Recently, Univision’s Jorge Ramos was booted from a Donald Trump press conference when the veteran “journalist” rose without being called-upon and began interrupting the event.
Ramos attempted to hijack the event and rose and began shouting about Trump’s position on illegal immigration- an obvious breach of press protocol. Trump told Ramos that he had not been called on for a question. Ramos continued and asserted that as an American, a journalist and a senior citizen, he had the “right” to ask questions.
Trump reminded Ramos again that he had not been called on and attempted to call on reporters. When Ramos would not stop shouting, security finally escorted the amnesty advocate out of the press event.
Graciously, Trump allowed Ramos to cool-off and return where the two had a back-and-forth with Ramos passionately advocating for amnesty for illegals.
The episode showcases the bitter partisanship that infects the left. While any journalist should be severely reprimanded for this astonishing act of grandstanding and braking of protocol, many supporters of illegal immigration blasted Trump for daring to put a stop to the disruption.
On Wednesday, Ramos joined Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly to discuss illegal immigration and the now-infamous outburst.
The duo began by discussing a wall along the border- an idea that Ramos has continually insisted would not work to stop illegal immigration. Ramos also contended that those who support the idea have a “problem” with Mexicans as no such proposal exists for creating a wall along the Canadian border.
The fact that America is not harboring tens-of-millions of illegal Canadians appears to have slipped Mr. Ramos’ mind as the defining distinction.
The conversation soon switched to the heinous murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal and O’Reilly brought-up the proposed “Kate’s law,” that would mandate that if an illegal who has been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported ever comes back, he or she would face a mandatory minimum of five years in prison.
“You support that?” O’Reilly asked.
“No, because I don’t think you are approaching the problem in a global way,” Ramos claimed.
“It’s outrageous!” O’Reilly exclaimed. “It’s outrageous!”
Ramos claimed he wasn’t looking to defend criminals, but O’Reilly saw through it and exclaimed,
“You are! You’re an enabler! Jorge, you’re enabling that guy [who killed Steinle]!”
Ramos maintained the classic sob story scenario for amnesty supporters and said that, “You would be putting in jail a mother or a father who were deported, but who are coming back to freedom.”
“You not supporting Kate’s law means that you don’t care!” O’Reilly concluded.
The back-and-forth took a particularly tense turn when Ramos asserted that he was a journalist. O’Reilly questioned how Ramos could cover a story fairly when he is an activist who crusades for amnesty for illegals.
Ramos made a valid point when he said that O’Reilly was not in a position to lecture him about advocacy in journalism. However, O’Reilly was quick to point out the very-noticeable difference:
“I’m a commentator!” O’Reilly shouted. “That’s what I do!”
O’Reilly comments and advocates just as Ramos does. However, Mr. O’Reilly does not wade-into the press pool and posture as if he is a journalist in the same capacity as an AP reporter or a Reuters reporter.
Mr. Ramos, however, does.
“Jorge, why don’t you become like me, a commentator? You’re not a newsman anymore; you’re an advocate now,” O’Reilly baited.
Ramos insisted that he was a reporter and as a reporter, “You have to take a stand when it comes to racism, discrimination, corruption, politicized dictatorships and human rights- you have to take a stand.”
O’Reilly didn’t buy it and said that he wasn’t criticizing his stance, but asserted to Ramos, “You’re in the wrong job. Be a commentator.”
When Ramos insisted that it was a reporter’s job to advocate, O’Reilly pointed-out that that is the job of a commentator.
“Jorge, you’re doing exactly what I’m doing, man; you just don’t have the title,” O’Reilly concluded.
There is nothing wrong with being an advocate. However, those who masquerade as a reporter do damage to the discussion at hand and to their own professional reputation.