MSM Lies In Love Story Same As In Immigration
By Joe Guzzardi
On March 6, The New York Times published Daryl Hannah’s op-ed “How Can ‘Love Story’ Get Away with This?” Hannah was referring to the FX made-for-television series that focused on the whirlwind love affair and marriage between John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette, then a Calvin Klein employee. The couple and Bessette’s sister Lauren died in July 1999 when a small plane that Kennedy piloted crashed off Martha Vineyard’s coast.
Four decades have passed since I have given Hannah the least passing thought. With Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen, Hannah co-stared in the film 1987 “Wall Street” which I saw and, as a former Wall Streeter, enjoyed. My eye, however, caught Hannah’s question: how does the media, of which television is a prominent part, get away with gross misrepresentation which it presents as hard fact. Immigration enforcement advocates have been asking the same question for years.
Immigration enforcement advocates and Darryl Hanna make strange bedfellows. But both Hannah and Americans who endorse following congressionally approved and president-signed immigration law wonder why the media won’t give them a fair shake.
Hannah correctly complained that “Love Story” producers maliciously and for profit misrepresented her five-year romance with Kennedy, Jr. In the process of churning out salacious content, FX also slanderously misrepresented her character.
From her op-ed, Hannah countered FX’s portrayal with her side of the story:
“The character Daryl Hannah portrayed in the series is not even a remotely accurate representation of my life, my conduct or my relationship with John. The actions and behaviors attributed to me are untrue. I have never used cocaine in my life or hosted cocaine-fueled parties. I have never pressured anyone into marriage. I have never desecrated any family heirloom or intruded upon anyone’s private memorial. I have never planted any story in the press. I never compared Jacqueline Onassis’ death to a dog’s. It’s appalling to me that I even have to defend myself against a television show. These are not creative embellishments of personality. They are assertions about conduct — and they are false.”
Hanna continued:
“For decades, my work has focused on environmental advocacy, documentary filmmaking and animal-assisted therapy for seniors living with dementia and Alzheimer’s. My professional life is built on compassion and responsibility. Reputation is not about ego; it is about the ability to continue doing the meaningful work I love. Like any career, doing good work requires an intact reputation. This is why I am choosing to stand up for myself now.”
Comparing Hannah’s disgust with the media’s mischaracterization of her to the lies, both of omission and of commission, attributed to enforcement advocates may seem like a stretch to some. But only to those not engaged in the fray.
Around 2000, NumbersUSA assigned me to head its newly formed Media Standards Project (MSP). The task was straightforward—everyday I would read immigration stories, evaluate them against the fairness and balance standards that the Society for Professional Journalists set for reporters. SPJ has a code of ethics that emphasizes the importance of seeking truth and reporting it, respecting all individuals, of considering the potential effect of their reporting on subjects and engaging in open dialogue about their practices. By adhering to those principles, journalists can foster credibility and integrity in their work.
Over the three-year period that I analyzed immigration stories—I read about 1,500—only a small handful of reporters admitted that their stories could have been more balanced. Even considering the blatant one-sidedness like a San Francisco Chronicle page one homage to illegal immigration—eight quoted as pro; zero opposed— reporters would not back down, claiming that to include the enforcement perspective would be “another story” and not the one they wanted to tell.
Reporters told lies of commission like portraying congressional enforcement heroes like Senator Jeff Sessions and U.S. Representatives Tom Tancredo and Steve King as racists. Lies of omission included the failure to write about how illegal immigration, asylum fraud, refugee resettlement overwhelms schools, hospitals and communities. Out of 1,500 stories, the odds would favor that some stories would include the downside to open borders. The stories defied the odds; I never found true 50-50 balance.
During the 25 years since I concluded the MSP project, fairness and balance in the failing, fading legacy media immigration stories is still non-existent. In an indirect victory for enforcement advocates, the public’s trust in the media is at an all-time low, 28%. In other words, the media is still cranking out dishonest stories, but fewer and fewer readers believe them.
Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated columnist who has written about immigration and other social issues for more than 30 years. Contact him at guzzjoe@yahoo.com
