A disgruntled reader defends pro-SPLC writer

Oh, yeah, the mainstream press maintains strict professionalism and objectivity when it publishes the SPLC's press releases.


At least this reader thinks so:

I think you're letting your own biases cloud your vision here, Mr. Rebellion.

And I think someone's spoiling for a fight.

The story you tried to smear as biased toward the Southern Poverty Law Center [Interview with the SPLC] is as fair and impartial as it could be. The quote from Mr. Potok was balanced by other quotes defending the accused. I suppose you'd only be satisfied if only the defenders of ethnic intimidation were heard from.

[Name withheld by request - permission granted to post email]

Dear Name,

But the article not only quoted Count Potokula from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but the pro-amnesty Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund as well. These nationally known, well-funded organizations are going to carry more weight with unsuspecting readers than the supportive comments of the accused boys' friends and neighbors.

Then, to add even more authority to the pro-open borders side, the article quoted a sociology professor who poses as an expert on "hate crimes." And wouldn't you know his comments echo the SPLC position:

"Jack Levin, a sociology professor at Boston's Northeastern University who has written books on hate crimes, said he could see it coming.

In a 24-hour news culture, where blogs, talk radio and cable TV provide a steady torrent of negative stereotypes about illegal immigrants, Latinos are primed as potential victims, Levin said."

So where were the quotes from organizations and scholars who oppose amnesty for illegal alien invaders? Representatives of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, VDare, or Americans for Legal Immigration are easily contacted and eager to tell their story. Why didn't the writer provide an authoritative quote from them? He would -- IF he really cared about presenting both sides of this crisis.

I'll say it again: the mainstream corporate press continues to ignore the obvious truth that the SPLC makes its fortune by painting all immigration control activists as evil racists who want to kill minorities out of irrational hatred. Dees & Co. terrify little old liberals with visions of Klansmen and neo-Nazis being behind all border security efforts -- which, naturally, benefits big corporations always hungry for more cheap, exploitable labor. So there's a financial incentive behind the SPLC's version of immigration reform. Doesn't that deserve just a little probing? Doesn't it demand a little extra effort to provide real balance?