I agree with most you had to say, except that 3rd part, regarding objectivity. I continue to read stories about my favorite bone to chew - immigration. Most of the time, evidence is either ignored or ignored - yes I said it twice. When it comes to the horrendous costs of illegal immigration to our local and State infrastructure systems, we can no longer afford to be magnanimous to our southern neighbors. I can present numbers until you are swamped, that tell us this is a true problem, but somehow, all those "hard" points get softened by the need for the reporter to pick the "feel-good" side of the story, ("Poor Juan, he works so hard he should be rewarded" - end of story. No NOT end of story. "Poor Juan" should literally be in jail!) Of course those people suffer hardships, the minute they start their hazardous journey. I have seen their road to freedom, the Amnesty trail, in person. The masses and tons of debris left behind through 40 miles of desert wilderness is a super-fund clean-up story. Why isn't this reported? That is more than obvious. But why should we excuse their unlawful behavior, "just because they are seeking a better life"? The facts remain that they are breaking the law by sneaking into our country - a misdemeanor. Then, almost immediately, they break it more seriously by obtaining false documentation - a felony. If the crime wasn't serious, it wouldn't be a FELONY. How do we explain to our children, or anyone else's, that it is o.k to steal, (by definition, that's what these people are doing) as long as you "work hard". It makes no more sense than our own State Supreme Court saying it is O.K. to lie about someone as long as they live a public life. The injustices these people have done to their own countrymen is just as bad. I had a conversation with a 24 year-old Mexican lady, (Now legal and a citizen) who has been displaced by her illegal counterparts in her job. Why? Because they will do it even cheaper! Somehow, it cheapens the very difficult time she experienced becoming a citizen the lawful way - I thanked her - to let others in for free. Last week, in Seattle, I read about a 90+ year-old grandmother, who spent her entire fortune of over $300,000 in private-pay nursing home facilities now being evicted because Medicaid can't afford her. Why? BEcause they are broke due to nearly $200 million in fraudulent claims by ILLEGAL aliens that are given a pass through the system. "NO' you say? I can come up with employees from DSHS that will tell you off the record this is so. This is a scandal and we are ignoring it! For humanitarian reasons? Then why aren't ewe more human toward our own citizens? Somehow, your paper and most others, are giving short-shrift to this immensely important and hugely expensive problem. It is one of the biggest social injustices of our time, and I don't mean to say that we should then just grant them all amnesty and welcome them with open, sharing arms. That would be the LAST thing to serve justice and the sense of what is truly right. I could write pages of material telling our side of the story, that would not in any way be racist or xenophobic, just based upon supportable facts, but I don't own a newspaper. Immigration, in fact, has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with our law and National Security, with our financial security and cultural security. The problem is the outrage that a vast majority of Americans are feeling by being ignored on this issue, by our so-called leaders, (whose opinion poll give them a grade of 9% approval rating!?) We Americans have ALWAYS stood for right and justice and following the law. Why aren't we doing that now with this issue. It is so simple. We have a legal way to do all this, to provide all the workers we need, and to let people come to be citizens on a controlled basis. We don't need new laws and we don't need government subsidized slavery. That's is what we are now getting. Why can't we get a nice long article on the truth of immigration and what needs to be done about it? If such a thing happened, THEN I might believe you are being "objective".

I am one of those who feel that the “main-stream” media is bias. Those in the media may be well meaning in their attempts to be objective, but they have not yet met that objective. They are either under an illusion or are just so blatantly biased that they think if they make a comment once in a while even bashing those on the other side of their agenda items, then they are being fair. It seems very apparent to me that the mainstream media has an overt agenda and takes every opportunity to promote that agenda. Sarah Jenkins said in the piece that they, meaning journalists, are trained to be objective. I believe they have been trained in liberal bias and how to show it while claiming to be objective. They have drawn the line well to the left of center and then claim to be objective, but from the center point they have chosen. Judging from the overall bent of the main stream media’s slant on virtually every story, especially those coming from the Associated Press, they end up not being news but commentary. The Associated Press has recently coming out saying they are going to include the opinions of reports in their offerings. The truth is that they have been doing that for years, and it is not objective! Associated Press articles lack research, and most of all balance. If I were to write a letter to the editor and make unfounded statements or statements based on doubtful conjecture as are commonplace in AP articles the Herald Editorial Board would refuse to print them Local editors may not be writing the articles, but they are choosing which articles they publish and what headlines are placed over the articles. Many times the headline gives a message, which is not backed by the article itself. Local editors also make the decisions on the extent of responses and who is allowed to offer opposing opinions. An example is the amount of space they give to the promotion of the gay agenda, while at best limiting the discussion and at times outright refusing to allow debate at all. Local editors also choose which syndicated columnists they will print, loading their paper with extremely liberal contributors like Trudy Ruben and Charles Haynes, while rarely including those with conservative views. Another indication is their choices for the Yakima Herald advisory committee. Virtually every member leans decidedly left on politics and social issues. A balance would be to have some liberals, some conservatives, and some in the middle. To see the bias in the media one only needs to look at the unprecedented coverage that is given to Barak Obama’s overseas trip, even to the embarrassment of some journalists. These same objective journalists scramble to give token coverage to his political opponent. It is obvious that the mainstream media wants Obama to be President. Over the past seven years, the Yakima Herald has printed an abundance of articles bashing President Bush. Unsubstantiated allegations regarding his truthfulness while laying the blame for everything that happened at his feet were the rule. Then they try to balance that by giving President Bush a backhanded endorsement, obviously to placate conservative readers. Where are the articles about the recent find of yellow cake uranium in Iraq, or the articles regarding the information from the FBI agent who questioned Saddam Huissen about weapons of mass destruction where he admitted having them and getting rid of them just before we went to war to overthrow him? The agenda has been to bash President Bush, and when real news comes along that will exonerate him, the media is silent. What about the story regarding the fact that the numbers of military casualties during the Clinton administration were double that experienced during the Bush administration, or does objectivity focus only on the number of casualties in Iraq? (Yes, even one casualty is too many.) Rush Limbaugh is another favorite target of the mainstream media. The truth is that if the rest of the media was doing its job of being balanced and objective there would be no need for him. The accusation is that it isn’t fair because conservative talk shows have such an influence and liberal talk shows can’t get a foothold. The reason for the latter is that we hear enough liberal bias from the mainstream media that we don’t need any more. We get little or none from the right in the mainstream media, thus the success of conservative talk radio. Perhaps the mainstream media should revisit what they were supposedly trained to do and not just make excuses, or try to convince the people that they are objective when the evidence to the contrary is very clear just by partaking of their offerings.