Midweek Round Up – Immigration, Crime and AIDs

There was a time when the Media industry served others. Some institutions like the British BBC served the UK government and the conservative-leaning establishment. Some Newspapers, like the Daily Mirror and the old long-departed Daily Herald served the Labour Party and the Trade Unions. The Daily Express and other similar newspapers served the Business world. The Daily Telegraph, prior to the ownership of Conrad Black, was unique in the absolute accuracy and fairness of its reporting, and its bias was reserved for its editorial page. But with all of them, the news either openly served an outside interest group or no interest at all except to convey genuine news.

In the US much the same was true, in that newspapers served a wide variety of outside interests, that this was pretty transparent and that most news outlets generally concentrated on reflecting the views and prejudices of their readers.

Since the 1970’s, when the Media Class began to coalesce into a powerful ruling Class and acquire a unique Class interest of its own, the Media industry has stopped serving others and indeed has stopped reflecting readers’ interests and prejudices, except where the readership is Leftist and in tune with the Media Class agenda. This is true in both the UK and USA, and probably most other technically advanced nations. The exceptions are the nation states that are governed by totalitarian regimes. In those states, the Media serves the ruling political party.

On this website we have repeatedly identified various key items on the Media Class agenda (we call them litmus test issues) and explained the why and how. Nevertheless, even those of us who are alerted to the new purpose of Media ‘news’, remain susceptible to being manipulated, time and time again. It requires great intellectual discipline to question every news item we see and hear. The best way to guard against being led by the nose is to ask oneself about every article and report ‘Why and how did this get here?’ For nothing gets onto the page of a major newspaper/magazine or into a TV broadcast (not even a comedy show or soap) by chance, or on the basis that it really is news as measured by any objective standard. Small circulation local newspapers and radio stations may include genuine local news and agenda-less trivia, but the major outlets are not desperate to fill space and thus select everything carefully. The more column inches a topic commands and the more frequently it appears in various disguises, the more one must ask the questions ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’

Two recent pieces in the Wall Street Journal almost got past my radar last week until I applied my tests. Then I realised that they contain important items of the Media agenda that surface constantly and are usually dressed up to appear as if they have arrived accidentally or by the sheer importance of their news-worthiness.

The first was on Friday June 15th and was headlined “An Ex-Wife’s Battle: Set Mr. Garcia Free” The sub heading was “Contesting a Lone Murder Witness Became Mrs Ortega’s 15-Year Odyssey”. The ‘story’ required two Journal reporters (Paul Davies and Phil Kuntz) and commenced on page one and continued on page A12. It is big on page one and occupies ALL of page A12! Several sympathetic pictures are featured. Mr. and Mrs. Ortega are people of color and from the Dominican Republic and the story incidentally tells us how Mr. Ortega sneaked into the US illegally after his marriage and regularly cheated on his wife. Despite this, and his making a New York girlfriend pregnant, Mrs. Ortega continued to bear more of his children. In New York he quickly got into drug-dealing and was eventually accused of the murder by shooting of another drug dealer. He was convicted of murder, but Mrs. Ortega, despite his constant cheating and lack of concern for their children, entered the US, became a citizen, got an education and set about fighting his conviction. The alibi she had for him was that he had covertly returned to her in the Dominican Republic at the time of the murder and she produced people (friends and relatives) who were willing to swear to this. After a long legal battle of several years, the case finally came before a sympathetic New York judge. The key witness to the murder had, by this time become unreliable. Ortega was set free but was deported back to his country. The journalists clearly intend that we should be greatly moved by Mrs. Ortega’s dedication to this deadbeat husband, though Dr. Laura Schlesinger would have a different take on a woman who is irresponsible enough to keep having children by such a feckless and criminal man, then uproots them all and takes them to New York to dedicate her life to setting him free.

We are also supposed to be moved by his sons’ pleas (sent to the sentencing Court in writing) for him to be granted citizenship and one is quoted near the end of the article as writing to the authorities “Most importantly, I wanted my father to be there to teach me how to be a man”. Only journalists who inhabit a make-believe world could insert this piece of nonsense with serious intent! Mrs. Ortega wrote that the family has “established our lives in this country, and we deserve the opportunity to spend our lives together in this country”. One might wonder why Mrs. Ortega does not reunite her family in the Dominican Republic, since there is no legal impediment to doing so, but Mrs. Ortega and her children do not seem to be planning that solution.

This article is more than 4000 words in length. That is an awful lot of words for one topic in a national newspaper like the Journal. In fact, over the last few years, there have been several similar very long articles that start on the front page and feature feckless people of color in an uncritically sympathetic light. We have referred to some in previous pieces on this website. They all have the same thread, which is that some great injustice has been inflicted by the US on poor struggling people (preferably of African descent), either through its welfare system or its legal system. Every piece includes comments from the usual obscure ‘Human Rights’ spokespersons, who always seem to be at the reporters’ elbows.

In this case it is the “Innocence Project” and a Mr. Wells. This article is designed to undermine confidence in the US criminal justice system and to show that barring illegal Third World immigrants is inhuman, even when they have criminal records. These are regular targets of the Media Class and their Leftist allies. The article also attempts to paint a sanitized picture of a particular racial minority and this is always a litmus test for the Left and its Media Masters. We will not read in the Journal a similar story about a Finnish or Ukrainian family, for Leftists, in and out of the Media are not interested in opening the floodgates of immigration for Europeans, or even for educated Indians or Chinese and South East Asians, for these people are easily assimilable and rarely need the State’s social services. In minimal time they become economically independent and contribute to America’s well-being. They are invariably law-abiding. They also inter-marry and easily integrate into the US mainstream. This is not an outcome that the Left and its Media masters desire.

There are many African Americans and people of color in the US who have overcome all obstacles, uphold the law and raise good families. Some join the military and sacrifice their lives. There are also many Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and other immigrants who have overcome every obstacle (including language) and prospered. Journalists and their editors are not interested in them and readers of this website will know why. I do not recall the Journal ever writing sympathetic articles and life stories about any of the Swift Boat Veterans (many of them decorated war heroes) who revealed John Kerry’s deceits. No Wall Street Journalist explores the life and hardships of a family who have lost a father in Iraq – unless it can be turned into a bitter criticism of the war. Yet this ‘newspaper’ has somehow discovered Mrs. Ortega from amongst the millions of immigrants in the US. She is not the kind of person who mingles with Media people on a daily basis, nor is she likely to be in the social set at the Hamptons, so how did her story, shorn of any searching questions, make it into 4000 words starting on the Journal’s front page? We might wonder how Mr. Ortega was able to get into the US so easily and more than once. We might ask why he chose to become a drug dealer and made a good living from a daily life of crime. We could be forgiven for thinking that a woman so obsessed with such a man that she goes on having his babies at every opportunity, might be willing to concoct an alibi. We might ask how a woman with several children and no education, (and a husband who was a convicted murderer) was able to get into the US and get citizenship and an education for free, when many law abiding and educated Europeans cannot. Don’t expect such questions and observations to surface in this newspaper or any other because Media Class people consider them to be bigoted, racist and uncaring. Or at least, by classing them as such, they do not have to answer them and can get on with pursuing the agenda.

On Monday June 18th, on the Journal’s MARKETPLACE front page was a piece headlined “Abbott Breaks With Industry, Sues AIDS Group”. This piece is also by two reporters and occupies over 1000 words, and is doing to Abbott Laboratories what many pieces regularly do to Walmart, which is to give the company a bad name and force it to march to the Media Class drumbeat. Walmart’s crime is to resist union domination and be successful. It is considered to be a ‘conservative’ company. Abbott’s crime is to want to make a profit on its AIDS drugs, just as it does on all its other drugs. Most drug companies have increasingly given in to sustained Media pressure and treated AIDS drugs as if they were a welfare ‘right’. To my knowledge this expectation of free medication has only applied to AIDS drugs. The process is for AIDS activists to start a campaign around the world demanding that the drugs for their condition be supplied free or near free and for the Media to orchestrate and amplify this demand. Abbott Laboratories has not only refused to submit this time, but has begun a legal action against a militant little group in France that calls itself ‘Act up-Paris’. This group mounted a cyber attack on Abbott, disrupting its business. Abbott’s response has outraged AIDS activists around the world and I suspect it has outraged the Journal’s editors and reporters and the Media Class in general.

The reporters write “With its lawsuit – the company is violating an unwritten practice the drug industry long ago adopted to be conciliatory toward AIDS organizations. Aside from angering the global AIDS community, Abbott’s actions have prompted dismay among other drug makers, which have come to see picking fights with AIDS activists as self-defeating and bad public relations”. A “vice president of global community partnerships” for GlaxoSmithKline is quoted as saying, “Early on, we realized it was important to work with the activist groups.” She recalled, “the public-relations headaches AIDS activists caused for the British drug maker with their stunts in the late 1980’s when they chained themselves to company buildings.”

She might have added a comment about how all such stunts were successful only because a complicit Media was always on hand to amplify and orchestrate them! When Christians tie themselves up to abortion clinics to protest the taking of innocent lives for convenience, they do not get the sort of favorable and amplified Media publicity that causes Abortion Industry executives to feel they have to “work with them” and conciliate them.

Just ponder how a very different headline could have been attached to the Abbott story. What about “AIDS Activists Face Lawsuit For Alleged Criminal Cyber Attack” ! Or, “Abbott Stands Firm In Face Of Activist Threats”! Or, “Loss Making AIDS Drugs Will Force Up Prices Of Other Drugs”! The truth is that if drug companies are forced to give out HIV drugs unprofitably, they either cut back on research or charge other groups of sick people more for theirs.

We might wonder why the reporters were unwilling to dig up the facts about Act Up-Paris. Who are these people and why are their blackmailing and seemingly illegal tactics tolerated? Are they HIV and AIDS infected people who acquired their health problems through reckless sexual behavior? Are they full-time agitators or do they have useful jobs to support themselves? Surely there are some interesting stories here that amount to more than background? Ahhh! But we mustn’t be judgemental and if we are we are clearly those same bigots who do not welcome illegal criminal immigrants into the US.

I do not believe that HIV sufferers should be denied medication or that supplies and costs should be based on whether they became infected through irresponsible behavior or by bad luck. My point is that many desperately sick people have a problem with limited and costly medications, and some terrible conditions (many of them involving children) do not even get researched because of lack of money. Yet only AIDS generates activists, who, through publicity stunts and illegal attacks, get major drug companies to capitulate to their demands for priority. Cancer sufferers are not referred to in the Media as a “community” and they do not carry out stunts and illegal attacks on drug companies. Nor is it politically incorrect to tell people to stop smoking to lower the risk of lung cancer. On such things we are allowed to be judgemental, but not about AIDS. This Journal piece is slanted to get Abbott to jump into line with the other intimidated drug companies. If AIDS people get their medications free or at cost, other sick people will probably pay more theirs. Did the reporters mention that? No, and they won’t!

AIDS stories appear with monotonous regularity in all major news outlets and are often synchronized with an international AIDS conference or UN report (of which there are endless events). This Abbott story, and its slant, are part of a Media pattern and we can understand it when we recognize the Media Class, its power, and its agenda. AIDS has been elevated to the top of the list of diseases both for sympathetic publicity and resources and even Bill Gates and his buddies are on board for the Media agenda. The Media Class has been so successful that few of us question how and why it has become the priority.

I hope Abbott does not give in, but I doubt that their executives understand that they are really taking on the Media Class, many of whose members have a great personal interest in AIDS and cannot wait for the time when promiscuous ‘barebacking’ and other sexual treats are once again risk free. Abbott and its leaders are in for a long period of bad press and if they want to know just how bad they should talk to the BNP’s Nick Griffin or the Reverend Ian Paisley, or even Clarence Thomas. What all have in common is finding themselves on the Media Class hit list. Better still, Abbott people should read back through our website!

What's Your Opinion?