On "Polarization"

Power Line's John Hinderaker has an interesting observation today on the brouhaha surrounding Arizona's decision to, in effect, start enforcing the immigration laws the Federal government has chosen to ignore. His opening graf:

CNN reports on Arizona's new statute that makes illegal immigration a state crime. CNN's theme: "Immigration law polarizes Arizonans."

He elaborates:

CNN acknowledges that some Arizonans support the new law, but its account tilts heavily, in both volume and sympathy, toward its opponents. The law, after all, is "polarizing."

Fact is, LOTS of Arizonans support the law. A paradox Hinderaker has duly notes, commenting on the sheer, continuing, willful faultiness of the media coverage of this issue. It's:

...typical of news coverage of the Arizona statute. Google News lists over 4,000 stories about protests against the law; that is the overwhelming majority of all coverage. CNN reports that "Hundreds protest immigration law." The Washington Post headlines, "Arizona immigration law protesters urge action." The Associated Press finds newsworthy demonstrations against the law haven't happened yet: "Illegal immigrant law opponents to rally in Arizona."

Note the AP cheerleading for the as-yet nonexistent protests. It's almost as if this hard-left organization is attempting to drum up protestors for the alleged event.

But back to Hinderaker's original point:

Why, exactly, is the most newsworthy fact about the Arizona statute that it is "polarizing"? Why, exactly, are demonstrations against the law especially noteworthy? Most laws are the subject of controversy. Politics, by its nature, addresses issues about which people disagree. Actually, the Arizona law is supported by an unusual degree of consensus: polls indicate that 70 percent of Arizonans support it. So why do the small minority who oppose this particular law deserve top billing?

He eventually answers his own question:

Obviously, it is due to the fact that nearly all reporters and editors are Democrats. 

PS to John: Might as well say they're all Democrats. The percentage of Republican reporters and editors is so small as to be mere statistical noise.

All of which brings us around to a point I've been pushing here lately. For the hard left--aka the Democrat Party and its willing dupes in the MSM--the "truth" is not something objective, provable via hard evidence or syllogistic logic. The "truth" is what the Party says it is. And when you see these pathological liars accusing everyday patriotic Americans of something awful, it's they themselves who are guilty of the offense. You have to recognize this stuff for what it is: classic Stalinism.

In the case of Arizona's self-defense on the illegal immigration issue, the left's "truth" is that when Republicans/the right/the Tea Partiers/average Americans support the enforcement of existing laws to protect and preserve our nation, that's "polarizing." When illegals support the flouting of immigration law and any attempt to expel them for so doing, that's "patriotic." Which, of course, is exactly the opposite of the actual truth. It's the Democrats' continued pandering to the illegals that's polarizing for Arizona's citizens. Not the other way around.

Again, my patented truth formula bears repeating yet again, this time with a slight modification:

If the Democrats and/or the MSM are accusing the Republicans and the Tea Partiers of perpetrating Evil Thing X...

Then the Democrats themselves are currently undertaking Evil Thing X.