Melinda Zosh lets Jason Riley/WSJ engage in logical fallacy, Michael Barone spout nonsense

Melinda Zosh is an "intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia", and she offers "Today's Illegals 'Not Different, Just Newer'" about a talk that Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal (author of "The Case for Open Borders") gave at the CATO Institute (link).

While she offers a fine and no doubt accurate transcription, like most MSM reporters she doesn't go beyond that and question anything she's told. She simply serves as Riley's stooge and fails to call him on his use of a logical fallacy:

...Riley said that Americans limit their perspectives and fear that new immigrants won't assimilate. But the Irish did and "if America can assimilate the Irish, we can [assimilate] anybody."

Riley said lots of things, all of which Zosh dutifully wrote down without questioning them. She failed to point out to him anything approaching what's discussed at the previous link: the current conditions are quite different from those a century ago. The conditions are so different that Riley is engaging in a logical fallacy. Zoll forgot to point out to him that today's immigrants are largely coming from a contiguous country or region. She forgot to point out to him that Mexico used to own part of our territory and that 58% of Mexicans think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. There's so much she forgot to point out to him that her future in the MSM looks quite bright.

She also provides the following Michael Barone quote that makes me question his sanity:

"Our elites have been putting barriers in the way of immigration... Ultimately, the good sense of the people overwhelms the nonsense of the elites."

Any reporter worth her salt would have pointed out that it's the elites that have constantly pushed massive immigration, and that everyone else opposes them on that. Needless to say, Zosh did not do that.

ADDED: In case you missed it above, see the immigration tradition fallacy page for a detailed description of that canard.


Welcome back..what happened?

Glad your back. We need you

yes we need this site up and running for the ideals of freedom for all people. Long live Lonewacko.

I am the intern that you wrote about, and I do appreciate your criticism. That's why I'm interning, to learn more about journalism. And I agree with you, my future in the MSM is bright indeed.

Zosh why do you hate our freedoms? and why do you love mexico city so much? are you into mass race hate of the people of a free nation? or just hate the ideals of freedom and duty to one's nation and ideals of laws or just love the mexican? are you a race elite for mexico city and the third world rulers? and understand one fact the rich whites run mexico. or are you just one more little fool like most?

Just don't call it "journalism" Melinda. Just be honest and admit that you're a propagandist for anti-American liars at the WSJ.

Fred, I've never been accused of hating freedom before considering I'm a big advocate of the First Amendment, more specifically freedom of the press. Love Mexico City? I can't say I do since I've never been there. I don't hate anyone or anything. Fool? Let's be serious Fred, any young person who's attending college and interning in D.C. is hardly a fool. Young people like myself are tomorrow's leaders.

Melinda's job is not to give her opinion on illegal immigration. That job is for bloggers, like yourself. Melinda's article is solely meant to REPORT the information. Reporting in its very essence means to tell about something that happened, in this case Riley's statements at CATO Institute, without giving personal bias. Obviously, if you had been keeping up with Melinda's works you would not be using these ad hominem attacks (which show your ignorance by the way), and instead would see that her articles report both conservative and liberal ideals, thus making her unbiased. Also, I can see irony in Fred's comment. While calling Melinda a racist (against white people), you yourself carry a racist (against Mexicans) tone in your words. And what's wrong with "loving the mexican?" I may not agree with illegal immigration and want to seal up the border, but that doesn't mean I can't "love the mexican." For calling Melinda a fool, I'd like to see your credentials. Where did you go to school? How much scholarship money did you get? Please, I'm very interested.

More bullshit from the open borders lobby at the WSJ. I guarantee you I went to better school than either of you open border propagandists, which is why you refuse to address my comments and instead choose to pick on Fred, an old crazy man. So let's dissect the bullshit: "Riley said that Americans limit their perspectives and fear that new immigrants won't assimilate. But the Irish did and "if America can assimilate the Irish, we can [assimilate] anybody." They are assimiliating alright, that why I have to press one for English, because the Irish are just like Mexicans! This is opinion, not fact. The actual data on assimilation rates (which are never cited in the article) paint a very dismal future for this country: illegitimate births, crime and illiteracy are the results of being invaded by mexico. Pointing out when the facts are wrong is not ad hominem, but under your defition, ad hominem is when someone disagees with you. Where are the conservative ideals you refer to? There are none, which makes you equally as intellectually deficient as Melinda. If you love the mexican so much, go fucking live in mexico, you Wall Street dolt. Otherwise, shut your pie hole unless you are willing to back up your "love" with action. I will even pay to have you relocated to D.F. based upon your love of "the race." This is the USA, and the illegals are already going home in droves due to economic and legal stressors, much to the dismay of pro-slavery-lite advocates such as yourself. Remember what the penalty for treason is, you American-hating assholes.

"Young people like myself are tomorrow's leaders." And so humble in your self-assessment and naked desire to control people's lives like a good little leftist despot. Stupid, shameful, treasonous and pathetic, is what you are. Did you get into some elite institution on an affirmative action quota? That would explain everything.

This is the event I covered. Both sides of the argument were not present at the event. This is a story based on Riley's comments made at the CATO Institute. This is not an in-depth behind the scenes story. I am actually covering the other side and will be presenting arguments to Riley's comments in early July when an event will be held offering an open forum to those are against illegal immigration. I hope you enjoy reading that article.

An ad hominem attack is where you attack the person not the argument. None of you attacked the argument. "Just don't call it "journalism" Melinda. Just be honest and admit that you're a propagandist for anti-American liars at the WSJ." is hardly pointing out where the facts are wrong, wouldn't you say? That said, you still aren't understanding my point. Melinda's job is to report, and you assume that she is reporting her ideals, when in actuality, she is a conservative. You are obviously breaking down Riley's arguments, and for the most part, I'm not going to stop you, because I disagree with Riley as much as you do. But I'm not immature enough to attack Melinda for reporting Riley's comments. Oh, and the profanity definitely adds a zing to your comment. Unfortunately for you, that zing is what shows me that you're losing and you are angry. I'm as pro-American as you. I'm just not a racist as well. I have an 11' by 8' American flag hung up on the wall of my room. You just made it really obvious that you hate people with different ideals. You consider them traitors. Doesn't that make you a despot? And aren't despots against democracy? Sounds like you are...

"This is the event I covered. Both sides of the argument were not present at the event." There is a word for that: propaganda. You parrot what someone else says and call it "journalism." Did you bother to check any of the "facts" (lies) presented by the totalitarian CATO apparatchiks? Of course not. Stop being disingenuous and admit you're not a journalist, or even objective, by any stretch of the imagination.

Well I'm not a journalist, no. And I have no urge to be one either. Ok, here's an example. Every four years, before an election, the two national party conferences take place. Reporters from around the document what goes on. Some articles are about what was said in the RNC, some in the DNC. Are both sides present? NO. But I bet you would consider the one about the RNC journalism and the one about the DNC propaganda. Am I right? It's not Melinda's job to check facts on something that was said. That's a blogger/columnist's job. Oh, and CATO is a libertarian organization. If you weren't ignorant you would know that libertarianism is almost the polar opposite of totalitarianism. Please people, if you want to argue, do it right. Research something for a change.

I don't need a definition of ad hominem, Einstein. Like I said, I'm smarter than you. I attacked the absurd argument that the "irish are just like mexicans," you just want to be ignorant and stupid and use your own ad hominem of caling me "racist." You have already lost the argument once you resort to name calling. Presenting one side of the debate is propaganda, period. Propagandists need to attacked at every turn when they spout drivel against the American worker and in suport of slavery-lite of a hostile invading third world cesspool like mexico. Melinda is about as conservative as Juan McCain, who also supports the invasion of this country. There is not a single quote form an immgration reform patriot to be found in the article. Res ipsa loquitur, amigo. "But I'm not immature enough to attack Melinda for reporting Riley's comments. Oh, and the profanity definitely adds a zing to your comment. Unfortunately for you, that zing is what shows me that you're losing and you are angry." You are not smart enough to point out there is no fact checking nor an opposing viewpoint. So which is it? Am I employing ad hominem or am I breaking down Riley's arguments? Make up your mind. As for my use of profanity: go fuck yourself. If you are not angry, you aren't listening or you are too ignorant to understand the issues involved. I, and by extension the American people, aren't losing anything. Every time they try to ram amnesty down our throats, Americans soundly defeat this sort of treason. We are winning, you just don't like that fact. In fact, you aren't pro-American at all. You admit you love mexicans, so answer the question: if you love them so much, why don't you live there? I hate people with different ideals? You betcha. Do you love NAZIs even though they have different ideals than you? What is the difference between German Nationalism-Socialism and Mexican Nationalism-Socialism? Nothing at all. Next you use a red herring to support the invading hordes. You are a traitor if you do not support your countrymen and instead support mexicans, period. The rest of your argument is unintelligible. Democracy is why amnesty is defeated every time. The American people have spoken, and they have soundly rejected the likes of you and the WSJ. But you'll keep trying, because you hate this country. Remember what the penalty for treason is. That was enacted by democratic means, einstein.

"But I bet you would consider the one about the RNC journalism and the one about the DNC propaganda. Am I right?" No, you make some phone calls and you get the other side's response to what is being said. Not too hard to do if you are committed to legitimate journalism. "It's not Melinda's job to check facts on something that was said." This statement is laughable. Her job is to report the truth, period. You have zero understanding of what jourmalism is. "If you weren't ignorant you would know that libertarianism is almost the polar opposite of totalitarianism." Ok, then why do libertarians now support statist policies? They have always been a third party fringe group with no hope of ever holding office or political power because what they say is COMPLETELY out of touch with the American citizenry. Their irrelevance in politics is quite amusing to me. What are you proposing being researched when you can't even find your ass with both hands?

But do articles about the national conferences have the other side, except maybe small details (maybe a sentence)? Your idea of journalism is different from what modern journalism is. And that's ok, I suppose, but if you are that concerned about it, go into journalism. Change the face of the job. Give me an example of the Libertarian party supporting statist policies. Clearly they don't support it in the case of illegal immigration (which is part of the reason why I'm not Libertarian). The point is that Melinda's fact were indeed correct. Riley did, in fact, say those things. Now, some of Riley's statements might have been false, but that is for the reader to decide. THAT is reporting.

You never answered the question: if you love mexicans so much, why don't you go live there? There is no excuse for merely parroting what someone says and calling it "journalism." While Riley may have said these things, whether they are true or not needs to be verified by the person in charge of writing the truth: Melinda. Your sock-puppetry does not alter the lies being printed as fact: Mexicans are not the Irish of 100 years ago, so give it a rest. The people who read this site are not stupid and will not let the MSM propaganda being spouted by some 20-something punkette go unnoticed. As for statist policies, read from the libertarian party platform: "Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders." So who pays for the healthcare, food, education and housing for these invaders? You do, and the expansion of government (the state) is necessary to take money out of my pocket and give it to someone who has no legal right to be here. Chew on that statist policy for while.

Another thing: open borders are nothing more than forced integration and displacement of Americans by their own government. I advocate violence against the enemies of this country for their wilful refusal to protect the citizenry, WSJ propagandists included.

I do love mexicans. I don't agree with what their country stands for, but I love the people. I'm Christian. It's part of my belief system that I should love everyone. Go unnoticed? What are they gonna do about it? Statism: 1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. 2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic. from Libertarians stand for individual liberty above all (hence the name). Also, because they advocate open borders it doesn't fit with definition 2 either. SO GET THE DEFINITION RIGHT. Statism doesn't mean what you think it means. Again, I will state that I do not agree with the libertarian party (though for some reason you seem to think so). I believe borders are one of the highest priorities the U.S. faces now. That said, I am defending Melinda because I believe journalism is to report, while we decide how it should be interpretted (FOX News' slogan pretty much). You, sir, are not a supporter of Democracy or the Constitution. You made that quite clear in that last post. You are a Fascist who does not recognize the validity of the First Amendment.

This is America. If you love mexicans so much, get the fuck out of my country and go live there you hippie, treasonous piece of shit. I just quoted from the Lib platform, verbatim, which you choose to ignore and you instead use your dictionary like a fifth grader. Besides being some kumbaya hippie leftist, you're also an idiot. You lose the argument when you don't bother the read what Libs actually stand for. As for what is printed in the WSJ: it's all a bunch of crap, not journalism. Ms. Zosh can expect her name to smeared each and every time she writes propaganda purported to be journalism. There is a word for that too: fraud.

Calling Libertarians statist is like calling you a Communist. It just doesn't fit. It's better to use a dictionary like an intellectual than to use a word in the wrong fashion without knowing anything about what it means, like you do. As for what Libertarians stand for, I already know. I considered joining them at one time until I read all of their beliefs, and decided to stay Republican. Believe what you want. It's become pretty obvious that I'm not going to change your mind. However you have made it pretty clear with all of your profanity and name-calling that a) you hate my guts, and b) you think that works as a valid argument. All it does is make you look uneducated (which you probably are). I applaud your startling patriotism, but make sure it doesn't go to far, or else you might end up in prison. There's a good chance you are already on the FBI's watch list though. Have a nice life.

its really funny everyone is bashing her for being a lefty when in fact she is a student at the Jessie Helms school of government at Liberty University which you know is Jerry Falwells wacked out version of an institution for higher learning... lol

I went to high school with Melinda and she is a sad, stupid person. Incapable of any independent thought. I think it's funny she boasts about attending a fourth tier university that graduates 60% of law students that fail the bar.

Sad, stupid person? Where did you go to school? And I'd say the whole capable of any independent thought comment was pretty bogus. She showed her independence at MAHS by being a moderate conservative in a town of extreme conservatives (with a few radical liberals intermixed).

Well, ex-Montrosian, You went to high school with me? Why don't you reveal who you are? And do you have an internship in D.C.? What have you accomplished since you've left Montrose?

Ex-Montrosian, "I think it's funny she boasts about attending a fourth tier university that graduates 60% of law students that fail the bar." I'm not surprised you graduated from Montrose, because you obviously didn't cite a source or check your facts. Inaugural Class Achieves Phenomenal 89 Percent National Bar Passage Rate November 8, 2007 Liberty University School of Law is pleased to announce that its inaugural class of May 2007 has achieved an outstanding 89% national pass rate on the bar exam. Liberty's success on the bar exam places the law school in the top 20 percent of all ABA-approved law schools in the country with respect to bar passage rates. The law schoolÂ’s first graduates took the bar exam in 16 states. It is not unusual for a new law school to have a bar passage rate in the 30 to 40 percent range. A milestone in the history of a law school is when it reaches a bar passage rate of 70 percent. In Virginia, the overall passage rate for all law schools was 71.97%. LibertyÂ’s 89 percent bar passage rate is a phenomenal achievement for the school, which opened in August 2004 Source:

Ah, the delusions of grandeur remain. What was your place in our class again? I'm fairly certain that you have no grasp of political ideology and it's much easier for you to attach yourself to a moderate label. And your joke of a school makes up a good part of the lingering regime, so I am not at all surprised that there is nepotism and easy-ins for any cut-throat bitch professing conservatism in Washington. And I currently have two (paid) internships at government organizations on the East and West coasts, for your information.

Ex-Montrosian, How are you able to have two paid internships, one on the East Coast and the other on the West Coast, at once? You refuse to reveal who you are, therefore, you have no credibility.

Honestly, if you haven't figured it out yet, I've even given you too much credit, Mel. As far as my internships are concerned, I work with one Women's Business Organization during the school year (for all four undergraduate years), and during the summer I work for another in Calfornia, for which I also do remote work during the school year. Therefore, two internships. Is that easy enough to understand? I've given you enough clues, so if you want to do your faux-journalistic fact-checking, go right ahead. So, would you like to compare grades too? Maybe SAT scores? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings (or your precious ego), but I'm incredibly unimpressed with you as a human being.

Today's immigrants assimilate faster than previous immigrants. With better ways to communicate (tv, radio, telephone, internet), and with easier ways to travel, today's incoming Mexicans are more like Americans than Italians were like Americans a hundred years ago. That Mexico is next door helps, not hinders, assimilation. It is not a coincidence that the demise of Mexico's PRI dictatorship and its growing free-market economy is happening as Mexicans were coming and going, taking new ideas with them. The border should be opened again, as Jason Riley believes it should.