Why Is The L.A. Times Coverage Of Jamiel's Law
Biased?
By Walter Moore, Candidate For Mayor of Los Angeles,
WalterMooreForMayor.com
Why is the L.A. Times coverage of Jamiel's Law biased? In a word, "money."
Jamiel's Law would apply only to illegal aliens in gangs. However,
the L.A. Times has confused its readers by publishing a raft of articles about
the supposed disadvantages of ending "sanctuary city" protection for all
illegal aliens (e.g., day laborers), rather than focusing on those in gangs.
Want to know why? The company that owns the L.A. Times also owns a
Spanish-language newspaper called "Hoy." Sales at Hoy would plummet if L.A.'s
"sanctuary city" status ended.
During the past four years, the L.A. Times has lost 20% of its daily
circulation. Hoy, by contrast, is bullish about the growth of "Spanish
Speaking Hispanics" in Los Angeles: the publisher expects a 42% increase by
the year 2525, for a total of 7.3 million.
"Hoy publications," the company recently reported, "have a gross weekly
distribution of more than 1,375,000 copies nationwide."
So when you wonder why the L.A. Times hires reporters and editors who never seem
to "get it," just remember: the newspaper is a business. Unfortunately, it's a
business that puts its own profits ahead of the lives of the people of L.A.
The publishers are not going to entrust their English-language subsidiary to
managers who might cut sales at their Spanish-language subsidiary. Instead, the
publishers hire reporters and editors willing to adhere to the "party line,"
namely, "there are no illegal people."
The L.A. Times should, at a minimum, disclose its conflict of interest. After
all, whenever ABC news reports on the Disney company, the newscasters always
disclose that Disney is ABC's parent company. Shouldn't the Times disclose, when
it reports on illegal immigration, that it is owned by the same company that
owns a Spanish-language newspaper?