More Negligent Reporting in the Media: Incomplete and Speculative Report on the Minutemen

This is an article I found written in response to the new prominence of The Minuteman Project.

"The idea of private citizens patrolling public spaces made news on a national level earlier this year when hundreds of volunteers -- some armed with guns and other weapons -- patrolled Arizona's border with Mexico.[emphasis added]"

Simple question: Have you ever seen news stories discussing Neighborhood Watch groups that mention that some of those people are armed? I haven't. But I can guarantee you that many people involved in Neighborhood Watch groups do have conceal-carry permits. But it isn't an issue because those citizens groups are there to watch, not apprehend. Why is it an issue with the Minutemen, who do exactly the same thing, but on a grander scale?

"[T]here have been some problems giving the "Average Joe" [referring to the 'non-professional' makeup of the Minutemen] this type of authority."

Really? I haven't heard that many complaints against Neighborhood Watch groups, except from people who were caught trying to commit a crime. Could it be that the Mainstream Media (or MSM) endorses crime? Now that's an interesting thought. It is illegal to cross the border in violation of our laws. A violation of our laws is a crime. I'm not sure the MSM is in officially in favor of illegal immigration, but they certainly don't oppose it. So I guess you could say that the MSM doesn't oppose crime. One who didn't oppose crime might more inclined to be suspicious of Neighborhood Watch groups. It's an interesting thought, anyway . . .

The article further complains:

"There are at least two cases where action and motives of volunteers have been called into question. One Army reservist, not affiliated with the Minuteman Project, was arrested in the past month on charges of holding seven Mexicans at gunpoint at a southern Arizona rest stop.

Another man, who was a Minuteman volunteer, also has been accused of holding one immigrant against his will.[emphasis added]"

Excuse me? Now, I might be willing to say that this article is talking about all volunteer citizens watch groups and not the Minutemen specifically, except for one little point: anyone who reads this can see that this part of the article is specifically talking about the Minutemen. And lest you think I am delusional, the only bad thing associated with their commentary on the Angels, a similar citizens watch group, is their mention that "another group like the Angels working to catch crime might be a nuisance."

So, that being said, what is the point of talking about the guy holding the illegal aliens prisoner at gunpoint? He is not associated with the Minutemen. Why talk about him at all? That would be like using the actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to criticize the actions of U.S. law enforcement.

And what about the Minuteman volunteer accused of holding an illegal alien (notice he is just referred to as an 'immigrant') against his will. First off, he is only accused. Second off, they don't mention whether he used any kind of force to hold this alien. He could have just told him that he couldn't leave until the police arrived, and the alien believed him. There is also no mention of whether or not the Minuteman Project would allow this fellow to continue working with them if these allegations are true. These are things that should be considered by a competent reporter who is trying to get a balanced picture of the situation. However, if the reporter is trying to write a piece meant to encourage (and guide the course of) speculation on this matter, then less information is better.

The moral of this story? When reading a story put out by the MSM, caveat lector (reader beware).

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 12:03 PM

_____________________________________________