Well, surprise, surprise. The Media Research Center released a study yesterday that says by a margin of twelve to one, the coverage has been heavily negative: ABC, CBS, and NBC all are ripping Arizona’s immigration law.  Anyone who follows this site or others like it won’t find this figure shocking, but it does illustrate how a law in one individual state (remember that Federalism thing?) that’s quite popular with the American people can create such controversy. Guess  it doesn’t really matter what the people think when the media is a subsidiary of Big Brother.

liberal media bias

So here’s how it works: the media takes a popular law that doesn’t fit perfectly with their PC mindset, they lie about it, rinse and repeat, get The Man himself to weigh in, and presto!  The law suddenly becomes “controversial.”

Now, there is a debate to be had on this law, and there is some inherent controversy in it to be sure, but the media hysteria certainly makes for a teachable moment in just how biased the media can be when they put their minds to it.

From the article:

When political scientists compare populism and elitism, they could certainly find a test case in the new Arizona law on immigration enforcement. While Rasmussen found 70 percent of Arizonans favored the crackdown on illegal aliens, and new national media polls found majority support as well, ABC, CBS, and NBC denounced the popular will as short-sighted and discriminatory.

From April 23 to May 3, the top three television networks offered viewers 50 stories and interview segments on their morning and evening news programs. The tone was strongly hostile to the law and promotional to the “growing storm” of left-wing protesters: 37 stories (or 74 percent) were negative, 10 were neutral, and only three were positive toward the Arizona law’s passage – 12 negative stories for every one that leaned positive. Stories were much kinder and sympathetic to illegal aliens than they were to police officers. Cops were potential abusers of power. Entering the country illegally was not an abuse of power. It was portrayed as an honorable step by the powerless.

The soundbite count was also slanted, with 92 quotes against the law and only 52 in favor. The pro-law numbers, however, included many soundbites of Arizona public officials defending themselves against liberal charges that they were racists or in favor of racial profiling.