RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Greenwald writes: "The Republican candidate leading every poll, Donald Trump, recently unveiled his plan to forcibly deport all 11 million human beings residing in the U.S. without proper documentation, roughly half of whom have children born in the U.S. (and who are thus American citizens)."

Glenn Greenwald. (photo: PBS)
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: PBS)


Jorge Ramos Commits Journalism, Gets Immediately Attacked by Journalists

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

26 August 15

 

he Republican presidential candidate leading every poll, Donald Trump, recently unveiled his plan to forcibly deport all 11 million human beings residing in the U.S. without proper documentation, roughly half of whom have children born in the U.S. (and who are thus American citizens). As George Will noted last week, “Trump’s roundup would be about 94 times larger than the wartime internment of 117,000 persons of Japanese descent.” It would require a massive expansion of the most tyrannical police state powers far beyond their already immense post-9/11 explosion. And that’s to say nothing of the incomparably ugly sentiments which Trump’s advocacy of this plan, far before its implementation, is predictably unleashing.

Jorge Ramos, the influential anchor of Univision and an American immigrant from Mexico, has been denouncing Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. Yesterday at a Trump press conference in Iowa, Ramos stood and questioned Trump on his immigration views. Trump at first ignored him, then scolded him for speaking without being called on and repeatedly ordered him to “sit down,” then told him: “Go back to Univision.” When Ramos refused to sit down and shut up as ordered, a Trump bodyguard physically removed him from the room. After the press conference concluded, Ramos returned and again questioned Trump about immigration, with the two mostly talking over each other as Ramos asked Trump about the fundamental flaws in his policy. Afterward, Ramos said: “This is personal . . . he’s talking about our parents, our friends, our kids and our babies.”

One might think that in a conflict between a journalist removed from a press conference for asking questions and the politician who had him removed, journalists would side with their fellow journalist. Some are. But many American journalists have seized on the incident to denounce Ramos for the crime of having opinions and even suggesting that he’s not really acting as a journalist at all.

Politico‘s political reporter Marc Caputo unleashed a Twitter rant this morning against Ramos. “This is bias: taking the news personally, explicitly advocating an agenda,” he began. Then: “Trump can and should be pressed on this. Reporters can do this without being activists” and “some reporters still try to approach their stories fairly & decently. & doing so does not prevent good reporting.” Not only didn’t Ramos do journalism, Caputo argued, but he actually ruins journalism: “My issue is his reporting is imbued with take-it-personally bias. . . .  we fend off phony bias allegations & Ramos only helps to wrongly justify them. . . .One can ask and report without the bias. I’ve done it for years & will continue 2 do so.”

Washington Post article about the incident actually equated the two figures, beginning with the headline: “Jorge Ramos is a conflict junkie, just like his latest target: Donald Trump.” The article twice suggested that Ramos’ behavior was something other than journalism, claiming that his advocacy of immigration reform “blurred the line between journalist and activist” and that “by owning the issue of immigration, Ramos has also blurred the line between journalist and activist.” That Ramos was acting more as an “activist” than a “journalist” was a commonly expressed criticism among media elites this morning.

Here we find, yet again, the enforcement of unwritten, very recent, distinctively corporatized rules of supposed “neutrality” and faux objectivity which all Real Journalists must obey, upon pain of being expelled from the profession. A Good Journalist must pretend they have no opinions, feign utter indifference to the outcome of political debates, never take any sides, be utterly devoid of any human connection to or passion for the issues they cover, and most of all, have no role to play whatsoever in opposing even the most extreme injustices.

Thus: you do not call torture “torture” if the U.S. Government falsely denies that it is; you do not say that the chronic shooting of unarmed black citizens by the police is a major problem since not everyone agrees that it is; and you do not object when a major presidential candidate stokes dangerous nativist resentments while demanding mass deportation of millions of people. These are the strictures that have utterly neutered American journalism, drained it of its vitality and core purpose, and ensured that it does little other than serve those who wield the greatest power and have the highest interest in preserving the status quo.

What is more noble for a journalist to do: confront a dangerous, powerful billionaire-demagogue spouting hatemongering nonsense about mass deportation, or sitting by quietly and pretending to have no opinions on any of it and that “both sides” are equally deserving of respect and have equal claims to validity? As Ramos put it simply, in what should not even need to be said: “I’m a reporter. My job is to ask questions. What’s ‘totally out of line’ is to eject a reporter from a press conference for asking questions.”

Indeed, some of the most important and valuable moments in American journalism have come from the nation’s most influential journalists rejecting this cowardly demand that they take no position, from Edward R. Murrow’s brave 1954 denunciation of McCarthyism to Walter Cronkite’s 1968 refusal to treat the U.S. Government’s lies about the Vietnam War as anything other than what they were. Does anyone doubt that today’s neutrality-über-alles journalists would denounce them as “activists” for inappropriately “taking a side”?

As Jack Shafer documented two years ago, crusading and “activist” journalism is centuries old and has a very noble heritage. The notion that journalists must be beacons of opinion-free, passion-devoid, staid, impotent neutrality is an extremely new one, the by-product of the increasing corporatization of American journalism. That’s not hard to understand: one of the supreme values of large corporations is fear of offending anyone, particularly those in power, since that’s bad for business. The way that conflict-avoiding value is infused into the media outlets which these corporations own is to inculcate their journalists that their primary duty is to avoid offending anyone, especially those who wield power, which above all means never taking a clear position about anything, instead just serving as a mindless, uncritical vessel for “both sides,” what NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen has dubbed “the view from nowhere.” Whatever else that is, it is most certainly not a universal or long-standing principle of how journalism should be conducted.

The worst aspect of these journalists’ demands for “neutrality” is the conceit that they are actually neutral, that they are themselves not activists. To be lectured about the need for journalistic neutrality by Politico of all places – the ultimate and most loyal servant of the DC political and corporate class – by itself illustrates what a rotten sham this claim is. I set out my argument about this at length in my 2013 exchange with Bill Keller and won’t repeat it all here; suffice to say, all journalism is deeply subjective and serves some group’s interests. All journalists constantly express opinions and present the world in accordance with their deeply subjective biases – and thus constantly serve one agenda or another – whether they honestly admit doing so or dishonestly pretend they don’t.

Ultimately, demands for “neutrality” and “objectivity” are little more than rules designed to shield those with the greatest power from meaningful challenge. As BuzzFeed’s Adam Serwer insightfully put it this morning “‘Objective’ reporters were openly mocking Trump not that long ago, but Ramos has not reacted to Trump’s poll numbers with appropriate deference . . . . Just a reminder that what is considered objective reporting is intimately tied to power or the perception of power.” Expressing opinions that are in accord with, and which serve the interests of, those who wield the greatest political and economic power is always acceptable for the journalists who most tightly embrace the pretense of “neutrality”; it’s only when an opinion constitutes dissent or when it’s expressed with too little reverence for the most powerful does it cross the line into “activism” and “bias.”

(Ramos’ supposed sin of being what the Post called a “conflict junkie” – something that sounds to be nothing more than a derogatory way of characterizing “adversary journalism” – is even more ridiculous. Please spare me the tripe about how Ramos’ real sin was one of rudeness, that he failed to wait for explicit permission from the Trumpian Strongman to speak. Aside from the absurdity of viewing Victorian-era etiquette as some sort of journalistic virtue, Trump’s vindictive war with Univision made it unlikely he’d call on Ramos, and journalists don’t always need to be “polite” to do their jobs.

Beyond that, whether a reporter must be deferential to a politicians is one of those questions on which people shamelessly switch sides based on which politician is being treated rudely at the moment, as the past liberal protests over the “rudeness” displayed to Obama by conservative journalists demonstrate. That Ramos is not One of Them – Joe Scarborough appeared not even to know who Ramos is and suggested he was just seeking “15 minutes of fame,” despite Ramos’ having far greater influence and fame than Scarborough could dream of having – clearly fueled the journalistic resentment that Ramos’ behavior was out of line).

What Ramos did here was pure journalism in its classic and most noble expression: he aggressively confronted a politician wielding a significant amount of power over some pretty horrible things that the politician is doing and saying. As usual when someone commits a real act of journalism aimed at the most powerful in the U.S., those leading the charge against him are other journalists, who so tellingly regard actual journalism as a gauche and irreverent crime against those who wield the greatest power and thus merit the greatest deference.

UPDATE: Caputo, while noting that he disagrees with many of the views in this article, objects to one phrase in particular and sets forth his objection here. I quoted and/or linked to all of his referenced statements and am happy to allow readers to decide if that one phrase was accurate. I am quite convinced it was and stand by it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+68 # indian weaver 2015-08-26 17:25
Well, I appreciate a sense of humor in serious situations that are not physically dangerous. I thought this was an Andy Borowitz article when I read the title. Greenwald is one of the several all-time great journalists currently helping the world see what is happening, and fearlessly. Like Snowden, Assange and similar courageous writers and "whistle blowers". His courage is the stuff the Nobel Peace Prize is made of. Compare the character of Greenwald and these others to, say, Obama, a recent Nobel Peace Prize awardee! Greenwald et. al. are much more than journalists by now, or I guess he is just what great journalists really are - shaking up things a bit, and enlightening our world. Keep on keeping on...
 
 
+8 # ritawalpoleague 2015-08-27 11:13
Yes, indian weaver, Glen Greenwald is a true hero, with his being a true, sooooo needed truth telling journalist.

Hang in there, Glen G. and indian weaver, and keep on truthfully reporting and commenting. Lots and lots of determination and courage it takes, if we dare to get active enough, and do all it takes to.....UNDO THE EVIL COUP !
 
 
-62 # Roland 2015-08-26 18:11
There isn’t a problem with Ramos being biased as much as it is his being rude and interrupting. Jumping to the front of the line isn’t appropriate at movies, restaurants or press conferences. People who do that should be reprimanded or else chaos can result.

How biased is Charles. He said “ After the press conference concluded, Ramos returned and again questioned Trump”.
He doesn’t spell out that (according to Vanity Fair) “Trump allowed Ramos back into the conference, and called on him.” And from the video it doesn’t appear that the conference is over. There are still reporters seated around him, while he is questioning Trump.
 
 
+40 # nice2bgreat 2015-08-26 21:20
Quoting Roland:
There isn’t a problem with Ramos being biased as much as it is his being rude and interrupting.


Yes, journalists should always let Presidential candidates pick and choose who asks questions.

Every great journalist waited-and-wait ed for his/her moment to be chosen.

It's a journalistic honor just to be chosen.
.
 
 
-60 # Roland 2015-08-26 21:39
I guess you would be fine with all of the reporters doing what Ramos did, at the same time. Why don't we try that. Why should any of them wait to be called on. That would be very interesting. How do you think that would work?

And remember, Trump allowed Ramos back into the room and called on him. Trump is an ass and so was Ramos in this situation.
 
 
+67 # Merlin 2015-08-26 22:39
Roland 2015-08-26 21:39

This is not a discussion about personalities as much as you would like it to be. This is about ideology, Roland. (The role of reporters in a Democratic society. That is Greenwald’s message.) How people act, when they are doing so out of a set of rules, is called political correctness. Political correctness is authoritarian created. The powerful set the rules. They set the conditions and the definitions, and woe to anyone who breaks them. In short, they rig the game.

You give Trump much credit for calling on Ramos after he was “allowed” back in. Actually this is a neat authoritarian trick you are buying into. Trump exerts his authoritarian power by throwing Ramos out, and then “big heartedly” invites him back and calls on him. First, Ramos is threatened with power, if he does not act according to your political correctness, and then showed how great it is, if he become subservient to that power, by that power’s benevolence.

You seem quite happy with this authoritarian system. All you disagree with is the “politically correct way” it all happened. You think they both should have been less strident or acted “better.” So for you, it is only a matter of degree. The authoritarian rule setting is just fine.
 
 
-16 # Roland 2015-08-27 06:56
the rules for press meetings like this one, allow for journalists to have better access. If everyone is talking at once, it would be like one of those debates on TV, where everyone tries to talk over their opponents. In the end you can't hear anything and time is wasted and points are missed.
 
 
+10 # Billsy 2015-08-27 15:42
It is precisely this fear of "loss of access" that leads mainstream journalists to cease performing their duties to challenge power and acquiesce to it instead by lobbing softball questions, heaping unearned praise and discussing distracting minor issues. You really don't get it. Politicians should both need and fear journalists in search of the truth.
 
 
+6 # Dongi 2015-08-27 22:10
Roland, what is wrong with you? You are *issing the * ain point: Donald Tru*p is proposing an absolutely cocke*anie sche*e to relocate 11 *illion people back to their ho*elands. This will cause enor*ous confusion and serious do*estic distraction. This is probably the du*best idea in A*erican History. Naturally, Ra*os challenged the idea. Every journalist there should have. And you prattle on about procedures. God, you would have changed deck chairs on the Titanic.
 
 
+15 # Krackonis 2015-08-27 04:48
It's like you never watched TV in the 1960's and 1970's.
 
 
+3 # Merlin 2015-08-27 09:59
Krackonis 2015-08-27 04:48

"It's like you never watched TV in the 1960's and 1970's."

I'm sure you are right, and this is a good historical point you bring up! Spot on!
 
 
-23 # MidwestTom 2015-08-27 07:44
I read that Ramos's caught works for the Hillary campaign, has anybody else read this?
 
 
+19 # Helen Marshall 2015-08-27 08:35
Perhaps if you revised the gibberish here someone would be able to understand what slander you are repeating.
 
 
-16 # skylinefirepest 2015-08-27 09:34
Nice2bgreat.... yes, thoughout modern history the journalists have waited to be called on. Why should Ramos be any different?
 
 
+36 # ronjazz 2015-08-26 18:16
Caputo is a smarmy, lying gooper, and kochsucker extraordinaire. Whine, whine, whine.

Caputo is far more damaging to journalism than Ramos, that's for certain.
 
 
+7 # John Escher 2015-08-27 10:58
Quoting ronjazz:
Caputo is a smarmy, lying gooper, and kochsucker extraordinaire.Whine, whine, whine.

Caputo is far more damaging to journalism than Ramos, that's for certain.


Caputo's view of journalism makes him a eunuch.
 
 
-61 # Kassy 2015-08-26 22:16
Ramos could have raised his hand and waited his turn to have the time and attention that he wanted. Instead, he intentionally acted out in an interruptive way. I question whether Ramos deliberately goaded Trump to make Trump appear like an asshole. I thought Trump was quite polite by reminding Ramos about appropriate audience protocol. Trump also allowed Ramos to return to the room and gave him opportunity to speak. Ramos botched that time, too!. So it wasn't Trump that was out of line, it was Ramos!
 
 
+44 # Dongi 2015-08-26 23:14
You and Roland would be polite to Adolph Hitler. Now, why is that?
 
 
+38 # Phillybuster 2015-08-27 01:04
I always remember watching an interview with a serial killer. When asked why his victims almost always went along with whatever scheme he concocted to isolate and abduct them, he said that most people want to be compliant, they don't want to be rude, they don't want others to think ill of them and so they go along. He said that anyone who was not compliant could have easily gotten away from him.

We live in an authoritarian society where compliance is the norm and where violating that norm is considered out of bounds, over the line and "out of order".
 
 
+7 # Merlin 2015-08-27 00:16
Kassy 2015-08-26 22:16

Hahahahahaha

Great sarcasm!
 
 
+14 # Texas Aggie 2015-08-27 10:15
Why do you think that he would ever have been called on? Trump flat out made it very clear that he didn't like him or his broadcasting corp., and he didn't want to answer the question.
 
 
+17 # DD1946 2015-08-27 10:51
Make Trump APPEAR like an asshole??? He doesn't appear as one. He IS one!
 
 
+5 # John Escher 2015-08-27 11:00
Quoting Kassy:
Ramos could have raised his hand and waited his turn to have the time and attention that he wanted. Instead, he intentionally acted out in an interruptive way. I question whether Ramos deliberately goaded Trump to make Trump appear like an asshole. I thought Trump was quite polite by reminding Ramos about appropriate audience protocol. Trump also allowed Ramos to return to the room and gave him opportunity to speak. Ramos botched that time, too!. So it wasn't Trump that was out of line, it was Ramos!


It's Emily. Emily Post!
 
 
+6 # pegasus4508 2015-08-27 17:57
News Flash! Donald Trump needs no help in being an AssHole.
 
 
+5 # bmiluski 2015-08-28 16:49
Oh Kassy honey....Trump doesn't need to be goaded to appear like an asshole.
 
 
+31 # RY25L 2015-08-26 23:05
And Hillary Clinton has thugs roping off journalists like cattle as they try to follow her. None of this is promising.
 
 
-51 # barbaratodish 2015-08-27 00:11
Instead of asking questions AS A REPORTER, Ramos was ASKING QUESTIONS AS AN ANONYMOUS IMMIGRATION CORPORATION PLATFORM! Therefore, "RAMOS" was not RAMOS at all. Ramos was a bully platform and deserved to be "bullied" back!
 
 
+15 # Merlin 2015-08-27 09:30
barbaratodish 2015-08-27 00:11

Good grief, Barbara, you have the situation backwards again! It is Trump who is the bully and Ramos who responded to his bullying authoritarian attitude.

I will have to read some of your many articles in writingforgodot to understand where you are coming from. As a college professor you should have something worthwhile to say.
 
 
+3 # Dongi 2015-08-27 22:22
In what college is barbaratodish a professor? And, what is the subject? It certainly isn't logic or A*erican History. Plus, she uses capitals to *ake her points. That went out 20 years ago. But, it's the sheer lunacy of her re*arks that *akes *e wonder. Ra*os an anony*ous corporation platfor*? I don't think so. This isn't even coherent English.
 
 
+6 # John Escher 2015-08-27 11:01
Quoting barbaratodish:
Instead of asking questions AS A REPORTER, Ramos was ASKING QUESTIONS AS AN ANONYMOUS IMMIGRATION CORPORATION PLATFORM! Therefore, "RAMOS" was not RAMOS at all. Ramos was a bully platform and deserved to be "bullied" back!

Quoting barbaratodish:
Instead of asking questions AS A REPORTER, Ramos was ASKING QUESTIONS AS AN ANONYMOUS IMMIGRATION CORPORATION PLATFORM! Therefore, "RAMOS" was not RAMOS at all. Ramos was a bully platform and deserved to be "bullied" back!


Sig Heil!
 
 
+2 # pegasus4508 2015-08-27 17:58
Since Ramos is Latino and very well known, how the hell could he be ANONYMOUS?
 
 
-2 # barbaratodish 2015-08-29 03:39
Quoting pegasus4508:
Since Ramos is Latino and very well known, how the hell could he be ANONYMOUS?


Just try, pegasus4508, to get Jorge Ramos of Univision, or Glenn Greenwald to respond to you! They both may as well be anonymous!
 
 
+16 # R Miller 2015-08-27 00:28
The Castrati Journos at Politico are unhappy that Mr. Ramos was rude to Mr. tRump.
 
 
+39 # R Miller 2015-08-27 00:50
One way to view Trump's rise is in terms of history. Here is a man who wants the state to displace population by virtue of their ethnicity. That was a tool used by Joseph Stalin (and, of course the other guy.) And both, of course, were supported by people who favored ever more extreme solutions. I'm not sure Recent World History is required for a journalism degree these days, but I'd advise Caputo and his sidekicks to brush up on their history. Jorge Ramos was right to be concerned: This isn't the first time Donald Trump's political type has appeared on the world stage.
 
 
+27 # beachboy 2015-08-27 01:04
the point:

there is no such thing as OBJECTIVITY, if a human is involved!

Most MSM reporters are slow to think, they are so busy repeating the propaganda lies they hear from up high.
 
 
+30 # jsluka 2015-08-27 02:31
Note that "objectivity" doesn't mean being neutral or value-free (which are impossible); it means being committed to finding evidence, and letting the evidence lead to the conclusions drawn.
 
 
+14 # mstrdig 2015-08-27 06:47
calling out rudeness, for which trump himself should be called out for, is trump's stock in trade. i can't wait for him to "fire" putin or netanyhu or the principals of the middle east. or how bout this, isis "you're fired." i'm sure they'll be thankful of their star turning television exposure and leave tearfully.
 
 
+14 # REDPILLED 2015-08-27 08:29
As the dark curtain of fascism descends on the U.S. experiment, expect more corporate reactions against, and suppression of, "rude" and "biased" questions.

Corporate media is the Ministry of Propaganda for the Corporate U.S. Police/Surveill ance/Imperial State.

Keeping that in mind at all times is necessary to put corporate tools such as all TV and cable "news" shows, as well as allegedly "neutral" papers such as the NY Times and Washington Post, despite their reputations for "integrity", in their realistic, true context as powerful and pervasive servants of Empire.

That is why critics of U.S. imperialism such as Noam Chomsky, John Perkins, Jill Stein, and John Pilger are never allowed on corporate media or in corporate print media.
 
 
-23 # progressiveguy 2015-08-27 08:33
Ramos did nothing but hurt his cause. He played right into trump's hands. I certainly am no fan of trump but Ramos blew it and wound up looking like a jerk. Ramos is an advocate for illegal Hispanics. Trump is full of BS but
it was his press conference. Trump loves a confrontation and used this incident to gain favor with the Fox Nut news Network. Greenwald is way off base in this article, I usually love and agree with his articles.
 
 
+3 # John Escher 2015-08-27 11:04
Quoting progressiveguy:
Ramos did nothing but hurt his cause. He played right into trump's hands. I certainly am no fan of trump but Ramos blew it and wound up looking like a jerk. Ramos is an advocate for illegal Hispanics. Trump is full of BS but
it was his press conference. Trump loves a confrontation and used this incident to gain favor with the Fox Nut news Network. Greenwald is way off base in this article, I usually love and agree with his articles.


Lie. With no evidence. I suppose you think Ramos shouted, like the delusional Trump.
 
 
+5 # hectormaria 2015-08-27 08:41
As I understand it: a reporter reports; a journalist reports, questions and interprets; a pundits just comments; and, some like Caputo are merely part of the conservative propaganda machine.
 
 
+3 # John Escher 2015-08-27 11:05
Quoting hectormaria:
As I understand it: a reporter reports; a journalist reports, questions and interprets; a pundits just comments; and, some like Caputo are merely part of the conservative propaganda machine.


i.e., he's a eunuch.
 
 
-2 # RnR 2015-08-27 08:58
I live in a border state. All my friends are Hispanic, but American Hispanic - families here for centuries, Spanish with no ties to Mexico, they're *not* Mexican.

My friends are just as opposed to the influx of illegals from Mexico as any so-called "racist". 2 of my women friends were single parents - they were not eligible for any aid for their babies (they were working low paid retail jobs;) because they earned "too much". The illegals (using their anchor babies) have entire families receiving aid and don't believe it's not happening.

That's just the tip. Sorry if the truth is offensive but it needs to be dealt with.

The same way Jorge Ramos demanded to question is the manner in which our social services are being demanded.

And believe me, they **demand**

Mr. Greenwald you are one of my favorites along with Jeremy Scahill and Matt Taibi
 
 
+10 # Anne Frank 2015-08-27 09:09
Sorry you have been soaking up fascist propaganda like a racist sponge. Undocumented aliens are not eligible for ANY government aid.
 
 
-6 # RnR 2015-08-27 09:21
wanna bet, sorry you've been buying into the state position
 
 
-7 # RnR 2015-08-27 09:22
it's called "using others papers" and yes, with an anchor baby the ***entire family*** is eligible. Best read some in your spare time.
 
 
-9 # skylinefirepest 2015-08-27 09:37
Sorry Annie, but your comment is simply not true. And they are not "undocumented aliens" they are ILLEGAL aliens that came across our border un-invited and brought people from other countries with them that don't have our best interests at heart...check with Homeland Security for the basis of that statement.
 
 
+3 # pegasus4508 2015-08-27 18:01
While a single mom who is working is NOT eligible for welfare, she is eligible for food stamps, daycare and medical insurance. Your entire "response" smacks of lies and half truths.
 
 
-2 # RnR 2015-08-28 09:19
Uh no, it does not. Daycare? In what fantasy world do you live? Parents/Grandpa rents are daycare for most.

Medical insurance? They're earning minimum wage.

Please, refute the statement that using an anchor baby an entire family becomes eligible for **ALL** aid in the USofA.
 
 
-2 # RnR 2015-08-28 09:29
For the both of you (and your entourage) the point is: YOU TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN FIRST. It's the anniversary of Katrina, paid attention at all to the state of the black population? The condition of NOLA in areas not featured on the news shorts?

How about student loans? Don't you think education deserves some attention? No, we do not need to support/enable illegal immigration. How about mountaintop removal and the free ride the coal industry is getting along with spreading the joy of lung diseases? Sorry I'm a homie. All of this is lost on you who live removed from the actuality of what your misguided pseudo-liberal yapping generates.

Mexico wants the illegals here, they send a lot of money back. It's probably a big part of the Mexican economy.
 
 
-6 # RnR 2015-08-27 08:59
It's me again, from my border state. My Spanish friends regularly listen to the spanish radio (mexican radio) and the word is...they're vowing to "get rid" of Donald Trump.

There you have it
 
 
+4 # pegasus4508 2015-08-27 18:06
You do realize that Spain is in Europe, don't you? Both Mexicans and Spanish folks speak SPANISH - but they are from different continents. Not much else in common.
 
 
+10 # Anne Frank 2015-08-27 09:07
Objectivity is an important journalistic principle at the Washington Post. Except when the subject is Israel. Or bombing Libya, Yemen, or Iraq back to the stone age. Or exterminating the native population of Palestine so the Nazi master race can occupy the land. Or the Ukraine. Or Russia. Or Venezuela. Or any other object of State Department propaganda. Or Hillary Clinton.
 
 
+8 # Stilldreamin1 2015-08-27 09:16
Agree wholeheartedly with Greenwald, not for the first time. It's why I stopped listening to NPR years ago. I call it 'All Things Predigested'Rem ember when people would tune in to hear Daniel Shore? Was it Iran/Contra- I'm not sure. I would wait for him to say something conclusive but he never did. He never said anything worth listening to. 'Balance' leads to equating the two sides of a story even if one side is clearly illegal and undemocratic and dangerous. NPR serves an essential role in American society- it helps to keep well-meaning people from actually doing anything. It neuters the potentially risky liberals. They are tied in knots by all that false balance. And then the feel good theme music makes everything smooth and safe.
 
 
+1 # davehaze 2015-08-28 12:08
stilldreamin1

I stopped listening to NPR in 1992 and renamed their premier program All Things WMD. You can check out NPR's corporate bias at FAIR, fairness and accuracy in reporting.
 
 
+10 # suzyskier 2015-08-27 09:42
Trump is coming across as our modern day fascist. Hitler wouldn't allow people to speak or ask questions of him either. In fact if you dared to, Dachau was the result. This anti Mexican rhetoric is it really any different that 1930's anti Semitism? So far no death camps but it really is chilling. Trump would make a terrible president. Many say it could never happen, I hope they are right because if not this country is going to continue in it's far right turn. He spells out what he would do and many Americans just jump on the hateful prejudice band wagon. What does that say about us? Are we going to be the next war mongering nation?

It looks very sadly like the corporations are getting even stronger.
 
 
+5 # Merlin 2015-08-27 11:28
suzyskier 2015-08-27 09:42
"Are we going to be the next war mongering nation?"

We all ready are. Look at our real history since 1941.
 
 
+2 # mdj777 2015-08-27 13:15
"We have reached the point where something is not valid unless someone in authority says so."

Those words were spoken years ago at a science conference, but they have stayed in my mind. While he was lamenting how a certain hypothesis can be dismissed before experiments are conducted, his point applies to politics as well. For the self-styled mainstream press, whether print or broadcast, has put assertion and repetition at center stage. And those who question are dismissed.
 
 
+4 # torch and pitchfork 2015-08-27 13:28
If the "main stream media" doesn't start doing their jobs with quality questions and followups, in addition to limiting his long winded nonsensical responses, this windbag might get elected. His appeal is scary. 1930's Germany all over again.
 
 
+4 # Skippydelic 2015-08-27 17:18
Two words: "The Jungle".

Over 100 years ago, Upton Sinclair blew the lid off the meat-packing industry by exposing the squalid conditions that workers had to deal with!

If Sinclair had been like today's 'objective reporters', would 'The Jungle' have even been WRITTEN?

Probably not…

Trump is advocating a VERY dangerous policy! It's BLATANTLY unconstitutiona l, it would cost almost 140 BILLION dollars, and it scapegoats ALL Hispanics - whether citizens, legal immigrants, or illegal - in the same way that Hitler scapegoated the Jews!

Marc Caputo has NO skin in the game, nor do ANY of the 'objective journalists' who've criticized Jorge Ramos!

Ramos, on the other hand, has his ENTIRE skin in there! He was born in Mexico, immigrated to the United States, and became the most trusted Latino newsman - a Hispanic Walter Cronkite, if you will - and he takes his responsibility to the Hispanic community VERY seriously!

As for Trump, this makes him look like even MORE of a douche!

And a fascist!

It's VERY clear that Trump considers himself to be ABOVE question or criticism; things are going to be done HIS way, and if you don't like it, too bad!

What can be done before it's too late?
 
 
+2 # Dongi 2015-08-27 17:53
I had the sa*e thought *yself.
 
 
+1 # RnR 2015-08-28 06:47
Just wait until he and Ted Cruz have their little soiree protesting the Iraq Deal - that'll be the end of my looking favorably upon The Donald.
 
 
+1 # RnR 2015-08-28 06:49
The "Iran" deal of course. It's early here. Ted Cruz? Bad move Donald.
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2015-08-27 20:01
re : Jorge Ramos Commits Journalism, Gets Immediately Attacked by Journalists

- any man bites dog story like this should, but for fascist trump, be published by a humorist in the new yorker - i am checking the byline - go bernie!
 
 
0 # Robbee 2015-08-27 20:03
news flash! hill calls zomblicans "terrorists"! go hill!
 
 
-4 # KarlRKaiser 2015-08-28 17:19
There's plenty to dislike about Trump without ginning up controversies like this, and calling them "journalism", just to smear him.

Ramos was NOT "committing journalism", he made himself the story by shouting everyone down when he couldn't go next.

Ramos acted like a protester, not a journalist, so nobody should be surprised if he was not treated like a journalist.

And eventually he was let back into the press conference and got to ask more questions than anybody else. But who gives Trump credit for that?
 
 
-2 # KarlRKaiser 2015-08-28 17:21
What do you suppose would happen to Bill O'Reilly if he came to an Obama press conference and kept shouting because he couldn't be the next person to ask questions?
 
 
+1 # Merlin 2015-09-03 03:19
KarlRKaiser 2015-08-28 17:21

Your question has no value and no meaning.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN