A few weeks ago, the pollsters for NBC and The Wall Street Journal asked this question:
"If thousands of immigrants in the U.S. do not show up for work on May 1 in protest of immigration policy, do you think this will do more to help their cause, do more to hurt their cause, or have no real effect either way?" Fifty-seven percent said it would hurt their cause. Only 17 percent said it would help.
But that point is being roundly and deliberately ignored by the national media. Tossed and turned by internal diversity police who demand a greater minority presence and minority consciousness in the newsrooms, those who report the "news" are doing their level best to ensure that the protesters for "immigrant rights" get the best possible publicity boost.
So when the May 1 boycott and protests occurred, it was just another syrupy, sugary turn for the pro-illegal alien media. The Big Three network evening news shows all led Monday night with multiple favorable stories about the day of protests and shutdowns by those who would legalize their criminal behavior.
ABC's Elizabeth Vargas led off with pom-poms shaking: "We begin with an economic show of force by America's illegal immigrants ... altogether, close to a million people took to the streets in more than 30 cities. And that number could still rise. It was the newest wave of protests against legislation that would increase the penalties for being in the U.S. illegally."
Bob Schieffer opened the CBS newscast by touting: "From coast to coast, from north to south, they wanted us to know what America would be like without them, and so millions of immigrants missed work, skipped school and marched in the streets. They want America to find a place for those who came here illegally."
Over on the "NBC Nightly News," which put no less than six reporters on the story in six different cities across America, Brian Williams heralded: "Stores closed as workers headed out the door, and live television covered it all, all day long. We have comprehensive coverage tonight from coast to coast."
In short, the networks were nothing less than stenographers to protest, because they don't see it as their role to question the demonstrators, only to celebrate them. Show me one example -- one example in the past 30 years -- where anyone in the national news media has accorded the same courtesy to the tens of thousands who annually protest the horror of abortion.
Clinton Loses The Washington Post: "Use of Private E-mail Shows Poor Regard For Public Trust" | Katie Pavlich