Default
Illegal Immigration Foes Are, Uh, "Old News," Says Chicago Tribune Reporter
Default author
August 08, 2008, 06:00 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Hal Dardick is no rookie in Chicago print journalism circles, which makes even more inexcusable his lopsided coverage of a hearing called by a "visibly moved" Ald. Danny Solis (25th) to address allegations that Chicago cops were (gasp!) violating  city and county sanctuary ordinances by turning illegals over to the feds. ["Hispanics say city traffic violators are being turned over to immigration agents," Chicago Tribune, August 5, 2008]

This hearing, like all such hearings, was held to parade the plight of illegals before a public that must be going through its Kleenex supply faster than politicians spend tax dollars.  To demonstrate the city`s sense of fair play, Solis also invited testimony from six anti-illegal immigration activists.  Four of these individuals, including Rosanna Pulido, who represented "You Don`t Speak for Me," spoke on behalf of this nation`s sovereignty and the rule of law. (Pulido also reports that during these proceedings, a Chicago Police district commander testified that the department will be working with the Mexican Consulate to produce a video explaining the "rights" of illegals living in Chicago.  More, hopefully, on this later.)

But don`t look for their comments in Dardick`s (e-mail) story or, for that matter, in the Sun-Times` piece written by Fran Spielman, that paper`s long-time City Hall reporter, "Alderman: Who is tipping ICE on immigrant motorist arrests?" Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 6. Here is how Dardick defends his one-sided coverage of Solis` boo-hoo dog and pony show:

Given the very short space I had to tell the story, I thought it best to focus on the issue raised by the aldermen and the response of city, county and federal officials. All of that was new information that had never before been written about. The belief by many activists that immigration laws should be enforced was not new and has been written about thousands of times. Unfortunately, we are forced to make those kind of judgments in this business. And, if you read how the sanctuary-city laws are crafted, at least in Chicago and Cook County, they are worded in such a way as not to be in violation of federal law. I suppose they are walking a fine line and someone could sue them over that.

All that said, I do appreciate your input.

As disappointing as Dardick`s response is, I`ll give him credit for having enough class to respond to my concerns.

Which is more than I can say for Ms. Spielman (e-mail), who has yet to respond to her copy of my e-mail to Dardick.  Perhaps she views me as a washed-up Chicago journalist now sitting on his front porch in rural southwestern Wisconsin, wearing bib overalls, cleaning off the bottoms of his shoes, and wiping Red Man Chewing Tobacco juice from his chin.  That`s OK by me.  I`ll just add her name to my growing list of "reporters" who want the rest of us to believe that they walk on water and answer to no one except their advertisers and, on occasion, the Mexican government and their agents who hold elected office in this country.