Replies

Here is MY note to the two writers of this article:

- - - - -

Gentlemen:

I know you don’t SELECT the headlines, but can you PLEASE let your editor know that his BS “Anti-immigration candidates” headline is MISLEADING and just plain WRONG!

I am NOT “anti-immigration”, and neither are any candidates running for major office. It is ILLIGAL immigration that we are opposed to. My wife is Chinese and we got her over her LEGALLY via a fiancee visa five years ago. She then applied for and received her permanent residency (”green card”). She has now applied for citizenship and has an interview set for this June and will hopefully get citizenship shortly thereafter.

So while I am FOR enforcing our immigration laws, I am NOT ANTI-IMMIGRATION. Get it???

Get the FACTS straight please. The misleading headline that implies that people who want immigration laws ENFORCED are RACIST BIGOTS is just WRONG and totally misleading, and shows bias on the editor/headline writers part.

Thank you,

- - - - -

Feel free to email them yourselves, too! :)

bformby@dallasnews.com

imccann@dallasnews.com

I read the whole article.

Exceptional bias.

The “hardliners” in Farmers Branch and Carrollton won three elections.

Three incumbents in Irving, all of whom favor some level of immigration enforcement, won three elections against “hardliners.”

That's a tie.

Not what you would expect after reading the headline.

Also, several paragraphs were devoted to developing the idea that the Carrollton mayor lost to a “hardliner” because of personal issues, not immigration issues.

That may be true.

However, no analysis was done to explain if the Irving candidates beat “hardliners” because of immigration issues, or because of other issues.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram has a headline today “Foes of illegal immigration prevail”. First sentence in article, “Local crackdown on illegal immigration got another round of public approval Saturday,etc” Rest of article is on page 7B.
Maybe the editors of the Dallas paper should come live over on this side of the metroplex to see the real problem.

Talk about bias, did you catch this a few weeks ago? The editors posted their endorsement of Ubama by describing him as "Kennedyesque"--gag me!!! :-\ Yup, the DMN is all about unbiased reporting--NOT.

The ENTIRE DMN newspaper is biased and liberal!! We canceled our subscription years ago, but sometimes get it when we go to restaurants...every single time I read the DMN it sets off my fuse at the BLATANT liberalism in so many of the 'hard news' stories. Yesterday there was a story about a soldier in Iraq who helped a little girl who'd lost her legs get prosthetic ones...here's the LATimes version. Actually, a nice story. However, the DMN chose to print this version of the story with this sentence: "In a war that Sgt. Falcon no longer really understood, Shahad became his mission..." (Sorry, can't find the DMN online link for this, but found the Houston Chronicle one.)

Was it really necessary to leave that line in? There's countless examples of little liberal digs in many of the DMN articles for the past several years, getting more and more blatant digs at conservatives.

It's just really irritating to see these little digs pop up time and time again in so-called 'journalistic' stories which are in reality liberal opinions and editorials!! >:-(