Of baking facts and illegal immigration

I've covered immigration -- legal and otherwise -- for more than 15 years, and I don't think there's a topic that evokes as much passion as this one. So, I wasn't surprised about the response I got for the story on CSUMB Otter Republicans holding an "illegal immigration bake sale." A lot of the response is in the comments portion of the article, and since it's pretty much the same arguments everyone throws around, I won't take the time to respond.

But I will respond to this: a female reader who did not identify her name, left a phone message saying she learned in the fifth grade that journalists are supposed to report "what happens, not push their own agendas." And by my own agenda, I assume the reader was referring to my quoting from reliable sources and shedding some light on the assertions that Otter Republicans were throwing.

In other words, I was supposed just to let the Otter Republicans say whatever they felt like saying without verifying the accuracy of their assertions.

Really? Is that what you think journalism is -- or should be -- about?

I think we journalists have gone way to long on just regurgitating facts without holding our sources -- or ourselves -- accountable. For years we reported that the Sherrif's department was getting less money (it wasn't true, but then Sheriff Kanalakis liked to say that, and none of us bothered to check his figures) that global warming doesn't exist (another big lie), that there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (we know the answer to that one). Very, very few journalism outlets challenged this last assertion, and we went to war on a false assumption, just because we just reported what we were told without bothering to check the facts. Stenographers of power.

So, if a candidate for office tells me Hartnell's President makes a ton of money, am I supposed to just report that? Or if they tell me that President Clinton endorsed them, should I print that too?

Or should I, like I'm asked by readers over and over again, CHECK THE FACTS?

What it really boils down to is this: immigration is such a passionate topic that very few people allow themselves to hear arguments "from the other side." So, when facts are presented to them, they dismiss them as an "agenda" they don't agree with.

And passion often gets mixed up with facts. I sympathize with the young white student who has to work while going to school and feel that Dream Act students are getting a free ride -- I had to do it myself and is no picnic. He is entitled to his feelings. On the other hand, there's young Latinos who feel this backlash is just directed at them because they're people of color. They too are entitled to their feelings.

But their feelings are not facts.

Fortunately, there's a lot of people who are in the middle, still willing to hear both sides of the argument. That's something that doesn't get reported often enough either.