Though the Supreme Court overturned much of the Arizona law, just not the part the liberals and their media friends loathed the most, it wasn't hard to predict the networks would once again line up with the amnesty lobby. ABC's Diane Sawyer mourned "the most inflammatory part of the law" was upheld.
Once again, those impartial network producers are making themselves the sob sisters of illegal aliens. ABC found a man who carries a document in his glove compartment insisting that if he's deported, his children shouldn't go into foster care. NBC put on a woman watching cartoons with her cute little kids, wearing a T-shirt saying, "Arrest (Sheriff Joe) Arpaio, Not the People." Reporter Savannah Guthrie predicted more lawsuits to repeal the one section the court upheld -- because liberals never accept defeat. It's so predictable.
So predictable, in fact, that now there is no pretense of objectivity whatsoever. ABC's Diane Sawyer also turned to one of the most biased journalists in America, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who just pounds the drum for amnesty at every opportunity. Yes, a news anchor. He lamented the Supreme Court decision, saying "the last hope is gone" and blamed both parties for failing to pass "major immigration reform." Sawyer asked him to tell the stories of Latinos, and he summarized, "It's fear, and fear of persecution in the future."
Entering the country illegally is no longer an abuse of law. Illegal aliens are victims, never victimizers. Nor will networks dare focus on the costs of illegal immigration -- starting with crime but adding tax dollars for health care, welfare and education spending. Are there stories to tell? How about the story about the intoxicated illegal alien in Virginia who plowed into a car full of nuns, killing one and injuring two? But that would damage the narrative.
The whole thing was a repeat of 2010. When the Media Research Center analyzed 50 stories produced by the networks in a 10-day period in April and May, the slant was equally unbelievable. The tone was strongly hostile to the law and promotional to the "growing storm" of left-wing protesters: 37 stories (or 74 percent) were negative, 10 were neutral, and only three were positive toward the Arizona law's passage. That's a ratio of 12 to 1.
The sound bite count was also slanted, with 92 quotes against the law and only 52 in favor. The pro-law side, however, was largely on the defensive against liberal charges that they were racists or favored racial profiling. On 11 occasions, the networks even forwarded smears that proponents of the Arizona law were like Nazis or Civil War-era slaveholders.