• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Colorado Public Radio moves away from the term "migrant"

I have family who emmigrated and friends who obtained their citizenship. Both were long, expensive, complicated processes. In the end, it was an emotional and powerful moment to see them sworn in as proud Americans. What is happening to our nation's borders is a slap in the face to them.

Words have meaning, until the collective twists that meaning or cancels that word. This is what is happening at these left leaning media outlets. They are actively self censoring and redefining words in order to push an agenda. This is antithetical to the freedom of speech and expression, because they will actively attack those who use those redefined terms in their original meaning or context. The story of Fran Itkoff is a great example.

Denver, Colorado, and the United States will forever be changed for the worse by the illegal migrants it is drawing in.

And the public serving media is worse for participating in this social ideological Marxism. It is too bad, because there is so much good the public serving media outlets can do.
 
AlligatorClipz said:
And the public serving media is worse for participating in this social ideological Marxism.
Click to expand...

Huh? There's a phrase that makes no sense at all. Calling them "illegal" is presumptive. If the law says you're innocent until proven guilty, then they can't be termed illegal until that judgement is made in court. Not by the media.

The problem is the law as written allows them to stay in the country for as long as 6 years awaiting a hearing. That's not right. That should be cut to 6 months. There was a proposed revision to the law that appeared to be on its way to being passed. Everybody thinks it's a good law except one person.
 
Usual reminder from your volunteer moderation team:

There are lots of places on the Internet where you are encouraged to have political arguments and engage in name-calling to your heart's content.

This is not one of them.

Bring it back around to a broadcasting-related topic or the thread will be closed.

Thanks for your cooperation and assistance.
 
Alot of stations these days don't want to offend anyone, especially public radio.. .and it's those stations that try and foster a more inclusive environment in their back office/staff/off air stuff and in the on air content.

Imagine you're what would be considered a "migrant" but you hear them using "new immigrant".. has more positive connotations.

I think some will be offended by this change, but I suspect many more will find it a positive step forward and foster a positive environment and maybe start a a positive discussion in society.
 
The other part of this is the way they cover the story. Not from a distance, talking about a nameless faceless problem, but rather as people who are coming here for a reason. The way public radio covers these stories is by talking to the people. That way we hear their voices. Certainly there are groups who want to demonize the situation, and redefine it in different terms to push an agenda. That's just the nature of the situation. That's also a story worth telling. But we should hear it from the people themselves, and I think that's what public radio endeavors to do with their coverage.
 
TheBigA said:
The other part of this is the way they cover the story. Not from a distance, talking about a nameless faceless problem, but rather as people who are coming here for a reason. The way public radio covers these stories is by talking to the people. That way we hear their voices. Certainly there are groups who want to demonize the situation, and redefine it in different terms to push an agenda. That's just the nature of the situation. That's also a story worth telling. But we should hear it from the people themselves, and I think that's what public radio endeavors to do with their coverage.
Click to expand...
Here's the surprising thing: the best coverage of this type has been coming from Tegna's KUSA-TV ("9News") which has been getting out there and talking to immigrants directly, with subtitles in English - not just once, but often. In the case of CPR, I think this ongoing story gets caught in CPR's desire to be a Colorado-wide service that doesn't just cover Denver. Sometimes, though, it means that Denver stories that should be getting CPR's attention don't get coverage. Whether CPR has been spreading itself too thin generally is another question, related to its recent layoffs.

Regardless, with its more locally-focused Denverite website, CPR coverage still seems to have a certain hauteur, often with a focus on the tensions between city hall and the state capitol on this issue (synopsis: Denver seeks financial help in dealing with lodging and providing social services to immigrants; the governor has been passive in his response, leading to substantial frustrations at the city level). That's a very valid part of the story, but not the whole story. It's a little surprising that CPR has taken this approach and I would be open to hearing counterpoints from CPR about it.

What doesn't seem to be covered well by any medium is the degree of African immigration to this area, often to Aurora, which is now the third-largest city in the state after Denver and Colorado Springs. While there is an LPFM in Aurora serving Ethiopian audiences, and some other communities as well, there doesn't seem to be a lot of service to many of those other communities. In part, that may be due to the number of languages spoken. French can be a common language among some African immigrants, particularly from western Africa, but there are cultural divides in those communities that mean that you can't always count on it.
 
TheBigA said:
Huh? There's a phrase that makes no sense at all. Calling them "illegal" is presumptive. If the law says you're innocent until proven guilty, then they can't be termed illegal until that judgement is made in court. Not by the media.
Click to expand...
There are laws that clearly state the requirements for immigration. Anyone not conforming to those rules and regulations is committing a crime.

My wife emigrated from Mexico decades ago. It took several years of processing to get the initial approval to come to live with family here. She then took intensive English courses, went to high school and later to get broadcast training. In the meantime, she waited the regulatory number of years to apply for citizenship and celebrated becoming an American.

Now she sees people illegally crossing the border, taking jobs from citizens and legal residents and overwhelming the health and social services. She's offended because she worked to become an American citizen and others are stealing her rights.
TheBigA said:
The problem is the law as written allows them to stay in the country for as long as 6 years awaiting a hearing. That's not right. That should be cut to 6 months.
Click to expand...
People leaving countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Ecuador, El Salvador and many others are not "refugees". There is no reason to grant them even 6 months of a "free pass".
TheBigA said:
There was a proposed revision to the law that appeared to be on its way to being passed. Everybody thinks it's a good law except one person.
Click to expand...
The law exchanges some regulations for the granting of permanency for millions who have no true "refugee" status. There are likely 5 or 6 billion people in the world who would rather be "poor" in the U.S. than in Bangladesh or Burkina Faso. That legislation is so vague that nearly everyone could find a loophole.

And more than that, the huge number of illegal immigrants is driving down pay scales for unskilled workers and increasing the costs of health care and government services, resulting in further pressure for increased taxes on those of us who are self-supporting.
 
Mark Roberts said:
Here's the surprising thing: the best coverage of this type has been coming from Tegna's KUSA-TV ("9News") which has been getting out there and talking to immigrants directly, with subtitles in English - not just once, but often.
Click to expand...

TV news can do it better because of subtitles. Radio requires a translator, and not all radio reporters can do that. It's harder to do in a quick :20 story. So for some, the story gets ignored. Public radio is willing to take the time to cover the difficult stories, and that's a good thing. As a result, there's a misconception that they're taking sides. All they're doing is presenting both sides. I think we're at a point where everyone agrees there's a problem. Perhaps the next step is to begin work on solving it.

Mark Roberts said:
What doesn't seem to be covered well by any medium is the degree of African immigration
Click to expand...

It's much bigger than just Hispanic migration. Name the country or continent. I saw a TV report about Chinese immigrants, as in from mainland China. We already know about Ukrainian migration. There's a big Czechoslovakian migration that's been going on for more than 10 years. They all want to come here to work, and they're all getting jobs.
 
TheBigA said:
The other part of this is the way they cover the story. Not from a distance, talking about a nameless faceless problem, but rather as people who are coming here for a reason. The way public radio covers these stories is by talking to the people. That way we hear their voices. Certainly there are groups who want to demonize the situation, and redefine it in different terms to push an agenda. That's just the nature of the situation. That's also a story worth telling. But we should hear it from the people themselves, and I think that's what public radio endeavors to do with their coverage.
Click to expand...
But the fact remains that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are coming to exchange poverty for a better life, initially supported by government funding. And, because nearly none are truly vetted, we have no idea who they are.

In the case of Venezuelans, a high percentage of the illegal border crossers are criminals who are encouraged to leave Venezuela to make room in the prisons for political prisoners. They are not refugees; those people apply through proper channels.

My daughter worked for years getting residency permits for a huge percentage of the members of the state symphony orchestra formed by Gustavo Dudamel. Those musicians all come from "humble" backgrounds but are now no longer sponsored by the broke socialist government and are true political refugees. By comparison, most of those arriving are not victims of an oppressive system but, rather, just people who want better paying jobs.
 
DavidEduardo said:
There are laws that clearly state the requirements for immigration. Anyone not conforming to those rules and regulations is committing a crime.
Click to expand...

Yes we all understand that. It's not the job of the media to enforce that. We've already been warned to stay out of the politics.

If you want to talk about crimes, who is hiring all of these people? We know they're finding work. Nobody is enforcing the employment laws. We also don't see Texas police enforcing the new law that allows them to arrest migrants. Nobody wants to do that because they know it would hurt local businesses.

DavidEduardo said:
The law exchanges some regulations for the granting of permanency for millions who have no true "refugee" status.
Click to expand...

The Senate law had NO pathway to citizenship. There would be more deportations. That's why some progressives opposed the law. Once again, this board is about discussing the media's reporting of the story. Talking to the people affected is what public radio is doing.

You moderators need to talk to each other about board policy. I don't like being baited into a subject that has been deemed off limits.
 
TheBigA said:
It's much bigger than just Hispanic migration. Name the country or continent. I saw a TV report about Chinese immigrants, as in from mainland China. We already know about Ukrainian migration. There's a big Czechoslovakian migration that's been going on for more than 10 years. They all want to come here to work, and they're all getting jobs.
Click to expand...
But the vast majority come from Latin America and the Caribbean. And they are not refugees, they are just looking for a better income.

The bigger issue is the huge percentage who are not refugees and about whom we have no information.

For Radio and TV, the issue has become a Blue vs. Red one rather than an analysis of how many migrants the U.S. can accept each year... and what the qualifications for entry should be. Right now, most talk shows are polarized in the political wars, and not looking at what our country can safely and economically permit.

I find that the scripted TV shows (which I watch a lot of as I work on my website as they are so simplistic that I can multitask while following them) paint recent immigrants as being fluent in English, even using idiomatic expressions! That makes it seem like the immigrants in question have done a job of assimilation never before seen anywhere in the world!
 
Last edited:
fybush said:
OK, I guess this is a political discussion site after all.

(gives up on attempting to moderate and goes out to dinner...)
Click to expand...
Enjoy your dinner, Scott. I hate for it to devolve, but seeing broadcast and print media not call a spade a spade is frustrating, especially for those of us who work in it. This is a tragedy of the commons, and it needs to be covered properly.
 
AlligatorClipz said:
Enjoy your dinner, Scott. I hate for it to devolve, but seeing broadcast and print media not call a spade a spade is frustrating, especially for those of us who work in it. This is a tragedy of the commons, and it needs to be covered properly.
Click to expand...
Throwing around meaningless (in this context) scare phrases like "sociological cultural Marxism" isn't what we do here, though.

Or at least it shouldn't be.
 
AlligatorClipz said:
I hate for it to devolve, but seeing broadcast and print media not call a spade a spade is frustrating, especially for those of us who work in it. This is a tragedy of the commons, and it needs to be covered properly.
Click to expand...

Once again, it's not for the media to make these decisions. We elect people in congress to do the work. They collect the pay, but won't do the work. All they want to do is point fingers, when all the have to do is pass the Langford bill. Or at least have the courage to discuss it.
 
fybush said:
OK, I guess this is a political discussion site after all.

(gives up on attempting to moderate and goes out to dinner...)
Click to expand...
Scott, I'm disappointed, too, since some others feel compelled to address items totally irrelevant to the Denver situation in order to score political points that mean nothing in the end. BigA is an exception: at least he (she?) made a valid point about TV news being able to do some things that radio news can't do, though I still don't think it absolves Colorado Public Radio of its problems with lack of focus and sometimes taking a lofty approach to news coverage that kind of leaves out the people actually being covered. But it seems we can't have that discussion so I'm gonna let it rip.

I live in Denver. Except for the past two days with its foot or more of heavy wet snowfall, I see immigrants every day with their squeegees and signs at Colfax and Colorado and other major intersections. I've seen the effects of budget cuts that have been required because of the need to deal with the people who have been bused here by a Texas state government that uses people as political pawns. And I think it's totally ludicrous to say that they're all criminals. I really don't give a :poop: about your political or semantic points. These people are here, in a city that can get cold and snowy, and in a city that's not getting a lot of help in dealing with the situation. Would you rather these people starve and freeze? It seems that you all would, all for a lack of a piece of paper.

How about taking a pragmatic point of view rather than puffing up your own ideologies?
 
Back
Top Bottom