Thread: NPR Democratic radio debate December 4, 2007 11-1PST

NPR Democratic radio debate December 4, 2007

On Tuesday, December 4, NPR will ( http://www.npr.org/about/press/2007/111907.debate.html ) be holding a radio-only presidential debate featuring the Democratic candidates from 11am to 1pm Pacific, so be sure a leave a note on the dash of your Volvo. A GOP version remains to be scheduled.

And, they're soliciting questions from listeners, such as at this ( http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/11/a ... ation.html ) entry seeking questions about immigration. One will note that the second comment is from yours truly. Unfortunately, many of the other questions given by others are rather weak; even if their somnolescent hosts ask anything remotely similar to one of my questions, they'll probably just accept what the candidates say at face value and move on. But, you never know. The audio will be made available, and if anything interesting happens or if NPR lets lies slip past them I might make videos from it.
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007285.html

These look like old dates. Are you sure its on today?

NPR AND IOWA PUBLIC RADIO ANNOUNCE DETAILS FOR LIVE NATIONAL
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ON DECEMBER 4

CRITICALLY-PRAISED PUBLIC RADIO FORMAT,
INTRODUCED IN 2004, TO RETURN;
STEVE INSKEEP, MICHELE NORRIS AND ROBERT SIEGEL TO MODERATE

ALL DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES CONFIRMED TO PARTICIPATE

Roberto Lovato|
NPR Crosses Dangerous Racial Border, Asks Candidates if Citizens Should "Report" Immigrants
Posted December 5, 2007 | 06:13 PM (EST)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: 2008 Debates, 2008 Election, Debates, Democratic Debates, Illegal Immigrants, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Npr, NPR Democratic Debate, NPR Iowa Democratic Debate, Breaking Politics News



During questioning in the Democratic radio debate yesterday, debate sponsor NPR came dangerously close to promoting civilian pursuit of immigrants. The New York Times summed up NPR's questioning in this way,

"If there is one issue that has challenged presidential candidates of both parties in Iowa this year, it is immigration, and the Democratic contenders were confronted with it again Tuesday, in a provocative way. Should American citizens, they were asked, turn in someone they know to be an illegal immigrant?"
Email
Print
Comment
Even after Hillary Clinton responded that citizens should not be "enforcing the broken laws of our federal immigration system," NPR's Steven Inskeep continued the line of questioning by asking, "If a citizen witnessed some other kind of crime, wouldn't you want them to report it?"

Contrary to what the Times tells us, such a line of questioning is not just "provocative", but is, in fact, more like DANGEROUS. In a political environment that already lends itself to countless forms of racial profiling (and to smashing the distinction between federal and local law enforcement under the guise of immigration policy), such a line of questioning only serves to further legitimate another formerly wacky idea, an idea one could, until recently, only find in the netherworld of white supremacist websites. Even those who constantly ask me, "What don't you understand about the word 'illegal'?" should recognize the inherent danger in NPR's approach.

Yesterday's questioning of the Democratic presidential candidates around immigration seems to indicate that NPR is willing to use public airwaves to provide broader forum for formerly fringe ideas. Public airing of such questions will only exacerbate racial tensions against Latino and other migrants that even the FBI tells us are the object of a disturbing increase in hate crimes (and that's just the tiny minority of anti-immigrant hate crimes that are even reported).

What would happen if, for example, such state-funded media started asking whether it was advisable for citizens to single out and report other people based on their religion or physical appearance? Experiences in Germany during WWII and here in the U.S. during the pre- and post-Emancipation periods have already demonstrated the danger in state-funded -- or any other media -- isolating a group for pursuit by local and federal authorities and civilians. This kind of racial logic further deepens the abyss opened after 9/11, when Muslims, South Asians and Arabs became the "beta's" for the new, state-sponsored, national security-tinged profiling of immigrants and other non-whites.

NPR's line of questioning has started taking us beyond "racial profiling" and into even more treacherous racial and political terrain. Imagine what would happen if, for example, some us decide to get licensed guns, drive to the U.S.-Canada border, capture and hog tie blond-haired, blue-eyed people that we suspect of being undocumented. Would we-say, the "Minutomen" -- get the same fair and balanced treatment from law enforcement and the media as the Minutemen, who have undertaken these very actions against Latino migrants near the U.S.-Mexico border? And would these white immigrants get the same treatment by federal and local law enforcement, civilians and NPR and other media?

NPR should know that raising these kinds of questions in the current climate will likely not result in profiling and further intensifying and expanding the governmental and civilian hunt for blond-haired, blue eyed Canadians and other whites. NPR's troubling line of questioning will instead impact non-whites already suffering the brunt of attacks by the same government that funds public radio.

NPR does have decent people and many relevant and good programs. But, left unchecked, those at NPR responsible for yesterday's debate questioning on immigration will likely follow the tried, true and audience-building path paved by hate radio on a.m. and private sector "successes" like Lou Dobbs, CNN and other media making an industry of fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment.

We should not be complicit in allowing publicly-funded institutions like NPR to cross this dangerous racial border.

This post first appeared on Robert Lovato's blog.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roberto-l ... 75529.html

NPR Democratic debate: weak questions on immigration, logical fallacies

NPR held a Democratic debate earlier today, and it currently looks like they asked a few incredibly weak questions on immigration that simply allowed the candidates to give their stock speeches. Not only that, but the questions appear to have been designed to make the candidates look slightly reasonable by comparison. Rather than asking questions that would have revealed the downsides of their plans - such as the ones I submitted as the second comment here - they went for the strawman arguments.

I'll wait for the transcript to discuss the specifics, but see this, this, or NPR's summary here.

UPDATE: The transcript is here. While the unnamed moderator pressed Edwards and others on a couple issues, I'm struck by how weak the questions were and how many lies and misleading and incomplete statements the moderator let slip by them. There were six basic questions:

...Some citizens in Marshalltown turn in illegal immigrants; some take them in. There's actually a person who's been indicted for sheltering immigrants, which raises a question that I'd like to put to you. What obligations do American citizens have when it comes to illegal immigrants? Would you [Obama] expect Americans, if you're president, January 2009, immigration reform, whatever you want hasn't happened yet, would you expect Americans to turn in illegal immigrants when they come across?

No national figure is calling on people to turn in random illegal aliens. While the question then goes in to what public agencies should do, that doesn't excuse the stupidity of this question.

Senator Edwards, in a recent debate, you said, as I'm sure you've said many times, that illegal workers are exploited, that they're paid less, if they try to report problems, they're asked about their immigration status. But you have also said that you do not believe that illegal immigration is driving down wages. If they're being paid less, how can they not be driving down wages? [...response...] I just want to follow up, Senator Edwards, on something that you said. I've had the pleasure at a debate setting in front of you twice within the last week. And, at the debate on Saturday, you noted that undocumented immigrants are punished if they complain about unsafe conditions, if they speak up. And you noted that these workers would have rights, they would be looked after in an Edwards administration. What rights do immigrants have if they're working without proper authorization?

The moderator pressed him a couple times; the second time he appears to be supporting enforcing wage and workplace safety laws (just not immigration laws).

You [Hillary Clinton] said in a debate on Saturday night that you support people who are, as you put it, Yes, undocumented, but also working hard, trying to support their families. That's why they're here. In the same answer, you said you want to crack down on employers. Is there a contradiction there? If you crack down on employers, doesn't that mean you're telling employers to put these hard-working people, as you define them, out of work?

She went on to give her stock speech about "comprehensive immigration reform". She also gave the standard false choice between that mass deportations (something that, once again, no national figure is calling for). And, as a bonus, she referenced the extremely flawed Center for American Progress "study" about the cost of mass deportations. The moderator didn't call her on any of that.

But are you [Edwards] saying that, for you it's a matter of fact-finding, to see which way you would go on H1B visas, or have you already made up your mind that they should be limited or they should be increased?
I'll let someone familiar with that topic discuss how bad NPR bungled that part of the "debate".

And, finally, an issue that, while important in some ways, is of a much lower priority than other questions that should have been asked, and they didn't ask about the more important aspect of it but simply allowed the candidates to make speeches:

Will you remove the question about what language we speak when we call any U.S. government office?

That allowed Clinton to give a stock speech, and then Kucinich began to hum Kumbaya ("I see the world as one. I see the world as being interconnected and interdependent and there being an imperative for human unity.")

Finally, another incredibly weak question:

Anybody here willing to say directly that immigration, because of the millions and millions of people involved, is going to change American culture as it has in the past? American is not going to be the same kind of place it is now.

Obviously, there are cultural downsides to massive immigration, yet that question just allowed the candidates to, once again, give stock speeches.
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007291.html