New York Times columnist Timothy Egan last month labeled three prominent Republicans as "traitors to their class", writing that although they have humble beginnings, they have failed to identify with the struggle of workers at the lower end of our economy.
House Majority Leader John Boehner and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker took a hit for opposing a hike in the minimum wage. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst's offense was opposing subsidized health care for lower-middle-class families. Egan labeled them members of "the party of tough luck, pal".
I share Egan's belief in the need for federal action to help working people who are struggling in our country. That's why I identify myself as a moderate liberal. It's also why I am puzzled that journalists like Egan are silent about the effects of mass immigration — whether legal or illegal — on the job prospects for unskilled American workers. To that insulting indifference they sometimes add the injury of ridiculing those who oppose illegal immigration as small-minded or bigoted or worse.
Consider Egan's 2005 story from the Arizona border about the Minutemen (written when he was still a reporter). Its central figure was an octogenarian Marine named Walter McCarty, whom Egan showcased with this quotation: "I hope to go out on patrols at night. I need some excitement. And this is better than sitting home all day watching rattlesnakes crawl out of the den."
Egan's framing of McCarty caught the attention of Rodney Benson, a New York University professor who wrote about it in his thoughtful and well written book Shaping Immigration News. Citing the above quotation, he said Egan had shown an "exoticizing disdain" for the Minuteman.
Benson then made a larger point about the press's handling of those who advocate restrictions on immigration. "This amusing quote may indeed capture the colorful character and extreme politics of Mr. McCarty," he wrote. "But is he representative of all of the Minutemen or, for that matter, restrictionist advocates? Even if such coverage is appropriate in its criticism, it is worth noting that a similar type of critical tone is rarely if ever used to describe immigration rights advocates."
Such shaping of the news makes it into print because writers like Egan — and their editors — are immigration rights advocates themselves. They are ex officio members of the team that demands full rights for all those who make it across the border, regardless of their legal status and mindless of their effects on citizens and authorized immigrants.
The most egregious example of exoticizing disdain I have encountered was provided by journalist Michelle Cottle. Writing two years ago in the Daily Beast, she mocked a joint protest of the Black American Leadership Alliance and the Tea Party, who called on Congress to "recognize the devastating effects illegal immigration and amnesty have on low-skilled workers, particularly those in minority communities." I described Cottle's piece here. I wrote that she had posed as "a doyenne of disdain, a contessa of contempt, a siren of snark."
Cottle and Egan typify the animosity and hostility of reporters who abandon their duty to report honestly about those with whom they disagree.
They are ardent defenders of diversity as long as it does not include anyone who dares to challenge their vision of an America transformed and redeemed by immigration. Journalists like this distort a vital national debate with their strutting, self-righteous mockery.
It would be tempting for someone on my side of the debate to respond in kind by calling them traitors to their profession. I'll just say that on many levels, it's unfortunate. They're missing half of a great story, with major social, economic, and political dimensions and big implications for the future of our country. Worst of all, so are their readers.