The mainstream media has had a hard time staying out of trouble lately. With a new administration and furious voters around the country that won’t allow them to get away with anything, the fake news being reported by liberal publications has become more noticeable. Last week, the Washington Post – no stranger to spinning news to fit their liberal agenda – was caught in another failed attempt to do just that.
On Thursday, the Washington Post published an article that suggested illegal immigrants may be cancelling their food stamps for fear of being caught and deported by U.S. officials. This actually wasn’t far from the truth, give or take a few details, but what got the attention of readers was the headline switch. The article’s original headline was quickly changed shortly after being published.
The original headline read: ‘Immigrants are now canceling their food stamps for fear that Trump will deport them’. To any non-partisan reader, this headline would seem informative and catchy, but not to the liberals who back the publication and only want to read what satisfies their taste for anti-Trump news. The headline was changed to reflect a more liberal angle.
The new headline reads: ‘Immigrants are going hungry so Trump won’t deport them’. Yes, seriously. The narrative magically shifted from “illegal immigrants are halting their abuse on the government in order to try and save themselves” to “Trump is now making people choose between food and deportation.” Just like that, the Washington Post proved that they have no moral or ethical limitations, and will spin what’s necessary in order to make sales.
Since the left is always touting numbers to try and prove their points, let’s take a look at some regarding welfare benefits in the United States.
The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household. The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups. At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.
Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378. The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.
“But illegal immigrants can’t get welfare benefits.” Actually, they can and they do – even WaPo can’t avoid reporting that as a fact.
According to the Department of Agriculture, 1.5 million non-citizens received food stamps in the 2015 fiscal year, as did 3.9 million non-citizen adults with citizen children. The rules for receiving public assistance are strict, and immigrants tend to utilize food benefits at a much lower rate than their native-born neighbors. Studies have also shown that immigrant households tend to suffer more hunger.
This isn’t the first time the newspaper has been caught spinning stories to appeal to liberal readers and backers who only want to read a certain type of news.
In January, the publication was found editing a story on Russian hacking to compensate for the reporter’s failure to gather sufficient information. Forbes called them out on their fake news.
The Washington Post, along with several other publications, makes it a point to publish the extremely liberal point of view as much as possible. The story is about people who are in the United State illegally using our welfare system to survive instead of finding work, supporting their families and going through the correct process to become a resident or citizen. How is any of that President Trump’s fault? Is it because he’s working on putting an end to it?
For the publication, the new narrative makes much more sense. In the original headline, no one could gather the comparison between Trump and a dictator who thrives on starving and killing innocent people, so obviously a change needed to be made.
A title that seemed to shed light on the truth would never pass muster. They couldn’t possibly think by calling out illegal immigrants who are only choosing not to continue mooching off the government in order to further hide from facing the consequences of their actions would make for a good enough story.
Sadly, the Washington Post wasn’t always like this. In fact, it was once one of the more respectable publications out there. Not anymore, though.
Ultra-liberal Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, purchased the Washington Post in 2013. After years of decline for the publication, he decided to jump into uncharted waters and drop $250 million to acquire it. He had no previous experience in the press, but was seeking an outlet to express his disdain for conservative politics. Just like that, the Washington Post went from middle-of-the-road non-partisan to the extreme left.
With an unlimited amount of funds at his disposal, Bezos has grown the newspaper staff to over 700. That’s 700 liberal-minded individuals who spend their entire workday turning facts around to support a losing party. Real news is no longer needed.
The media needs to get it together and start helping push the solution instead of the problem. There are facts that support every decision President Trump and his administration are making, whether anyone likes it or not. For a group that claims to stand by facts, they sure don’t like it when it works against them. The entire agenda of the Washington Post is to create a false narrative to keep the drama going. What they are doing is keeping the liberals who read their rhetoric in the dark about real issues.