Showing posts with label shock joks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shock joks. Show all posts

Friday, December 5, 2008

Hot rhetoric fuels Latino hate crimes

SOURCE:



OPINION

Commentary By Raul Reyes

Seven teenagers have been charged in the tragic death last month of Marcelo Lucero, a 38-year-old immigrant who worked at a dry cleaner. Police say Lucero was on his way to a friend's house in Patchogue, N.Y., when a gang of drunken high schoolers out to jump "a Mexican" surrounded him. Lucero was attacked and then fatally stabbed in the chest.

I suppose it doesn't matter that Patchogue is a comfortable, relatively crime-free suburb on Long Island. Or that Lucero wasn't even Mexican; he was from Ecuador. The sad truth is that Lucero's death is part of a national trend of violence against Latinos. According to new statistics from the FBI, we are the No. 1 target of hate crimes motivated by ethnicity or national origin. In 2007, 62% of such victims were Hispanic.

Yet these statistics might not show the full picture. A 2005 Justice Department report asserted that the actual number of hate crimes exceeded the FBI's numbers.The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group, confirms that many hate crimes are not reported. Many illegal immigrants, no doubt fearing deportation, would be reluctant to contact law enforcement.

The Patchogue killing reminds me of an incident this summer in Shenandoah, Pa., in which four teens were charged in the death of an illegal Mexican immigrant.

What do these two communities have in common? An increase in the Latino population and a corresponding rise in anti-immigrant sentiments.

Today, the national anti-immigration fervor has subsided as the economy has cooled, but it's fair to assume that some violence against Latinos is a byproduct of the xenophobic debate of previous years. Hate crimes directed at Latinos rose 40% during the past four years — a time frame that roughly corresponds to the failure of attempts at comprehensive reform. Some politicians and activists who oppose illegal immigration often have engaged in or encouraged anti-Hispanic rhetoric. They don't seem to realize that inflammatory language can incite inflammatory acts.

It saddens and angers me that Latinos must still live with the threat of violence simply because of their ethnicity. I am worried, too, that in these tough economic times, fear and anxiety will be directed at the wrong targets. Hate speech can hurt, and sometimes kill.

If and when this country revisits the immigration issue under an Obama administration, we should engage in a debate that is good for all of us — rather than one that vilifies and endangers some of us.

Raul Reyes is an attorney in New York and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

USA TODAY welcomes your views and encourages lively -- but civil -- discussions. Comments are unedited, but submissions reported as abusive may be removed. By posting a comment, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older.


Powered by FeedBurner

Monday, November 10, 2008

Harsh Words, No Action

From: Chrisy58’s Weblog

Harsh Words, No Action

I wanted to post this here because I thought it was very interesting and I think that many people have forgotten our history. What is the best way to fight those who hate people, but to expose their lies with the truth.

David Duke and his White Nationalist like to blame most of our problems on the Jews, Blacks, and other non whites. Just the 30 minutes I listened to his Euro Conference this weekend was about the Jews and how they hate white people and don’t consider us human beings. I think his story was if a Jewish person needed a liver that he wouldn’t hestiate to grab a Non Jew off the street and take his liver. I know they won’t consider that hate speech or anything wrong with implying that we have to be afraid of the Jews in our midst, but I do find it very hateful and spreading lies as truth.

That is exactly what the Hitler and this Third Reich did in Germany. They poisoned the minds of the German people by telling them all these terrible lies as truth. I still have nightmares just thinking of the movie the Eternal Jew which is promoted as the truth in White Nationalist circles and families. The scene where the baby calfs were tortured and the movie said that is the way Jewish people butcher their cows for beef really got me angry. I love animals and I thought how could anyone be so cruel to animals. It was the German people love animals and are good and the Jews are terrible and are out to get the German Aryan race. The movie is presented as the truth. I see that same brainwashing going on in this country today.

I had never heard of the book the The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zionism until I was living with Jeff. It was one of the books on the required reading material. Again that book is passed off as the truth. It is a lie, but like the movie the eternal jew people who are being recruited into White Nationalism are told that is the truth and come to think that they must fear the Jew who they are told is out to destroy them. It was just another book to me that I couldn’t get through because it make me sick to my stomach, but just told Jeff I read it.

Kristallnach did happen, though I know White Nationalists either deny it or blame the Jews and look at it as Germans just defending themselves or some delusion that they hold as the truth.

http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Holocaust/YNetNews_11092008.htm

Harsh Words, No Action
By Abraham H. Foxman
ADL National Director

This article originally appeared in Hebrew in Yedioth Ahronoth and in English on Y-Net News.com on November 9, 2008 RULE

For those of us engaged in the fight against anti-Semitism, the commemoration of Kristallnacht which took place 70 years ago on November 9-10, has special meaning. Of course, Kristallnacht is important to remember because it was the moment when it became clear that Nazi hatred of Jews was beyond anything seen before. It is important to remember because there are yet those among us who lived through, witnessed it, and survived it. And it is important to remember because after Kristallnacht, the world no longer had any excuses for not acting against the barbarism of Nazi anti-Semitism.

Most of all, however, Kristallnacht teaches us the most basic lesson about how to view anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred. One could ask the question: if we observe Yom HaShoah every spring, why do we need to have a second commemoration every year on the anniversary of Kristallnacht? The answer, I believe, lies in the different focus. Yom HaShoah speaks to the horror of the murder of six million. It remembers and calls attention to the ultimate brutality that humans are capable of and that the history of anti-Semitism eventually produced. It is about remembering the millions of people whose lives were snuffed out because of hatred. And it reminds us that “Never Again” must be a guiding principle of our lives as Jews.

Kristallnacht, on the other hand, is not about the end product of hate but the process. It represents the reality that a Holocaust does not just happen; it has to be prepared, cultivated, acted upon first in small steps, then bigger ones, and finally the biggest. In this sense, Kristallnacht commemoration is not only about remembering the over 90 Jews who were killed, the 30,000 male Jews who were arrested and sent to concentration camps, the over 1,000 synagogues which were torched along with their Torah scrolls and prayer books, and the 7,000 Jewish shops and business that were looted and destroyed.

It is also about how the Holocaust came to pass. It reminds us that the Holocaust couldn’t have happened had there not been 2,000 years of demonization of Jews throughout Europe, as reflected in the Decide charge and in the scapegoating of Jews as an evil and powerful force. It couldn’t have happened had there not been cynical anti-Semites who produced the infamous forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zionism which gave credibility to the notion of worldwide Jewish satanic power.

Harsh words, no action

Hatred in its most extreme form, like the Holocaust, evolves over time. The challenge is not to wait to stand up until the final stage when it is too late. The time to stand up is during its evolution, indeed as early as possible. Kristallnacht was the moment when the world had to stand up. It didn’t.

There was no doubt from that point on that the Nazis were no longer content to simply strip Jews of their legal rights. Many newspapers and government officials around the world decried the violence and barbarity of Kristallnacht, but few governments were prepared to act.

Franklin Roosevelt condemned the outrages and recalled the US Ambassador from Germany for “consultations,” but any liberalization of America’s tight immigration quotas was, he said, “not in contemplation.” The British cabinet allowed 10,000 Jewish children into Britain from December 1938 to September 1939 in the course of the famous Kindertransport, but refused to allow 21,000 more into Palestine.

Kristallnacht proved the point. The world responded with harsh words and no action. Soon enough, the words themselves echoed empty and hollow. Silence followed. Kristallnacht was the first nail in the coffin of European Jewry.

Kristallnacht commemorations are important for many reasons, including the need to show the world that we must stop hate in its tracks before it leads to the ultimate - a final solution.

__________


Abraham H. Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Powered by FeedBurner

Friday, October 24, 2008

Savage: "Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise"

From: Media Matters for America
Thu, Oct 23, 2008 6:16pm ET

Summary: On his radio show, Michael Savage asked: "Do you think a person on welfare has the right to vote? I don't." He later added: "Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise."


Savage: "Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise"

During the October 22 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage asked: "Do you think a person on welfare has the right to vote? I don't. Why should a person who is on public assistance maintain the right to vote? Tell me why. Where is it written that they should have the right to vote?" He added: "I support them, and they should have the same vote I do? That would be like saying an infant has the right to vote or an insane person has the right to vote. Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise."

Savage continued: "So if you get a demagogue like [Sen. Barack] Obama coming along, and he says to the welfare recipient, elect me, and I'll make sure that we have trickle-up poverty, and the rich -- so-called, that is anyone who works for a living -- will give you more money, more welfare, of course you're gonna vote for the demagogue Obama. See, if I was in charge, I'd pass a law which says, OK, you can't support yourself for whatever reason, you're on welfare, you lose the right to vote."

Later in the broadcast, Savage again asked: "Do you think that people on welfare should lose the right to vote, as I do? Do you believe that that would be a fundament of democracy that if you lose the right -- if you lose the ability to support yourself, for whatever reason, and you seek public assistance, you should, during that period of receiving public assistance, lose the right to vote?" He later stated: "You get back on the self-sufficiency, you get the right to vote. Then we'll have a fair election in America. Otherwise, it's all over. We have a communist nation either now or in the very near future."

As Media Matters for America has documented, on the October 21 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, host Jim Quinn, while discussing the history of property rights in the United States, said: "Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end." Quinn added: "But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited." Additionally, on the October 2 broadcast of his Minneapolis radio show, Chris Baker said, "I don't think homeless people should vote. Frankly, in fact, I have to be very honest. I'm not that excited about women voting, to be honest." Baker later added: "But that's just me. I'm a pig, and that's fine. All right? And we'll see that, I'm sure, on a lame-ass website very soon. But I don't think hobos ought to vote at all. They're nuts. And I think that there needs to be a little more care in who votes."

Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.

From the October 22 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: Do you think a person on welfare has the right to vote? I don't. Why should a person who is on public assistance maintain the right to vote? Tell me why. Where is it written that they should have the right to vote? I support them, and they should have the same vote I do? That would be like saying an infant has the right to vote or an insane person has the right to vote. Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise.

So if you get a demagogue like Obama coming along, and he says to the welfare recipient, elect me, and I'll make sure that we have trickle-up poverty, and the rich -- so-called, that is anyone who works for a living -- will give you more money, more welfare, of course you're gonna vote for the demagogue Obama. See, if I was in charge, I'd pass a law which says, OK, you can't support yourself for whatever reason, you're on welfare, you lose the right to vote. That's all there is to it. You've disenfranchised yourself, either through bad luck or bad behavior, whatever, and you get the right to vote again when you're self-sufficient and you're paying taxes. No taxes, no vote; no taxes, no vote; no taxes, no vote; no taxes, no vote. I have a lot of commonsensical ideas, but you don't hear any -- any of this coming out of the mouths of John McCain, do you? The mouths of John McCain -- I said that pointedly. The mouths of John McCain.

[...]

SAVAGE: Do you think that people on welfare should lose the right to vote, as I do? Do you believe that that would be a fundament of democracy that if you lose the right -- if you lose the ability to support yourself, for whatever reason, and you seek public assistance, you should, during that period of receiving public assistance, lose the right to vote? I think that that's perfectly rational, and the reason is, of course you're gonna go with any demagogue who says he's gonna give you more money.

Of course you're gonna vote to take away things from people who work for a living. And by definition, that's not fair. Fair should be those who work for a living and pay taxes get to vote. I'm not arguing that the more money you have, the more votes you should have. I didn't say that, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm arguing the opposite -- that you lose the right -- the ability to support yourself, you lose the right to vote temporarily. You get back on the self-sufficiency, you get the right to vote. Then we'll have a fair election in America. Otherwise, it's all over. We have a communist nation either now or in the very near future.

—H.D. & N.T.



Powered by FeedBurner

Conservative Media Figures: Obama's Hawaii trip is about birth-certificate, not about grandmother

From: Media Matters for America

Thu, Oct 23, 2008 10:13pm ET

Summary: Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerome Corsi suggested or asserted that the true purpose of Sen. Barack Obama's current trip to Hawaii is not to visit his ailing grandmother, as Obama claims, but rather to address rumors -- widely debunked -- that Obama has failed to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate. However, in addition to FactCheck.org and a Hawaiian Health Department official, even Corsi's employer, the right-wing website WorldNetDaily, has reportedly determined that the birth certificate provided by the Obama campaign is authentic.


Conservative media figures allege Obama's Hawaii trip is about discredited birth-certificate rumors, not his ailing grandmother

Conservative radio hosts Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh and Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi -- who appeared as a guest on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show -- suggested or asserted that the true purpose of Sen. Barack Obama's current trip to Hawaii is not to visit his ailing grandmother, as Obama claims, but rather to address rumors -- widely debunked -- that Obama has failed to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate. However, as Media Matters for America has documented, the Obama campaign posted a copy of Obama's birth certificate on its "Fight the Smears" website and reportedly provided the original document to FactCheck.org, whose staff concluded in an August 21 post that it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." A Hawaiian Health Department official also reportedly confirmed to PolitiFact.com that Obama's birth certificate is valid, and even Corsi's employer, the right-wing website WorldNetDaily, reported in an August 23 article that a "WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic."

On the October 23 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said:

Who announces days in advance they're rushing to the side of a loved one who is deathly ill, but keeps campaigning in a race that's said to be over, only to go to the loved one's side days later? See, I think this is about something else. You know what's really percolating out there? And I've been laying low on this because it just -- it hasn't met the threshold to pass the smell test on this program. But this birth certificate business, this lawsuit that a guy named Phillip Berg filed in Philadelphia in August for Obama to produce his genuine birth certificate, and he still hasn't replied, he hasn't done so.

Limbaugh later added:

When you first announced this, you're gonna rush, you're gonna hurry, you're gonna make tracks, you're gonna get over there because you don't want your grandmother to die before you got there like your mother did, but somehow you keep campaigning, you take three days to get over there, if he's left yet. And this birth certificate business -- I'm just wondering if something's up. I have no clue, and I -- folks, I'm telling you, this has not reached the threshold until now, and it's now popping up all over the place.

During an appearance on the October 22 broadcast of Liddy's radio show, Corsi said:

I'm headed out to Honolulu. I am not convinced that Barack Obama is going because his grandmother is sick. I appreciate that his grandmother is sick and he wants to be with her. I do recall that Barack Obama's mother died of cancer, and he didn't go to be by her side when she died. He relates that in his autobiography, Dreams From My Father. And I'm going out to do what digging I can on the birth certificate.

Corsi later added:

I think I'll accomplish something in Hawaii, too. Obama's headed out there, and I believe there's a court challenge that if Obama does not dodge, he's gonna be forced to produce a birth certificate, and there's gonna be something damaging on that birth certificate, because even at the eleventh hour, Obama refuses to show us the hospital-generated birth certificate when he was born.

As Media Matters has noted, Corsi has previously claimed that the Obama campaign "refuses to release the original birth certificate," even though WorldNetDaily -- where Corsi works as a staff writer -- has debunked the claim.


On the October 22 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Savage stated that "[t]here are people arguing that Obama is headed back to Hawaii not so much to visit an ailing relative, but to fudge the birth certificate in question" and said moments later, "There is intense national interest on the Internet about his citizenship, and the question is being asked, could this be the real reason he is headed to Hawaii?" Savage subsequently became more definitive, stating:

Do you actually believe he's going to Hawaii to visit his ailing grandmother with 10 days to go until an election? Do you actually believe that? Do you actually believe he'd be going to Hawaii at this time with 10 days to go? You actually believe that? No, no, no -- no, no, no, no, no. No. There's some other reason that he's leaving the mainland of the United States in the midst of this toe-to-toe struggle right now, and it's got to do with his birth certificate.

He later added: "And Obama's leaving for Hawaii -- why? Why? What's he doing there? Why's he going there, huh? What's he going there for, huh? Why's he gonna -- the last phase of a race, he's getting off the track just to visit his grandmother? Don't be stupid. It's the birth certificate issue, you fools, you."

More on this Story

Savage also directed people to his website to "look at the birth certificate and judge for yourself on MichaelSavage.com. We actually have the birth certificate submitted by the Obama camp, and it looks like it's fake." Savage's website currently has a copy of the birth certificate Obama has posted on its "Fight the Smears" website along with a headline stating "Could this be the REAL reason Obama is heading to Hawaii?" The headline links to a post by Andy Martin on Martin's Contrarian Commentary website. Martin stated in an October 20 press release: "Monday (today) we petitioned the Hawai'i Supreme Court to order Obama's secret birth records released. How did Obama respond? He suddenly discovered that his grandmother, who had supposedly been released from her hospital a week ago, when he showed no interest in her, needed his immediate attention. Cool, calm, collected Obama suddenly suspended his campaign and headed for Hawai'i."

From Savage's website:

From the October 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: By the way, I'd like to be a little inquisitive than the average reporter out there and observe that we have not -- we've been hearing and reading for at least three days now that Obama's grandmother is deathly ill, and that he's going out to rush to her side in Hawaii. Now, if he's already won the presidency, why hasn't he already gone to Hawaii? Why is he not already there? What's he waiting for? If she's deathly ill, this is the -- I'm just -- I'm pretending to be a reporter here. You know they'd ask McCain these questions. If Obama's grandmother is deathly ill, why has this been announced days ago, and he's only going now or tomorrow or whenever it is? Now, I understand, folks, Snerdley's got-- he's buried his head in his hands -- I understand this, my friends -- anything said about Obama is gonna be turned into an unfair, racist attack on the man, but I -- am I not asking the obvious questions? Who announces days in advance they're rushing to the side of a loved one who is deathly ill, but keeps campaigning in a race that's said to be over, only to go to the loved one's side days later?

See, I think this is about something else. You know what's really percolating out there? And I've been laying low on this because it just -- it hasn't met the threshold to pass the smell test on this program. But this birth certificate business, this lawsuit that a guy named Phillip Berg filed in Philadelphia in August for Obama to produce his genuine birth certificate, and he still hasn't replied, he hasn't done so. And I'm just -- you know, you've got a deathly ill grandmother, you are going to rush to her side a few days from now. When you first announced this, you're gonna rush, you're gonna hurry, you're gonna make tracks, you're gonna get over there because you don't want your grandmother to die before you got there like your mother did, but somehow you keep campaigning, you take three days to get over there, if he's left yet.

And this birth certificate business -- I'm just wondering if something's up. I have no clue, and I -- folks, I'm telling you, this has not reached the threshold until now, and it's now popping up all over the place. There are a lot of people now that are starting to speculate and be curious about this. I don't know. Let's say, for example, that somebody does come up with proof that Obama -- something's screwy with his birth certificate, and something's screwy about the fact that he's allegedly a natural citizen, American citizen but may not be, dual citizenship, born in Kenya, who knows, there's all kinds of stuff out -- so what? What's gonna happen this late in the campaign? Do you think, if it's proven, that they're gonna dump him? That's not gonna happen. But there's still -- these are just questions that I have. I mean, look at, I -- both of my parents have died, and when I was told that the end was near, bam, I got there fast as I could, and I didn't announce to the audience, "I just got word my father's soon to be passing away, in four or five days I'm gonna go to Missouri. In the meantime I will not leave you here on this radio program." These are just natural questions. I think any inquisitive reporter -- I know the risk I'm running here by raising all of this, but I wouldn't be me if I didn't do that.

From the October 22 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: We're gonna raise the question of why Obama is headed to Hawaii. He certainly wouldn't take the time out to visit an ailing grandmother all of a sudden -- it is for other reasons, it is being speculated across the Internet that he was born in Kenya and he is not a U.S. citizen. Now, this originated with a Democrat who filed a lawsuit, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and a big donor to the Democrat [sic] Party -- filed a lawsuit claiming Obama was born in Kenya and that he is not a U.S. citizen and not qualified to run for the presidency. There are people arguing that Obama is headed to Hawaii not so much to visit an ailing relative but to fudge the birth certificate in question.

[...]

SAVAGE: There's an October surprise that could brew, and that's built around Obama's secretive trip to Hawaii coming up momentarily. There's intense national interest on the Internet as to whether or not he's an American citizen, and the question is being asked, could this be the real reason he is headed to Hawaii, and it was started by a Democrat who filed a lawsuit claiming Obama was born in Kenya. And you gotta read -- you gotta look at the birth certificate and judge for yourself on MichaelSavage.com. We actually have the birth certificate submitted by the Obama camp, and it looks like it's fake.

[...]

SAVAGE: Do you actually believe he's going to Hawaii to visit his ailing grandmother with 10 days to go until an election? Do you actually believe that? Do you actually believe he'd be going to Hawaii at this time with 10 days to go? You actually believe that? No, no, no -- no, no, no, no, no. No. There's some other reason that he's leaving the mainland of the United States in the midst of this toe-to-toe struggle right now, and it's got to do with his birth certificate. That's correct. That is correct. 1-800-449 -- but please go to MichaelSavage.com and look at the alleged birth certificate. Look at it very carefully.

[...]

SAVAGE: And Obama's leaving for Hawaii -- why? Why? What's he doing there? Why's he going there, huh? What's he going there for, huh? Why's he gonna -- the last phase of a race, he's getting off the track just to visit his grandmother? Don't be stupid. It's the birth certificate issue, you fools, you. Something's wrong with this picture, and we're gonna talk about it in the next hour. Carla in New York, if you make it fast, fire away on The Savage Nation.

CALLER: OK, first of all, as far as the trip to Hawaii, the reason he needs to go there is he's lost the lawsuit by not -- by having no one show. He needs to get to that house, the grandma's house. Those documents, the Kenyan documents are in that house. The other thing is that he has had four identities.

From the October 22 edition of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show:

LIDDY: Bring us up to date on the latest findings.

CORSI: Well, Mr. Liddy, I'm headed out to Honolulu. I am not convinced that Barack Obama is going because his grandmother is sick. I appreciate that his grandmother is sick and he wants to be with her. I do recall that Barack Obama's mother died of cancer, and he didn't go to be by her side when she died. He relates that in his autobiography, Dreams From My Father. And I'm going out to do what digging I can on the birth certificate. I'll be in Honolulu for the next few days. I don't expect to be detained in Honolulu the way I was in Kenya.

[...]

CORSI: I think I'll accomplish something in Hawaii, too. Obama's headed out there, and I believe there's a court challenge that if Obama does not dodge, he's gonna be forced to produce a birth certificate, and there's gonna be something damaging on that birth certificate, because even at the eleventh hour, Obama refuses to show us the hospital-generated birth certificate when he was born.

—H.D., G.L., & N.T.

Powered by FeedBurner


Thursday, October 16, 2008

Odio antiinmigrante en la radio

Por La Opinion Digital

EFE |
2008-10-16 | La Opinión
O'Connor analiza el contenido de los programas de los principales locutores radiales que critican a la comunidad inmigrante. (FOTO: EFE/Gary Williams)

TUCSON, Arizona (EFE).- Los programas de radio de locutores conservadores que se pronuncian contra la inmigración tienen un impacto muy negativo sobre la sociedad y dejan una profunda huella contra los inmigrantes.

Tales programas de radio son un fenómeno mediático de gran audiencia y llegan a crear estados de opinión muy negativos contra la inmigración, según el escritor Rory O'Connor.

En su más reciente libro titulado "Shock Jocks. Hate Speech & Talk Radio", O'Connor analiza el contenido de los programas de los principales locutores radiales que critican a la comunidad inmigrante.

"Los programas de radio donde el locutor combina las noticias, con su propia opinión y el entretenimiento, son una mezcla tóxica, donde los radio escuchas no saben diferenciar que es verdad y que no lo es", aseguró O'Connor.

Rory O'Connor se encuentra actualmente promocionado su libro en el que repasa el impacto de los personajes mas controvertidos en programas conservadores de radio como Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh y Don Imus, entre otros.

Estos programas de radio, que cuentan con millones de radioescuchas a nivel nacional, han sido criticados por los duros comentarios que emiten en sus programas en temas que van desde la violencia doméstica hasta la inmigración ilegal.

Diversas organizaciones de defensa de los inmigrantes han acusado a ese tipo de programas de radio de promover el odio y la intolerancia entre la sociedad.

"Muchos de ellos no solo tienen programas de radio, sino también de televisión y columnas en periódicos, por lo que su mensaje se amplifica mucho mas", dijo O'Connor en entrevista con Efe.

Agregó que muchos de esos programas tienden a enfocarse en minorías en los Estados Unidos, como las mujeres, los afroamericanos, los inmigrantes, los homosexuales y los más vulnerables.



"Estos programas hacen menos humanos a las personas, burlándose de sus creencias, de sus características físicas, del acento con el que hablan", señaló O'Connor.

Señaló que cuando son criticados, los presentadores difícilmente toleran los comentarios en su contra, por lo que optan por cortar las llamadas de las personas que se atreven a contradecir su punto de vista.

"Yo traté de comunicarme directamente con cada uno de los locutores radiales que cito en mi libro, pero parece que cada uno de ellos estaba muy ocupado hablando", añadió.

En su opinión actualmente no hay muchas opciones ya que el 90 por ciento de los programas de discusión en la radio son de tendencia conservadora.

"Cuando algunos de ellos es confrontado sobre alguna información que dieron al aire, o algún comentario, se defienden diciendo que solo bromeaban o que solo se trata de entretenimiento", dijo el escritor.

Destacó que muchos de estos programas aseguran "ser la voz" de aquellos que han sido olvidados por los "medios liberales", la mayoría de ellos pertenecientes a la clase trabajadora y personas de avanzada edad.

Muchos de los locutores de esos programas conservadores aseguran solamente estar practicando su derecho "a la libre expresión", aunque ellos tienden a evitar las opiniones que no les satisfacen.

Resulta complicado, según el escritor, medir el impacto que este tipo de programas pueden llegar a tener en pequeñas comunidades como Tucson o en las grandes ciudades como Los Angeles o Nueva York, pero no cabe duda de que dejan una profunda huella.

Citó, en este sentido como ejemplo, el caso de un hombre en el estado de Tennessee que disparó el pasado mes de julio en contra de una congregación en una iglesia matando a dos personas e hiriendo otras seis.

"Este hombre disparó solamente porque la iglesia apoyaba a grupos como los homosexuales", dijo O'Connor.

EFE

ml/esc

Powered by FeedBurner