I like the Washington Post. The reporting is great and the writing is often brilliant. It is one of the handful of American newspapers that still has reporters based around the world and the nation even as they cover the local area with depth and detail. Reporters regularly break important stories and add needed context to the issues of the day.
Still, the paper can also–fairly–be called one of the worst papers in America. Why? It is the Editorials and the Opinion section of the paper.
If you judge the WaPo just on its editorials and the predictable circle of limited minds that the Opinion Page Editors allow to be printed–then you would have to judge the WaPo as one of the worst (and laziest) newspapers in America. And while there are some bright spots every now and then, most of the time reading the editorials and opinions is descending into a swamp of faulty logic, magical thinking, false equivalences and a bias in favor of even the silliest chit-chat from the latest Georgetown cocktail party.
Today’s lead editorial, “The birthright debate” is a perfect example. It is a classic Fred Hiatt era embarrassment.
The editorial makes the case that the debate over birthright citizenship is a distraction and a very bad idea. The solution, they argue, is “serious legislation” to reform our immigration system. I agree with these points and if they made those points clearly and incisively then the editorial page might have live up to the quality of the rest of the paper. But these conclusions were not the heart of the editorial–they were throw away lines.
The goal of the editorial–like most of the editorials of the Hiatt era–was to create a false right/left, liberal/conservative equivalence: this time in the debate to repeal 14th Amendment birthright citizenship.
Now on one hand you have Republican operatives and elected officials, teatards, professional Right pundits, gasbags, conservative think tanks and wingnut bloggers in their Confederate battle flag boxers all calling for an end to the Birthright citizenship guarantee of the Constitution.
And on the left you have… well criticism that this is a bat-shit crazy idea and almost everybody reaching the same conclusion of today’s WaPo editorial: the debate over birthright citizenship is a very bad idea and a distraction in the effort to pass needed reforms to our immigration system.
The challenge for Fred was how to create a false balance between the right and left. Here is how he did it:
Some on the right argue that the Constitution should be changed to prevent U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants from gaining automatic citizenship, in part to prevent these “anchor babies” from being used to legitimize their parents’ presence in the country.
Those on the left charge that the talk about changing birthright citizenship is evidence of deep-seated xenophobia; one activist argued that it puts the United States “on the brink of legalizing apartheid.”
Everything is in balance because one side wants to deny rights to millions of children and create a permanent underclass of workers and children without rights in America and the other side has made comments that those who favor such a system might be motivated by fear of foreigners (and I would add a wee bit of racism).
Advocating a bad policy idea at odds with American values, our history and our Constitution may wrong, but in the view of the Washington Post Editorial Page it is just as wrong to point out that the motives of folks advocating for that policy might be base more in fear than in fact.
And then to make the case that the left is just as bad as the right, Fred uses a quote from an advocate for comprehensive immigration reform that he has taken out of context: “one activist argued that it puts the United States ‘on the brink of legalizing apartheid.'”.
In the online version of the Editorial the quote links to a comment by “JohnDoe2 ALIPAC Super Hero” in a discussion group at the anti-immigrant and anti-immigration reform web site of the Americans for Legal Immigration which is dedicated to “…fighting against illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens”.
In his comment, Mr. JohnDoe2 (who is obviously a very authoritative source for Mr. Hiatt) comments on an article in USA Today about the number of children born to illegal immigrants in America. Mr. JohnDoe2 selectively quotes from USA Today to make an anti-immigrant case and ends his post in ALL CAPS (which also happen to be the only words Mr. JohnDoe2 presumably wrote himself):
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, says stripping away birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants would put the country “on the brink of legalizing apartheid.”
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/new-study-finds-4m-kids-in-us-under-18-were-born-of-illegal-immigrants/1
_________________
NO AMNESTYDON’T REWARD THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS
BY GIVING THEM CITIZENSHIP
By last Friday, the “on the brink of legalizing apartheid” selective quote was buzzing about wingnutopia as proof that opponents of the effort to repeal 14th Amendment birthright citizenship were shrill and nuts. The musings of Mark Krikorian of the NRO were repeated hundreds of times:
I loved this nugget from Ali Noorani, head of the National Immigration Forum, one of Washington’s main open-borders coalitions:
“It puts the United States of America on the brink of legalizing apartheid,” he said.
Fred could have cited Mark as the source for the quote, but I guess Mr. JohnDoe2 is a more credible source than the NRO–and Fred may be correct on this value judgement. Still, one wonders why Fred Haitt and the Washington Post Editorial page couldn’t just link to the USA Today article that was the source of the quote. I think it is because the context of the quote undermines the entire left/right false equivalence at the heart of Fred’s muddled logic. Judge for yourself (NIF link added):
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which supports a process for some illegal immigrants to become citizens, said eliminating birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants would be a colossal mistake.
“It puts the United States of America on the brink of legalizing apartheid,” he said.
Noorani said some people have always fought for a change to the 14th Amendment’s birthright clause, but he is shocked to see prominent members of Congress suddenly embrace it. He thinks the upcoming November elections are the reason.
“This is a pathetic attempt to gin up a (voting) base,” he said. “This is political fear-mongering.”
I will not wait on the edge of my seat for the WaPo Ombudsman to comment this journalistic malpractice in a future column. OTOH, if I was a betting man I would place some coin on Fred giving Mr. JohnDoe2 his own regular column in the near future, especially if he wears a bowtie.
Cheers
dengre
morzer
I think you mean:
Butch
I lived in DC for a short time (couldn’t stand it) working on the Hill and I’m going to disagree that the Post is outstanding in anything but political coverage – and given its location it would have to try hard not to be. The Metro, business, and sports sections rarely rise above mediocre, just as examples, and the opinion page is often nonsensical.
Alwhite
Back in the late 80’s/early 90’s the Post used to publish a weekly paper containing just their opinion pieces. I subscribed to it for a brief time because there was a lot of interesting discussion going on. But it started dropping off after a couple of years. In addition to a sincere lack of quality on the part of the regulars they featured sludge from Rush Limbaugh and others of his intellectual heft. It became obvious that this drift was all in one direction and away from quality thinking or a grounding in the real world facts. I stopped getting the weekly & see that I have not missed anything of any value since.
Kryptik
Lets not forget that the Op-Ed page tends to be a dumping ground for any and all right-wing pol to spout their stuff without any sort of pushback. Need I remind you of John Bolton’s monthly reminders that we need to glass Iran or else?
Dennis G.
@morzer:
Yep, that’s better. Thanks for the edit. I’ve made the change.
Cheers
Mike in NC
GambitRF
So… the effort to repeal the 14th amendment is “nasty” and a complete waste of time, but it’s wrong for the left to “attack” those trying to repeal the 14th amendment.
The village is really weird.
Elizabelle
Amen, Dennis.
The Post’s Op Ed page is ridiculous, and Fred Hiatt is damaging that paper tremendously.
He’s going after Washington Times readers and killing the Post’s credibility in the process.
You’ve seen the reader comment threads. They are full of ugly unmoderated wingnut shouting points that drive out reasonable conversation.
It’s so sad.
wilfred
Hiatt is an Israel Firster who’ll give space to any neocon halfwit advocating Forever War on Arabs/Persians/Muslims.
But he’s with us on everything except those things. So it’s ok.
morzer
@Dennis G.:
My vicious jackal’s heart swells with quiet pride, good sir.
Kryptik
@Elizabelle:
You forget the key point here too:
Those same readers and commenters are the sorts that will never, ever, ever, ever see the Washington Post as anything but a horrible Left-Wing Psychomarxist rag. Even if Karl Rove, Gingrich, Murdoch, and Dick ‘Fox News is like Radio Free Europe!’ Morris were the lead columnists.
@wilfred:
Hey, we can’t forget that he’s the #5 most influential liberal in journalism, according to the Daily Beast!
Brachiator
Hmm. “The birthright debate” should have been “Phony Issue of the Day.”
You’re right that the editorial pages of the WaPo are crap. And not only do you have false equivalence here, but distortion and false outrage.
This reminds me of a recent BBC satirical program, The Now Show, which skewered a number of British newspapers which all printed a variation of the same false story about Muslims forcing a swimming club to paint 250 windows in the facility black to enforce modesty for the benefit of female Muslim swimmers. Each paper also included the same quote from a citizen concerned about rampant political correctness. Turns out that “Muslims and Non-Muslims, also known as … people” wanted worn and frazzled fabric curtains on the ground floor only replaced, and ultimately this was done with a few new tinted (not black) windows.
Despite the facts, a number of papers had sobering editorials covering “both sides” of a entirely bogus issue.
Bulworth
Also, too, why they couldn’t just link to the webpage for the National Immigration Forum. Or you know, just linking to the damn 14th Amendment in the Constitution.
Suffern ACE
@GambitRF: No, I think what they are saying is that is wrong of the left to take this threat so personally as to get worked up about it. That is so silly of the left from the village perspective.
Kryptik
@Brachiator:
The problem with having a ‘Phony Issue of the Day’ in these recent times is that you have so many goddamn ones to pick, and all of them deserve equal exposure for their phoniness.
Not to mention that eventually, said ‘Phony Issues’ end up becoming real issues if only because they get drumbeat so goddamn much that they do become actual liabilities. Sad thing is, while I don’t see it being a DRASTIC liability, I do see the “Ground Zero Mosque” kerfluffle hurting Obama. If only because the fearmongering on the goddamn thing has been so strong people fucking thing they’re building a Bin Laden statue on the literal ashes of 1 World Trade.
beltane
WaPo stocks are in a free-fall today, along with the rest of the for-profit education companies: http://dailykos.com/story/2010/8/16/893502/-Huge-crackdown-on-for-profit-education;-stocks-in-freefall
I can’t begin to tell you how sad I am about this.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
It’s just as bad to be someone who identifies a murderer as it is to be a murderer.
Roger Moore
@GambitRF:
Absolutely. Criticizing a wingnut for holding an evil, wrongheaded opinion is just as bad as holding that opinion in the first place. Calling somebody evil, wrongheaded, or racist is uncivil, possibly even shrill. Civility within the commentariat is the highest value, so violating that civility by pointing out that somebody is a frothing at the mouth crazy is a terrible crime. The rule that criticizing a crazy is just as bad as being crazy is a vital tool in establishing left/right equivalence.
Steve
I do not see how the context changes the quote at all.
Brachiator
@Kryptik:
Yeah. I had to turn off my personal outrage meter because each day there would be some new wingnut BS pushing fear, stupidity or bigotry that would get on my nerves.
But here the GOP tactic of ABC, Always Be Criticizing Obama is in full swing and is never going away. Phony issues don’t become real, they just become political stones tossed in the direction of Obama and the Democrats. It doesn’t matter what Obama says. This refinement of a technique used against Bill Clinton always seeks to make the president and his party look bad and to prevent anything other than negative press from ever seeing the light of day.
And although the president has to push back some of this crap, ultimately he can best win by helping put the country back on its economic feet.
Joshua Norton
All anyone has to do is look at the fall of the once-great LA Times to see the path the Washington Post is going down. Becoming more neocon and hawkish is the proven road to bankruptcy.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Look on the bright side: if we didn’t have the WaPo Op-Ed section, how would we know what the American Nomenklatura are planning to do to screw the nation next? You have to admit, it is awfully nice of them to publish their evil schemes right out in the open where everybody can see it. Future historians won’t even have to dig through moldy archives to find all the key evidence.
PeakVT
I like the Washington Post. The reporting is great and the writing is often brilliant.
I wouldn’t trust anything the Test Prep Daily says on economics, Social Security, and government finances. Read Dean Baker’s blog for a while if you want to see why.
Kiril
By the way, how do we know Mr. Noorani is “on the left?” He very well may be, but it always seems that anyone who disagrees with the Republican Party on one issue always seems to get lumped in with “the left.” Is Mr. Noorani pro-choice? Pro-life? For capital gains tax cuts? Against same-sex marriage? For Social Security privatization? Who knows?
Woodrowfan
Someone should remind Fred that DC already has two RW papers: the Times, which has always lost money, and the Enquirer, which they have to give away free to get anyone to read it!
13th Generation
An excellently written, timely post. Too bad most commentors around here are drawn to Cole’s “What I did today” posts. I’m getting a little tired of the other posters not getting any love. Especially DougJ. And Dennis also, too.
alix
And you know, they are talking about repealing the 14th Amendment. This is not just some adjustment. They want to repeal the amendment that guaranteed freed slaves citizenship (among other things). They’ll probably say, “Oh, they’re all dead, the freed slaves.” But it’s really like stomping on the great history of emancipation and the struggle for civil rights– oh, yeah. They WANT to do that. Sorry. Forgot.
But you know, the truth is– they can blather all they like. It’s quite hard to get an amendment passed as we remember from the ERA, and repeal is even harder, with only prohibition ever successfully repealed. So they can go ahead and try. But of course, last month they wanted to repeal the 17th amendment, and they’ve forgotten about that already. Attention deficit is a problem for them. Task focus– well, we know their “task” isn’t actually repealing. It’s November, and how many gullible voters can we terrify into voting for us. Now they’ve made the Foxites scared of babies. It’s sort of depressing that so many in America are so easily terrified.
But really, while they’re going on about how we need to repeal amendments, I think I’m going to say, “You know, you’re right! Let’s get going on repealing the second amendment next!”
And my mother was the child of a probably undocumented immigrant, and she was a very good American. I think in their xenophobia, they don’t realize how incredibly productive and patriotic the “second generation” tends to be.
But right, none of that matters to them. They don’t care about how much damage they wreak in how Americans view themselves and each other, as long as they win the news cycle.
morzer
@alix:
Right. They act as if they are something special just because Daddy ejaculated the right side of the border.
wolfetone
@Steve: I agree. And Norani’s comment isn’t at all out of bounds; it’s a possibility that may well end up happening if some of the more extreme elements of the right get their way. Luckily, repealing the 14th Amendment isn’t a real issue, it’s just a way to gin up the fear factor among whites.
asiangrrlMN
@morzer: Hee. You made me laugh.
@alix: I just wanted to back you on the second generation part. Or, in my case, first. My parents were not citizens when I was born (thus, my attempts to shore up my dual citizenship), and they have contributed greatly to this country. What a lot of these asshats don’t realize or refuse to acknowledge is that many immigrants (not all, like refugees from war) choose to come to America. They picked this country as the place they wanted to be, which is more than can be said of many who are born here. I want each of these idiots to take the citizenship test. I bet most of them would fail miserably. They think being patriotic means waving a flag and chanting, “USA. USA. USA.”
Birthers are fucking racists, full stop. There. I said it. No equivocating on my part. What would Mr. Hiatt have to say to that?
Pseudonym
I have to agree with Steve: how does the additional context change the meaning of the quote? To me, the original quote appeared to describe revocation of birthright citizenship as “the brink of apartheid”, and the full context only seems to validate it.