The Making of a Myth

I'm starting a series of stories on the ways the media overtly seeks to manipulate its readers.  The first trick is the least subtle, and perhaps the most effective...simply make up a fact and repeat it until people believe it.  The employer sanctions law provides a great example.  Here's a great line from an op ed piece that is running nationally and appeared in today's Republic.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano reluctantly signed the law but vows to enforce it.

That's exactly what the media want you to believe.  They know it's not true, but they will push the story until it's so widely accepted that it will be the prevailing legend--just like they did with the New Deal and Rachel Carson.

You will recall however, that the sanctions provision was the brainchild of Democratic Senator Bill Brotherton; Republican leadership stripped the Brotherton amendment out of the legislation over the objections of Democratic lawmakers and then Napolitano used her State of the State address to call for renewed Sanctions Legislation.

Comments

[Mesa Econoguy]

Um, Greg, let me help you out here, the educational institution is called…

The Walter Cronkite Skool O’ Jernalizm (ASU).

Enrollment is free, and so is your remuneration, graduates!

Fake but true is a wonderful "ethic..."

[Timothy]

And then she appointed Brotherton a Superior Court judge, no?

[Senator Ron Gould]

Brotherton's amendments were political maneuvers trying to triangulate Republican Senators. Every time Brotherton pulled this shenanigan the Democrat party sent out a press release to portray republicans as soft on illegal immigration. Senator Harper and I were the only Republicans that supported the Brotherton Amendments.
The strange thing is that after all the bad press, many of these same Republican Senators signed a letter endorsing Brotherton's judicial apointment. Go figure?

[ron]

The employer sanctions law targets 'the business license'. I have a question - who 'owns' the license? Is the license owned by the corporation or the priniciple? If the business licence is owned by the corporation (which is true in most cases even in a sole proprietership) - why can't the corporation get a new license under a new name the next day?

Corporations and individuals who have financial problems and declare bankruptcy start new businesses next day all the time.

I think there is all kinds of wiggle room here.

Business owners who have run afoul of the law have found all kinds of ways to get liquor licenses approved (I know this from personal experience as a neighborhood leader fighting liquor licence transfers). I suspect that since getting a business license is easier than a liquor license, businesses who find they lose their business license for violating the employer sanction law will find ways to beat this law.

The law doesn't say you can't incoporate a business (a state function); it says you lose your business license (a local city or county function). We know that all you do is take your check down to a $9.00 an hour clerk and get your license.

[Jeff]

Brotherton had a strong track record of being tough on crime.