Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

March 5 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

It Depends Whom You’re Lying to

Michelle Malkin does a great job in her column today excoriating the serial criminality of Jose Antonio Vargas, the Filipino illegal-alien Pulitzer Prize winner (perjury, false claims of U.S. citizenship, identity fraud — he got into the White House, for heaven’s sake, using a fake SS#). His confessional stunt in the NYT wasn’t so much a case of spilling his guts because he couldn’t keep a secret any longer than the opening shot of a carefully planned lobbying campaign to revive the Dream Act amnesty in Congress.

The funny thing is that it doesn’t seem to be having the intended effect. Sure, ordinary people are outraged — just look at the reader comments. But the main intended target of his story was other reporters, so they’d put their own shoulders to the wheel and push amnesty in their commentary and “news” reporting even more strongly than they do already.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the amnesty — reporters don’t like being lied to. Here’s the Poynter Institute take on the piece. And here’s Slate’s Jack Shafer, who prefaces his piece by pointing out that “I believe in open borders,” just so you don’t confuse him with a bad person:

I get on my high horse about Vargas’ lies because reporter-editor relationships are based on trust. A news organization can’t function if editors must constantly cross-examine their reporters in search of deliberate lies. I’m more disturbed with Vargas for lying to the Washington Post Co. (which—disclosure alert!—employs me) than I am about him breaking immigration law. His lies to the Post violated the compact that makes journalism possible. … The trouble with habitual liars, and Vargas confesses to having told lie after lie to protect himself from deportation, is that they tend to get too good at it. Lying becomes reflex. And a confessed liar is not somebody you want working on your newspaper.

So, apparently the employer-employee relationship is not “based on trust.” Or the police-citizen relationship. Apparently, journalism is special, a place where trust and truth are more important because journalism is more important. Shafer doesn’t mind if illegal aliens lie to the police, lie to their employers, lie to the DMV, lie to immigration authorities, lie to Social Security, lie to the Secret Service, lie to their schools, landlords, banks, etc., etc., etc. But lying to the Fourth Estate? The Guarantors of Democracy? The bulwark against greedy capitalists and fascistic police? Who does Vargas think he is?

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   23

EXPAND  

   06/24/11 11:12

"Shafer doesn’t mind if illegal aliens lie to the police, lie to their employers, lie to the DMV, lie to immigration authorities, lie to Social Security, lie to the Secret Service, lie to their schools, landlords, banks, etc., etc., etc. "

Yes Mark, employers have no idea they are employing illegals - and the police are also fooled. They lie to Social Security - by paying into a system they'll never get benefits from. Banks are so deceived by them that they alter all their services to be in Spanish. Please stop playing the innocent here.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:22

What are you talking about? You're saying it's peachy keen to lie, and break the law by the way. As long as everybody already knows you're lying and breaking the law, what's the big deal? The point is that lying to one's editor isn't worse than lying to everybody else, regardless of how painfully aware everybody else already is.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:32

"What are you talking about? You're saying it's peachy keen to lie, and break the law by the way. As long as everybody already knows you're lying and breaking the law, what's the big deal? The point is that lying to one's editor isn't worse than lying to everybody else, regardless of how painfully aware everybody else already is."

No, I am saying the current state of affairs is a big farce. There are lies from employers, city and local governments and immigrants, etc. It makes no sense to just scapegoat the immigrants - when there is an entire infrastructure that knowingly supports them here.

This farce take place because no one has the leadership to resolve the situation one way or another. Reagen encountered the same problem in 86 - and he issued an amnesty. Either way, amnesty or deportation there has to be a solution for the people who already living and working here. However we should have closed the border yesterday - so this situation never has to be dealt with again.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:14

And since James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart have not been first in line to get Pulitzers, the credibility and worth of the Pulitzer Prize is currently zero.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:17

You're right as always Mark. And it shows something more about the open borders crowd's way of thinking. He might retort to you that immigration law is a human creation that is flawed and should be changed, and that breaking it is somehow different not as bad as breaking a deeper code* like truth-telling (*some might say commandment, but not many from the lefty journalist pool). It's interesting and so telling to see the left's disdain for the rule of law show itself so baldly.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:22

"So, apparently the employer-employee relationship is not 'based on trust.'....Apparently, journalism is special, a place where trust and truth are more important because journalism is more important. Shafer doesn’t mind if illegal aliens lie to the police, [etc]."

Shafer didn't say any of these things. He just said that he's *more* concerned about the reporter-editor relationship because that relationship is personally important *to him*. I don't think that's a particularly unusual or troublesome attitude. He's essentially saying that he's most concerned about the things that are most important to him, which seems perfectly human, and a truism to boot.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 GWB
   06/24/11 11:33

No, Lorraine, he's saying Journalism is special in the trust department: "His lies to the Post violated the compact that makes journalism possible."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:36

Given that Shafer repeatedly denounces the currently (underenforced) immigration laws and expresses support for Vargas' amnesty push, I think it's pretty fair to say that Shafer's problem with Vargas' lies begins and ends with the fact that Vargas lied to Shafer's people. How else do you explain this passage?

"It's not exactly breaking news that the 11 million undocumented people who rely on bogus identity documents to live here illegally must tell lies almost daily. So what's unique about the Vargas story is not that he lied or engaged other people in his fraud but whom he told his lies to: the Washington Post and presumably the Huffington Post, where he was on staff."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 GWB
   06/24/11 11:24

(cupping hands to mouth) IS THERE AN EDITOR IN THE HOUSE?!

Try "It depends to whom you're lying".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:35

GWB: That's the kind of English up with which I will not put.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:37
 DrJ
   06/24/11 13:30

That was my first thought, when I saw the headline. However: It depends "on" to whom you are lying.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:37

The only reason banks offer services in Spanish is because of all the illegals??????

Or do you just assume that anyone with a dark skin who speaks spanish must be an illegal?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:41

People who speak exclusively Spanish are almost exclusively illegal immigrants.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 13:13

I'm glad to know that you take so much pride in your stupidity.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:41

It's only racist when conservatives say stupid [stuff] like that.

Joe Biden's 7-11/Dunkin Donuts analysis, anyone?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:40

I'm not big on banning things, but if I were, I think banning journalism schools and journalism degrees. The only purpose they seem to serve is to make people with journalist degrees feel like they are somehow special and deserving of special rights.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 11:42

They might be able to fix it with a questionnaire at entry.

If they check the box that says, "I want to change the world," banish them to business school.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 12:18

He should have taken a cue from Weiner, who learned at his peril the risk of lying to the media. Some sins are unforgivable.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/24/11 12:34

Unless you are a Democrat president who would leave the country saddled with Algore if he resigned.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact