For Post Reporter No Window into Microsoft's Motives
Alan Tonelson
Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Because Washington Post columnist David Broder is not a journalistic neophyte, or an ideologue, he would never write an article on George W. Bush’s presidency based entirely on an interview with Vice President Cheney. Nor would he write an article on Washington lobbying based entirely on materials from convicted bribe-master Jack Abramoff. Obviously, neither source would be remotely objective.

So why did Broder just write an article on high-tech immigration based solely on an interview with Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, whose company’s major stake in this issue has nothing to do with his professed “long-term goal of expanding the supply of qualified Americans for these jobs”?

Had Broder done even minimal background research, he would have quickly discovered Microsoft’s real agenda: Turning the U.S. information technology sector from a high-paying to a low-paying sector. He would have found Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s publically stated advice for high-tech job creation in 2004: “Lower the pay of U.S. professionals to $50,000 and it won’t make sense for employers to put up with the hassle of doing business in developing countries.” He would have discovered that, according to the most detailed study to date of pay for high-tech immigrants, these workers can earn as much as 25 percent less than the average for their occupation. And he would have learned that Microsoft itself pays immigrant workers no more than their U.S.-born counterparts, even though Gates told him that demand for their skills is skyrocketing.

But he didn’t do the research and reporting. He simply took Gates’ propaganda at face value. What else could this be but still another sign that even the media’s best and brightest view globalization as fundamentally different from most issues they cover – a field where objectivity, balance, context, and accuracy are not revered principles, but mere words on a page?