want immigrants coming in legal or otherwise.

There has always been a racial fear attached to immigrants. Some places once had signs "No Irish need apply". The "Border Crisis" is overblown to a degree. It's great propaganda to stoke hate and fear among the populace especially in an election year.

Businesses in America cannot find workers. Very few Americans want to pick lettuce or apples in the blazing sun nor do landscaping in the Texas heat. Employers exploit immigrants because they know they cannot file a grievance. The hypocrisy by most of the people on the Far Right is despicable.

As for the terminology -- Birds are migrants. Humans are just seeking a better life by immigrating. That's no different from the Pilgrims. Of course, Native Americans had to be slaughtered and displaced to achieve the American Utopia. Climate Change will force people to flee to other places. It's time for people to wake up to the fact that the Earth doesn't recognize borders or nations...