Patterico's Pontifications

2/5/2009

L.A. Times Documents Immigration Authorities’ Shameful Policy of Actually Deporting Illegals With Whom They Come Into Contact

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Immigration — Patterico @ 7:10 am

I have difficulty conveying the depth of my contempt for this morning’s shoddy article on immigration enforcement.

In a nutshell, the L.A. Times appears to be upset that immigration authorities are doing their jobs better, and deporting more illegal immigrants. And editors express their dissatisfaction by grievously distorting a recent report on deportations and illegal alien criminals.

The article begins:

For more than five years, U.S. immigration authorities have touted the success of a national program aimed at arresting and deporting dangerous criminals and fugitives.

. . . .

But new data released Wednesday showed that 73% of the nearly 97,000 people arrested by the fugitive operations teams between 2003 and early 2008 did not have criminal records, according to a report by the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

The data, along with newly released internal memos, show that the agency abandoned its stated mission to go after dangerous fugitives and instead targeted noncriminal undocumented workers — the “low-hanging fruit,” said Peter L. Markowitz, director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law in New York, who sued the government to get the documents.

Reading that passage, you’d think that the agency was arresting fewer dangerous fugitives. Not so. Instead, the report shows that the agency has continued to go after dangerous fugitives — arresting them in increasing numbers as time goes on. The L.A. Times won’t tell you that inconvenient fact, because it destroys the dishonest narrative that they are foisting on readers.

So why is there a high percentage of arrestees who are not criminal aliens? The answer is simple. As ICE serves its warrants at the houses of fugitive aliens, it encounters a large number of other illegal immigrants. Before 2006, ICE had a policy of releasing these aliens, because they were not the targets of the raids, (Also, the arresting teams were operating under a quota system that required that 75% of the arrests be fugitive aliens. This discouraged arrests of other illegal immigrants found at the locations where warrants were served.)

In 2006, the policy was changed. Now, the teams serving these warrants were required to arrest any illegal alien with whom they came into contact. Overall arrests and deportations were expected to increase sharply — and they did. In 2003, the teams arrested 1901 illegals; in 2004, they arrested 6584. In 2006, by contrast, after the policy change, the number of overall arrests jumped to 15,462. In 2007, it was an astonishing 30,407.

The article mentions this explanation deeper in the article, but fails to tell you that: 1) the numbers show this explanation is accurate; 2) the absolute number of fugitive aliens with criminal records arrested has gone up over time; 3) there is no evidence that ICE has deliberately targeted locations with no fugitive aliens; and 4) overall arrests of fugitive aliens (with or without criminal records) has gone up significantly.

By accusing ICE of shifting its focus to illegal aliens without records, the L.A. Times implies that ICE has begun targeting locations containing no fugitive aliens at all. The report contains no evidence of that at all. Indeed, the report implies otherwise at page 20, saying that “[t]he majority of the arrests of [illegal immigrants without criminal records] presumably occur because such individuals happen to be nearby whlie [Fugitive Operations Teams] conduct their operations.” In other words, ICE is still targeting locations with fugitive aliens with criminal records. They are simply starting to arrest non-fugitive aliens whom they encounter during those raids.

Ultimately, the editors are whining that federal immigration officials are actually arresting and deporting more of the illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact.

And that’s a bad thing??

Once you understand what’s really going on, it’s hard to see it as a problem. It makes a better story to suggest that we have de-emphasized the effort to get the real bad guys.

Sure, the suggestion is false. But didn’t you hear what I said? It makes a better story.

The narrative is all that matters.

P.S. I have much more detail on the numbers here.

UPDATE: Much more on this here, mostly thanks to carlitos.

120 Responses to “L.A. Times Documents Immigration Authorities’ Shameful Policy of Actually Deporting Illegals With Whom They Come Into Contact”

  1. The Deciders.

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  2. Shocking!

    Mexico is only a place to go to recharge your cultural authenticity!

    Joe (17aeff)

  3. One more step into the LaBrea tar pits they go…

    Dmac (49b16c)

  4. Are you not informed?!?!?!

    /best Gladiator voice

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  5. Given the mayor of Los Angeles is a former gang member, what do you expect ? The descent of southern California into third world status continues unabated.

    MIke K (2cf494)

  6. Patterico, don’t worry, you made your point. It rings true and clear in sharp contrast to the dishonest rubbish the LA Times publishes. It’s too bad really, LA is a great city and the residents deserve better than they’re getting.

    I’m in SW Florida now and the news here is all about some pervert caught in his car in a supermarket parking lot engaged in suspect activity with two life size plastic girlfriends.

    Ropelight (e36d4f)

  7. “Justice Clinic”

    What. Ever. That’s sort of a clue that you should probably oughta be sorta skeptical of what the people there tell you I think.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  8. I was thinking the same thing – Immigration Justice Clinic?

    Initiated at the law school in 2008, the Immigration Justice Clinic responds to the vital need today for quality legal representation for indigent immigrants facing deportation, while also providing students with invaluable hands-on lawyering experience. The clinic represents immigrants facing deportation before federal immigration authorities and in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and represents immigrant community-based organizations on litigation and advocacy projects. Peter L. Markowitz, a practicing attorney and full-time clinical assistant professor, is the director.

    NEWS: Read the press release from February 4, 2009 on the uncovering of secret Bush-era immigration failures. It includes a copy of new data and a previously secret memorandum from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    That ‘secret memo’ explains exactly what Patterico said. They modified the quotas to not count ancillary aliens encountered at the residence. (pdf link) A program and ‘secret memo’ that increases, year after year, the numbers of fugitive and criminal illegal aliens is a bad thing why, exactly?

    From the memo:

    (1) fugitive vs. non-fugitive arrests, within the meaning of ICE’s Fugitive Case
    Management System Reporting and the 1000 Arrest Annual Goal for Fugitive
    Operation Teams Memorandum, dated Sept. 29, 2006;

    FY05: Fugitives: 5,781; Non-fugitive: 2,178

    FY06: Fugitives: 10,109; Non-fugitive: 5,353

    FY07: Fugitives: 18,323; Non-fugitive: 12,084

    FY08: Fugitives: 25,936; Non-fugitive: 8,219

    (2) criminal aliens arrested vs. non-criminal aliens arrested, within the meaning
    of ICE’s Case Load Priority with Fugitive Operations Memorandum, dated Jan
    22, 2004; and

    FY05: Criminal: 3,596; Non-criminal: 4,363

    FY06: Criminal: 4,525; Non-criminal: 10,937

    FY07: Criminal: 5,432; Non-criminal: 24,975

    FY08: Criminal: 7,919; Non-criminal: 26,230

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  9. There are no illegal aliens who are not criminals — they are called illegal aliens because they became criminals the instant they crossed the border without authorization.

    Why is this so difficult for the L.A. Times to accept?

    Anonymous (0d6d87)

  10. The mis-reporting of statistics is so endemic to journalism today as to be laughable. This stuff is pretty basic, but not required in j-school for some reason.

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  11. Clearly, clearly! y’all need Sanctuary City status.

    However, perhaps it should be pointed out that every illegal alien arrested is a criminal: if someone is in the country illegally, he is a criminal, period.

    The natural-born citizen Dana (3e4784)

  12. This stuff is pretty basic, but not required in j-school for some reason.

    It has to do with the mathematical and statistical illiteracy of so many of today’s humanities graduates, which of course include a great number of journalists. That is why you will see a sensational story that the murder rate in a town tripled in the last year, then upon closer inspection you find that the numbers went from 2 to 6, with three of them coming in a triple-homicide. It’s an entirely explainable change, but reporters don’t have the number sense to understand the significance.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  13. plastic girlfriends

    I’ve had my share over the yea…oh, you meant real polyvinyl?

    Never mind.

    allan (75d376)

  14. Great post. Thanks for continuing to try and keep them honest, Pat. I think you actually have to flunk statistics and logic to get a J-school degree these days.

    Chris (b886a5)

  15. Do you think anyone in this city can connect the dots to lax immigration policies and the inevitable results:

    “The City Council on Wednesday agreed to pay nearly $13 million to people injured or mistreated in a May Day melee in MacArthur Park, bringing to more than $30 million the money spent over the last two weeks to settle lawsuits alleging LAPD misconduct.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-lapd-settlement5-2009feb05,0,6422687.story

    TakeFive (7c6fd5)

  16. Chris, I just saw a term on our adjective-happy Dana’s site that might fit your last sentence. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. ;)

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  17. Glad you covered this Pat. I heard this hack from Cardozo Law on KPCC on Pat Morrison’s show yesterday. It reminded me why I only reserve listening to Pat Morrison to when I’ve ingested something bad that needs to come up in a hurry.

    CStudent (557fcb)

  18. It has to do with the mathematical and statistical illiteracy of so many of today’s humanities graduates

    Or why a reduction in the rate of growth is reported as a “cut” … or why the “all time highest gas prices” aren’t adjusted for inflation … or why Brian Williams attributed tornado deaths to global warming …

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  19. It has to do with the mathematical and statistical illiteracy of so many of today’s humanities graduates

    Indeed. So we see a reduction in the rate of growth is reported as a “cut” … or why the “all time highest gas prices” aren’t adjusted for inflation … or why Brian Williams attributed tornado deaths to global warming …

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  20. CStudent (comment 17, 10:16), you are at least a few letters short of spelling Ms. Morrison’s name correctly. I believe it is supposed to be Patttt or maybe even Pattttt Morrison.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  21. LAT – stuck on stupid since 1968!

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  22. Interesting. Journosaurs like Tim Rutten say people should pay for the privilege of reading the LA Times online, yet Patterico constantly shows how wrong and misleading it is — with no plans to charge.
    Here’s another Rutten pontificator clone spewing the same ill-informed bilge.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (0af7db)

  23. carlitos:

    Very well done. You filled the gaps in my post perfectly. I had meant to look up the memo and research the organization doing the study, but I saw this late last night just before going to bed and lost sleep writing as much as I did. (I slept only 4-5 hours. Zzzz.) I just didn’t have time or energy to do what you did.

    If I were not on a Treo I would update and link to your comment. As it is, I’ll likely do a follow-up post tonight, fleshing out these points and crediting you for the research. Very well done.

    What a piece of junk this article is. It’s stenography for a group with an agenda.

    Patterico (4fe2cf)

  24. How many layers of delicious caramel cake were used to edit this story?

    Ed (52bb9a)

  25. I wonder if we can get proof that these “journalists” are intentionally trying to mislead us. Legally, what would proof like that look like and what could we do with it?

    tyree (158c98)

  26. What a piece of junk this article is. It’s stenography for a group with an agenda.

    Actually, it likely is exactly that. It might be slightly rewritten, but it’s likely the “journalist” got the story and the contacts from the Migration Policy Institute.

    Groups like PETA and CSPI do this all the time; anytime you hear a “news” report quoting CSPI,
    odds are that every item and every source was included in the CSPI press release. It’s the ultimate in brainless journalism.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  27. I don’t think most of the “journalists” are being intentionally misleading. They actually believe in this stuff. They are too arrogant to consider the possibility they might be mistaken. There is nobody around their insular environment who thinks differently to challenge their assumptions.

    Rob Crawford @ #26 is precisely right about brainless journalism. I get agenda-group press releases all the time. Shortly thereafter, I spot them uncritically regurgitated. From the fingers of the hands that wrote the press release to the fingers that wrote the press release-derived story, no critical thought intervenes.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (0af7db)

  28. while also providing students with invaluable hands-on lawyering experience.

    Why do I get a funny feeling that some specific political indoctrination is included in that hallowed “invaluable hands – on lawyering experience?” Your tax dollars at work – jeez.

    or why Brian Williams attributed tornado deaths to global warming …

    Or why NBC news has yet to admit that the Iraq war isn’t demonstrably “lost” anymore – still waiting for that correction from the helmet – haired Anchor creature. If you’ve ever had the displeasure of attempting to conduct a logical conversation with recent (or past) graduates from J – Schools like Medill or Columbia, be prepared to experience major migraines later in the day.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  29. They are too arrogant to consider the possibility they might be mistaken. There is nobody around their insular environment who thinks differently to challenge their assumptions.

    Bradley can regale you with our insightful “debate” on – line with one of the reporter salons at the NYT a few years ago. Patently ridiculous, on every level.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  30. To you “professional” journalists out there—Adios Muchachoes!

    And don’t let the screen door hit yer backside on the way out.

    Mike Myers (674050)

  31. LAT editors and journalists are so bad at math, they can prepare tax returns for Democrats.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  32. SHOULDN’T ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS BE DEPORTED, STARTING THESE TYPES FIRST:

    The MCAO report of October 2008 from County Attorney Andrew Thomas features these startling numbers for prosecuted felony cases in Maricopa County, Arizona:

    In 2007, illegal immigrants accounted for:

    10% of sex crimes convictions
    11% of murders convictions
    13% of stolen cars convictions
    13% of aggravated assaults convictions
    17% of those sentenced for violent crimes
    19% of those sentenced for property crimes
    20% of those sentenced for felony DUI.
    21% of crimes committed with weapons
    34% of those sentenced for the manufacture, sale or transport of drugs
    36% of those sentenced for kidnapping
    44% of forgeries
    50% of those sentenced for crimes related to “chop shops”
    85% of false ID convictions
    96% of smuggling convictions

    Illegal immigrants make up 19 percent of those convicted of crimes in Maricopa County and 21 percent of those in county jails.

    Illegal immigrants only make up an estimated 9 percent of the county’s population.

    It is estimated that each violent crime cost citizens $20,000, and each property crime cost citizens $4363 per offense.
    All the more a concern is research that finds the likelihood of an illegal immigrant being incarcerated grows with longer residence in the United States and that the U.S. born children (considered citizens) of illegal immigrants are dramatically more likely to be involved in crime than their illegal immigrant parents. For instance, native born Hispanic male high school dropouts are eleven times more likely to be incarcerated than their foreign born counterparts.

    zeezil (4cd3e6)

  33. Maybe the LAT flubbed this story. I’d certainly have to read it through again with Pat’s critique in mind before making a decision. Because I know Pat grinds an ax 24/7.

    On the broader issue of mistakes, though, I see no sign that the LAT is any worse than the standard.

    If Pat’s such an ace, why isn’t he in the journalism business?

    Oh wait, he IS in the journalism business. The difference is that his salary is, um, rather modest. And his product is so small and stilted no one even bothers to critique it in any kind of systematic way. And if they ever did, Pat would ban them forthwith…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  34. Oh wait, he IS in the journalism business.

    Actually, he’s not. This is an avocation to him. His vocation is well known.

    The difference is that his salary is, um, rather modest.

    If you’re trying to suggest that salary is equivalent to correctness, then Rush Limbaugh must be the most correct journalist in history.

    Something tells me you don’t really want to head down that road.

    And his product is so small and stilted no one even bothers to critique it in any kind of systematic way.

    People critique it here and at other sites on the net all the time. You, for instance.

    And if they ever did, Pat would ban them forthwith…

    Pat’s pretty tolerant of dissenting voices, but he doesn’t suffer fools. The only people who’ve been banned have been abusive (including some of those considered conservative).

    Steverino (69d941)

  35. That was a much more dignified rebuttal than Hack deserved. Bravo.

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  36. If Pat’s such an ace, why isn’t he in the journalism business?

    Spoken like a true ignoramus – there’s your less than dignified rebuttal, richly deserved.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  37. Patterico has prodded the LA Times into repeated corrections. His expose of Michael Hiltzik’s sock puppetry contributed to Nofanofcablecos’ (temporary) loss of his politics, I mean “business” column.

    Not bad for a non-journalist who has a rather demanding day job.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (0af7db)

  38. Hax, all you show with that comment is your own bad faith, lack of honesty and integrity and your total command of logical fallacies.

    Yawn. Not a surprise.

    SPQR (72771e)

  39. His expose of Michael Hiltzik’s sock puppetry contributed to Nofanofcablecos

    Hackey Sack has no idea what you’re talking about, since he only comes here to post infantile rants/talking points without any attribution or sourcing. Hope! Change! Tourette’s Syndrome!

    Dmac (49b16c)

  40. Not all Democrats have Tourette’s (although that would be a good excuse).

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  41. Das ist, warum ich Schaben hasse. Sie sind ganz über dem Platz. Töten Sie sie! Töten Sie sie!

    Emperor7 who wants DRJ back! (1b037c)

  42. Ein glas bier, bitte.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  43. The “rebuttals” only add to the confusion.

    Is Pat in the journalism business, or not?

    If he is more precisely a “hobbyist” does that mean he sets the bar lower for himself than for his targets, or that he considers it less worthy of his time than his day job?

    Finding errors in a major metropolitan daily is like shooting fish in a barrel. Even the best screw up and the LA Times is, undeniably, the best in the region.

    Reporting news is quickly and accurately on a budget is an order of magnitude more difficult, and more worthy, than hyper-ideological sniping, even when it’s accurate.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  44. Scrape? Shaving? Emperor, help a brother out.

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  45. Hax, nobody ever digs their way out of a hole. The more you dig, the deeper you’ll get.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  46. Comment by carlitos — 2/5/2009 @ 4:16 pm
    Cockroaches.

    Emperor7 who wants DRJ back! (1b037c)

  47. I like it deep, John.

    You wanna stay shallow, I know, but it’s those differences that make the world a wonderful place.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  48. Hax, quit milking that cow. It only has one teet.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  49. “And his product is so small and stilted no one even bothers to critique it in any kind of systematic way. And if they ever did, Pat would ban them forthwith…”

    Hax could like totally embarrass me any time, if he wanted to. He just doesn’t want to. It’s not worth his time.

    It is worth his time to talk about how he could, though.

    Hax, your comment button seems to be working. You don’t appear to be banned. If you have criticisms, lay them on me, brother.

    Should you decline — as I confidently predict you will — I’ll take that as validation of my site’s accuracy.

    Bring it on, my man. Bring. It. ON!

    You can start with this post. Who reported this issue more accurately? Me or the L.A. Times?

    Specifics, please.

    I’m waiting!

    Patterico (789422)

  50. #43

    If he is more precisely a “hobbyist” does that mean he sets the bar lower for himself than for his targets, or that he considers it less worthy of his time than his day job?

    The point of many of Patterico’s blogs is how low the “professional” LAT journalists tolerate its own low bar while condescendingly lecturing the unwashed masses.

    Finding errors in a major metropolitan daily is like shooting fish in a barrel. Even the best screw up and the LA Times is, undeniably, the best in the region.

    I hope you mean best in the region at screwing up.

    Reporting news is quickly and accurately on a budget is an order of magnitude more difficult, and more worthy, than hyper-ideological sniping, even when it’s accurate.

    If the reporting is not accurate, its not news and not a worthy product to sell. Oddly, with a very little budget and even less time, Patterico can point out major errors in the LAT that were published despite layers and layers of “professional” editorial checks. Furthermore, this is a filler article and not urgent news like a plane crash and there is no evidence that the lack of time contributed to its inaccuracy.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  51. Who reported this issue more accurately? Me or the L.A. Times?

    Specifics, please.

    I’m waiting!

    Comment by Patterico — 2/5/2009 @ 4:49 pm
    Why do I get the eerie feeling that you want to…. Never mind.

    Emperor7 who wants DRJ back! (1b037c)

  52. Reason number 437 why I will never again subscribe to the LAT.

    LASue (29a0ac)

  53. I like it deep, John.

    I’m not going to touch this one.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  54. Patterico: My criticism of your product isn’t that it’s inaccurate, but that it’s coverage is so small and ideologically narrow. Were you ever to actually attempt to cover news in the way the LA Times does — rather than sniping, as you do — I serioiusly doubt you could improve on their product.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  55. Dmac – Hacks really teed that one up. It is just too easy.

    JD (fb3160)

  56. I thought I adequately responded to it, too.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  57. Hacks – Patterico asked you a direct question, that you appear to be studiously avoiding. Shocka. Mendoucheity at its finest. Between this one, peter, and mario, it has been a tsunami of stupid today.

    JD (fb3160)

  58. It may be a tsunami of stupid, but it’s a real tidal wave of effort.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  59. As for the accuracy of reporting, I will get to that. As I said in my earlier post, i have to re-read the LAT’s coverage with Pat’s critique in mind. It’s certainly possible that Pat’s critique is more accurate than the LAT reporting. But the fact remains that Pat isn’t reporting, he’s critiquing. Maybe he should try reporting, just to see how good he’d be at it. Nothing to fear, right?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  60. Hax, if you were ever to create and publish a website such as this one, it would be hard for you to improve on its product. It’s much easier for you to just comment and snipe. (and hurl fact-free invective on occasion)

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  61. Nothing to fear, right? I don’t see a linky in your name, to the Hax-makes-a-better-website than this one, do I?

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  62. What a douchenozzle ….

    JD (fb3160)

  63. Maybe he should try reporting, just to see how good he’d be at it. Nothing to fear, right?

    Yeah, he should try doing a little investigative reporting, like, I don’t know. Maybe like this guy did.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  64. John, investigative reporting is good, but opinion columnists get the fame and fortune :)

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  65. Just to be clear, I called the twatwaffle a douchenozzle, not carlitos.

    I guess Hacks did not bother to look at any of the actual reporting that Patterico has done at this site. SHOCKA!

    JD (fb3160)

  66. Maybe he found out he didn’t like it so deep after all?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  67. As for the accuracy of reporting, I will get to that.

    Strike as non – responsive.

    i have to re-read the LAT’s coverage with Pat’s critique in mind

    And so, having made a blatant slam of the host’s critical skills, Hackey Sack bravely begs off immediately from the challenge, mumbling something about “needing more time.” Quite a profile in courage, yes?

    It’s certainly possible that Pat’s critique is more accurate than the LAT reporting. But the fact remains that Pat isn’t reporting, he’s critiquing.

    Hackey’s twisted his cranial underwear into a Gordian knot at this point – but that won’t stop him from bravely continuing forward:

    Maybe he should try reporting, just to see how good he’d be at it. Nothing to fear, right?

    And we wind up the big finish, with a large strawman to complete his inanity.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  68. By Hack’s own standards of course, he has no business writing comments here at all.

    Since that’s just sniping, you know.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. Twatwaffle of the Day is a pretty close competition today. Peter put forth a solid effort. Mario was closing in before it went all incoherent. But, Hacks is the current leader, and appears to wish to distinguish itself early in its commenting here.
    Plus, it likes it deep. Homophobes.

    JD (fb3160)

  70. Wacists!

    Dmac (49b16c)

  71. Peter’s juvenile bile-filled little rants are pretty reliable insights into his delusional world from mom’s basement. It is really disturbing to see just how far from reality he actually is. I feel like I’m ready a Harry Turtledove SF alternate history novel when I see one of his weird comments.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  72. “My criticism of your product isn’t that it’s inaccurate, but that it’s coverage is so small and ideologically narrow. Were you ever to actually attempt to cover news in the way the LA Times does — rather than sniping, as you do — I serioiusly doubt you could improve on their product.”

    That’s all you got?

    Your point is that I — an amateur blogger with a full-time job — can’t replicate the breadth of coverage offered by a newspaper with a newsroom staff of hundreds of full-time workers?

    I guess you told me!

    Patterico (3b8aab)

  73. No, no one said replicate. You made that up, as is your style.

    The point is that you’re presenting the L.A. Times as somehow worse than average or worse than some kind of standard, without ever even bothering to say what that standard is.

    My way of illustrating that is to point out that, were you to try to match the L.A. Times on reporting something responsibly, you’d probably produce work that’s equally flawed, over time.

    Your coverage of the Times fails to recognize the responsibilities it takes on in trying to offer ideologically neutral, yet not neutered, coverage consistently, while accepting responsiblity to cover all the newsworthiest events, without delay.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  74. Hax, scroll up and find the “investigative reporter” and “opinion columnist” links. Then click on them if you’re brave enough.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  75. The mis-reporting of statistics is so endemic to journalism today as to be laughable. This stuff is pretty basic, but not required in j-school for some reason.

    I’m not sure that’s the real explanation here. Hax also claims that LAT simply makes random errors. But they don’t. The errors are almost always errors which serve a particular political agenda. It’s unheard of for the media to spread a story based on false information which undercuts the left.

    Subotai (39d2eb)

  76. “a newspaper with a newsroom staff of hundreds of full-time workers?”

    After the recent layoffs you meant a hundred er um a few dozen, I mean maybe a couple of reporters and a subscription to AP?

    Actually at this rate they’ll be a single individual doing a blog on the internet in no time, and I can guarantee that Patterico will outshine them without trying

    CStudent (f30411)

  77. Your coverage of the Times fails to recognize the responsibilities it takes on in trying to offer ideologically neutral, yet not neutered, coverage consistently

    You know, I’m pretty darn sure that even you don’t believe that nonsense. The LAT, like all the other major American newspapers, is in the business of advancing the political viewpoints of the Democratic party and the political left.

    If you think that’s NOT the case then you can easily become a “reverse Patterico” and document all the false stories they run which advance a right-wing agenda. Jump to it.

    Subotai (39d2eb)

  78. “Your coverage of the Times fails to recognize the responsibilities it takes on in trying to offer ideologically neutral…coverage consistently…”
    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/5/2009 @ 7:57 pm

    LOL

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  79. Your coverage of the Times fails to recognize the responsibilities it takes on in trying to offer ideologically neutral, yet not neutered, coverage consistently, while accepting responsiblity to cover all the newsworthiest events, without delay.

    I’d give some slack to the MSM, the LA Times included, if it at least was honest enough to proclaim, hell, yes, our industry is loaded down with liberals, and, hell, yes, the bias of being on the left end of the political spectrum does affect our coverage and objectivity.

    Instead, you get all those writers, reporters and editors looking up, looking down, looking sideways, whistling a few tunes, clearing their throat, shuffling their feet, scratching their nose, and saying, “We’re not liberals! We’re progressives!

    Mark (411533)

  80. The point is that you’re presenting the L.A. Times as somehow worse than average or worse than some kind of standard, without ever even bothering to say what that standard is.

    The standard has been stated repeatedly — “accurate and impartial”. They’re not. In this case, they’re not just inaccurate, the reporting comes from a single view point.

    Your coverage of the Times fails to recognize the responsibilities it takes on in trying to offer ideologically neutral, yet not neutered, coverage consistently, while accepting responsiblity to cover all the newsworthiest events, without delay.

    “Ideologically neutral”? They may claim that’s their goal, but the reality is far from that. If they were truly trying to be neutral yet making errors, their errors would at least occasionally go against the “progressive” narrative.

    This particular story isn’t particularly newsworthy, at least not the way it’s being reported: “ICE deports more illegal aliens” is good news, it means a government agency is being more effective at one of its primary functions. And yet, instead, they shoehorned it into an oppressor/victim narrative.

    The story is centered around a “report” from an advocacy group. That’s not “ideologically neutral”, that’s acting as PR agent for the advocacy group.

    The quotes from an ICE spokesman are, at best, window-dressing to provide the appearance of neutrality. The story’s headline, sub-head, lead, and first fifteen paragraphs are dedicated to the advocacy group’s point of view.

    The writer also used a technique that’s frequently pointed out here — the “some say” gambit:

    Those early morning home raids drew criticism for splitting families and instilling fear in immigrant communities.

    Criticism from whom? The only quote — and it’s a nicely emotionally loaded one — comes from the co-author of the “report” that forms the core of the story.

    This isn’t reporting, it’s propaganda.

    Why weren’t the numbers carlitos found included in the story? They show what’s really happening — that the pursuit of fugitives is still the primary focus of the program, and that the number being caught by it has increased nearly 500%!

    Wouldn’t their inclusion have been more “ideologically neutral” than a quote from one of the study’s co-authors about “maids and landscapers”?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  81. “My criticism of your product isn’t that it’s inaccurate, but that it’s coverage is so small and ideologically narrow.”

    Yet when I say you’re accusing me of failing to replicate their breadth of coverage, you claim I’m making that up.

    Hooooo-kayyyy . . . what did you mean, then? That if you stack up my coverage (in the admittedly narrow areas of interest to me) against that of The Times, that my coverage will be revealed to be equally flawed?

    Put your money where your mouth is, pal. Prove it.

    You won’t, as I have already correctly predicted. Your defense for failing to do so: blah blah blah blah blah.

    Patterico (46ae88)

  82. My way of illustrating that is to point out that, were you to try to match the L.A. Times on reporting something responsibly, you’d probably produce work that’s equally flawed, over time.

    Even if we accept this as true, what does it mean? That The Times is absolved of any mistakes it makes, just because it’s trying to do something big?

    That’s a rather curious standard. Do you hold your government to the same standard? After all, if YOU were trying to do what the government does, you’d probably make at least as many mistakes.

    Steverino (b12c49)

  83. After that last post, I am thinking that we have a drive-by poster whose mom is about to be laid off at the LAT. Or perhaps the most irony-challenged hypocrite in the history of the site.

    Hey Hax, do ya think that, if they tried, the LA Times theater critics could produce as high-quality a film as professional teams of producers, directors, filmmakers, actors and technicians do?

    Could Pete Metzger create a better videogame than the ones he reviews here? It’s hard to say, since he’s just a staff writer without a bio posted. Probably a 26-year-old English grad doing freelance work.

    Do you that the writers at the LA Times who, as documented on this site, regularly criticize the Los Angeles police, would run a better, more competent police force than the city does? Or that the writers at the LA Times would make better governors than Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom they regularly criticize?

    What an amazing lack of self-awareness you must have to write what you posted here.

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  84. Ya know, thinking about it, I think the inclusion of the “maids and landscapers quote” and the exclusion of the actual numbers is the clearest evidence that it’s a piece of propaganda. The actual numbers — assuming they’re accurate, and challenging them would be a proper journalistic task — are unemotional, they just are. The reader can base their judgment of the program on the numbers.

    But the numbers weren’t there. Instead there was a line about “maids and landscapers” being the targets of the program, when, clearly, they’re not.

    Propaganda. Propaganda. Propaganda. And not in the neutral sense of the word.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  85. Sniper?

    Serpentine!

    Karl (2491e1)

  86. “It’s unheard of for the media to spread a story based on false information which undercuts the left.”

    Hmmm. Unless you STILL believe Saddam was collaborating with Al Qaeda and sitting on a mountain of WMD, it think it’s fair to say you’re hallucinating.

    Accurate and impartial isn’t a standard, of course, any more than “perfect” is.

    How does LAT compare to its local, national and global rivals?

    Do we even bother to ask?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  87. Who’s we, kimosabe?

    carlitos (edf43b)

  88. “Accurate and impartial isn’t a standard, of course, any more than “perfect” is.

    How does LAT compare to its local, national and global rivals?”

    Hax – What standards would you propose for evaluation since you are asking the question?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  89. How does LAT compare with local, national and global rivals in terms of accuracy and impartiality?

    Plenty of right wing papers around: from Moon’s chain to Murdoch’s, Pulliam’s, Conrad Black’s.

    I know, I know, they’re third-rate, so we can’t really compare LAT to them, can we?

    Hax Vobiscum (8cb4c3)

  90. I know, I know, they’re third-rate, so we can’t really compare LAT to them, can we?

    Politics aside — and assuming the publication you’re describing isn’t “third-rate” — enjoy it while you can. The economics of the newspaper business in general, but particularly for that involving the so-called quality paper, are such, that pretty soon the LA Times will be about as first-rate as the Penny Saver.

    Mark (411533)

  91. I doubt it, Mark. There’s always room at the top and LAT is the top of its class and region, no matter how hard Pat and friends hallucinate. Sure, quality is dwindling and has quite a ways further it could fall. But that’s probably even more the case over at Penny Saver…not to mention the Daily News and so on…

    Hax Vobiscum (8cb4c3)

  92. Hax – What standards would you propose for evaluation since you are asking the question?

    Hax – You keep dodging all the questions prompted by your comments. Are you afraid to answer them?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  93. Are you afraid to answer them?

    Indeed he is.

    He pretends that my blog is full of shortcomings but can’t point out a single one.

    He pretends that the LAT is full of errors that benefit the right wing, but can’t point out a single one.

    And so on and so forth.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  94. Oh, c’mon Patterico. You know your problem.

    You don’t worship at Obama’s feet.

    Pretty much, that’s it.

    Eric Blair (1aa50b)

  95. Patterico – In that way he is similar to a number of the left wing visitors to the site who claim that you and the commenters are a bunch of liars. When challenged to point out a lie they usually fail, leave, or realize they don’t understand the difference between opinion and fact.

    Thinking before commenting is useful and would help Hax, but I don’t always do it myself.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  96. Hacks noses out Peter for Twatwaffle of the Day. Brava.

    JD (677a23)

  97. JD – sleepy has been pretty persistent with his Jooooo hate meme in the foreign affairs thread.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  98. I doubt it, Mark.

    If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were doing an impersonation of a very deluded, very naive, very nonsensical, uh, progressive.

    I’ve never trusted the judgment and perceptions of people on the left, and you merely confirm the reason I often come to that conclusion. Even more so because when it comes to the LA Times, most of my skepticism about its quality in the future (if not of the present)—and fate in general—is not based on partisan or ideological grounds, but on purely economic ones.

    However, I will say that the Wall Street Journal, whose op-ed pages I have far more confidence in, at least has managed to hook quite a few paid subscribers to its web site, and apparently has seen even an increase in such readers over the past year. But even in the case of that publication there is a big question whether revenues in the era of the Internet will be sufficient to allow any newspaper that is somewhat better than the Hooterville Gazette to maintain its quality.

    Mark (411533)

  99. Unless you STILL believe Saddam was collaborating with Al Qaeda and sitting on a mountain of WMD, it think it’s fair to say you’re hallucinating.

    If you think that there was any “false information” being spread by the media with respect to Saddam, Al Queda, and WMD in the period 2002-2003, then you belong in an asylum.

    I do enjoy the way you think that the removal of a brutal dictator is a blow to the left and a boon to the right though. No doubt you also splutter with rage when people suggest you’re a Saddam supporter.

    Subotai (837aea)

  100. I’ve answered the telling “what standards”? query twice now, but I guess I need to go for thrice:

    How does LAT compare with local, national and global rivals in terms of accuracy and impartiality?

    It’s meaningless to shout, however loudly and persistently, that the LA Times is horrible, absent comparison to its peers.

    And I guess I need to repeat what I thing the shortcoming with this blog is, since Pat missed it the first time:

    1. A lack of rational perspective.
    The LAT question starts there. You say they’re horrible when we both know it’s the best paper in the region and one of the best in the country. You say it’s too liberal, but liberal compared to who or what? You don’t say, because, I guess you don’t consider rational perspective relevant. Or is there some other reason?

    2. Abusive tone. Not a big deal, but, aesthetically, there’s a lot of room for improvement in terms of discouraging the instant hostility and bargain basement name calling. I surely don’t mind firing back — selectively — when ad hominem is flung my way. Nor do I mind scrolling past the morons who really believe that chiming in with one line insults is a good way to spend their time.

    3. Decide whether your about fairness and accuracy in journalism or about hyping conservatives by playing the victim. The two aren’t very compatible.

    Hax Vobiscum (edacf7)

  101. Abusive tone. Not a big deal, but, aesthetically, there’s a lot of room for improvement in terms of discouraging the instant hostility and bargain basement name calling.

    Then I’ll stick to the Hax Vobiscum style book and use only that tone that you find appropriate to use to address me. It’s your style to make things up, you hallucinate, and your product is small and stilted. Also, I don’t like your tone and the mean things you say.

    You’re all over the map with your complaints; when one doesn’t work, you move on to the next one. You’re on this thread, so why don’t you defend the L.A. Times on this story, or attack me on this story, or both?

    Answer: you won’t, because you can’t.

    Instead, you claim I have to compare the LAT to all the other papers out there.

    So even though I’ve worked for almost six years to document the errors, omissions, and distortions by this paper, you set up an impossible task by asking me to compare it to dozens or hundreds of other papers around the country.

    My criticisms are meaningless absent such a comparison? Fine; your criticisms of this blog are meaningless unless you can compare every post ever written on this blog to every other blog post on every other blog out there — and every story in every newspaper out there — comparing treatment of every relevant story for accuracy, tone, and overall readability. Absent such a study, you have no rational perspective with which to judge this blog. According to your theory of judging writing, that is.

    Me, I don’t subscribe to that. I don’t have to read every comment on every blog, and compare them to your comments, to judge your comments to be pointless evasions. I’m able to make judgments based on the evidence in front of my eyes.

    Speaking of which, who gave a more informative account of the report discussed in this post? The L.A. Times . . . or me and my commenters like carlitos, who linked the report, cited the accurate numbers, and provided perspective?

    You won’t answer that. You know what the truth is and you don’t want to say it.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  102. Hax, you’ve completely ducked my question at #83.

    I’ll save you the trouble of scrolling up and repeat it here:

    My way of illustrating that is to point out that, were you to try to match the L.A. Times on reporting something responsibly, you’d probably produce work that’s equally flawed, over time.

    Even if we accept this as true, what does it mean? That The Times is absolved of any mistakes it makes, just because it’s trying to do something big?

    Steverino (69d941)

  103. Hax, you are hopelessly confused. You have not answered the question twice, you have dodged it twice.

    “How does LAT compare with local, national and global rivals in terms of accuracy and impartiality?”

    The sentence immediately above is the question asked by you and not the answer.

    “Hax – What standards would you propose for evaluation since you are asking the question?”

    The sentence immediately above is my question based on your proposed evaluation of the LA Times against it’s peers. What part don’t you understand? How do you propose to measure impartiality Hax? How about accuracy? How long do you anticipate your process taking? Will the evaluators be accurate and impartial? Who will evaluate the evaluators?

    I continue to misunderestimate your idiocy. Congratulations.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  104. Let’s just call it for what it is – a bloviating coward.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  105. Hax is a hack. And not a very good one.

    JD (b2da6e)

  106. Pat: You asked me to suggest the shortcomings of your blog, so I did.

    And your response to construct a series of straw men.

    You write: “you claim I have to compare the LAT to all the other papers out there.”

    No. I said that it doesn’t mean much to compare the LAT to perfection. Of course they make mistakes: many, many more than you happen to find, you can be sure of that.

    But the number of mistakes isn’t really at issue here, is it?

    Your issue is that you believe the LAT has a political bias and that the mistakes are sometimes deliberate and other times the result of a narrow mindset derived from an ideology that you find incorrect.

    You write:
    “you set up an impossible task by asking me to compare it to dozens or hundreds of other papers around the country.”

    No, I’m asking you to frame your criticism in a more credible context.

    Remember, you’re not just playing fact checker here: you have an ideological agenda. You’re accusing the LAT of committing liberal propaganda.

    Don’t you think that calls for more context than simply pointing our factual errors?

    But I’ll agree with you on one point, this thread has spun out of control, and not all because of me.

    One reason I’ve dug into the comparison thing is that you’re little pack of heel-nipping insultbots kept demanding over and over that I lay out the standards by which a meaningful assessment of the LAT’s accuracy and ideological fairness could be made.

    But I’ve done that at least thrice now for anyone who can figure their way out of a tic-tac-toe game, so I’m pleased to leave it there.

    I read the memo carlito linked and it seems clear to me that, just like LAT said, the department redefined its mission AWAY from the original one of targeting fugitives.

    Pat kind of gives the game away by hyperventilating his conspiracy theory that LAT is making an argument that it is bad to arrest illegal aliens.

    That’s not what I got out of the article. Rather, the point is that an effort you and I paid for is not achieving its stated goals and so is, instead, redefining those goals.

    But why all the subterfuge and cockamamie conspiracy theory about the media? Why not just come out and advocate for stricter immigration laws. or , indeed, for banning immigration altogether.

    Hax Vobiscum (edacf7)

  107. “… you’re little pack of heel-nipping insultbots …”

    More projection.

    SPQR (72771e)

  108. Hacking Cough just can’t let it go – he must be sure his beclowning is complete, lest anyone make a misjudgement.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  109. Don’t you think that calls for more context than simply pointing our factual errors?

    Freudian slip alert. That’s the second one here (see 87/88). Who pays your rent, Hax?

    I read the memo carlito linked and it seems clear to me that, just like LAT said, the department redefined its mission AWAY from the original one of targeting fugitives.

    Right. That’s why the number of fugitive aliens increased every year after the memo. Just what you’d expect from ‘redefining’ such a mission away from targeting fugitives.

    Again, for the learning-challenged. Memo is in 2006. Fugitive aliens arrested by year:

    FY06: 10,109
    FY07: 18,323
    FY08: 25,936

    Can you please explain your bizarro logic, whereby the year after their focus went ‘away’ from targeting fugitives, they nabbed 80% more of them?

    carlitos (c4c10e)

  110. To recap, this is the entire problem with humanities / english grads writing about facts. The memo makes them ‘feel’ like the mission is redefined to do something they don’t like. They don’t actually think to study the numbers and come to factual, results-based conclusions. These guys couldn’t manage a Subway without it going broke.

    carlitos (c4c10e)

  111. Just to get back to the article, which quoted verbatim the liberal law professor would advocates for open borders:

    abandoned its stated mission to go after dangerous fugitives and instead targeted noncriminal undocumented workers

    If I ‘abandon’ my stated mission of collecting Obama knit hats, and ‘instead’ collect George Bush voodoo dolls, a writer might express puzzlement that my Obama knit hat collection increased nearly five-fold over the next 2 years.

    carlitos (c4c10e)

  112. Hacks last comment was the crowning achievement of its mendoucheity today. Couple in the fact that it used the word “our” in describing the LA Times, and its blatant dishonest representation of the contents of the memo, one could reasonably assume that there is a sock puppet in our midst. Even more likely given its cheerleading of the LA Times.

    JD (b2da6e)

  113. Since Pat’s an honest man doing the good work of exposing the truth, we can safely assume that he simply forgot to cut and paste the relevant data from the memo carlito linked.

    Aliens arrested under the program:
    FY05: Criminal: 3,596; Non-criminal: 4,363
    FY06: Criminal: 4,525; Non-criminal: 10,937
    FY07: Criminal: 5,432; Non-criminal: 24,975
    FY08: Criminal: 7,919; Non-criminal: 26,230

    Since Pat has a day job and can’t devote ALL his time to fair and balanced review of the LA Times, we can be assured that he failed to cut and paste this data, which is adjacent in the memo to the data he did cut and paste, only because he was too busy or too distracted or, perhaps, misread it somehow. Mechanical failure?

    We can also assume that he’ll now correct himself and would never ban me from the forum, since I’m just pointing out an erroneous omission, rather than suggesting it’s Pat’s or carlito’s way to so clumsily try to mislead readers.

    Can we also assume that Pat and Carlito share a disdain for doubletalk, especially the variety produced by government bureaucrats? We all recall how heroically Ronald Reagan taught us that government is the problem, not the solution. And, indeed, the ICE memos bear him out.

    ICE gets to where it’s going (bigger budgets regardless of performance) by playing word games with the definition of a fugitive in order to make it look like they’re getting the job done.

    The smoking gun: “There will be no percentage quota for the types of cases to be worked.”

    And indeed, as the numbers show, the types of cases worked are increasingly, overwhelmingly, those involving non-criminals.

    Hax Vobiscum (edacf7)

  114. Hack, you are either dishonest or clueless. Patterico updated here based on carlitos’ work.

    Do try to keep up and grow up.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  115. Interestingly, Hack, you posted the identical comment earlier in that thread without here acknowledging that Patterico even created that thread.

    I’m going with dishonest.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  116. I vote for mendoucheous.

    JD (b2da6e)

  117. I didn’t realize that Hax spent day doing his “Brave Sir Robin” imitation moonwalking back from the challenges he made to Patterico last night.

    Just another feckless crapweasel who can’t back up his points when called on them.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  118. [...] a better use of time is this review on Patterico’s Pontifications website. It begins with this line: I have difficulty conveying the depth of my contempt for this [...]

    Open borders proponents prop one another up with pompous reports « Seeing Red AZ (07d52e)

  119. [...] took on an ICE policy of deporting illegal aliens with whom they came into contact — distorting the policy to falsely suggest that ICE was targeting innocent illegals. Internal ICE memos discovered by a [...]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2009 (e4ab32)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4560 secs.