Is the news media fair and balanced in reporting on immigration? When they operate from a leftist viewpoint of "afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted," of caring most about "marginalized communities," you can be sure it's one-sided.

An interview with New York Times immigration correspondent Miriam Jordan posted Wednesday by Columbia Journalism Review underlined the point. She's only reporting on half of the immigration debate, the "pro-immigrant" half. The Times itself explains that Jordan "reports from a grassroots perspective on the impact of immigration policy on people in the country legally and illegally."

She was asked about how tenderly she handles her primary sources -- illegal immigrants -- and how roughly she handles President Trump for his hypocrisy in employing those immigrants:

In your December story, “Making President Trump’s Bed,” you wrote that the lead subject, Victorina Morales, understood that she could be fired or deported as a result of coming forward. Did you inform her of the risks in being named publicly? Victorina’s story was brought to me by her lawyer, who had her consent to be interviewed. Her lawyer made very clear to her what the consequences could be, and they were both comfortable with moving forward. Perhaps the story would risk the job of some of her colleagues, but it was for the greater good of the undocumented immigrant population. I have an ethical and moral responsibility to make sure I’m not harming the person I’m interviewing, but in most cases the subject is in a position where I’m not jeopardizing their safety or their ability to remain in the country. [Emphasis mine...no liberal who interviews Trump & Co. has that policy.] I’ve been writing about immigration for more than a decade. I’ve probably interviewed hundreds of undocumented immigrants, and I can’t think of one subject that got a knock on the door from ICE or law enforcement action as a result of something I wrote. Maybe I’m optimistic that the exposure they will be getting can in some way immunize or protect them from becoming easy bait for immigration authorities.... What was your reaction to Trump’s company firing two dozen undocumented employees after your story on Victorina was published? The workers were terminated at several golf properties over several weeks. Still, I felt a pit in my stomach when I learned of every clutch of firings. Going into this project, I knew that workers would be fired. But I also felt certain that it was supremely important to reveal the hypocrisy: that a president who derides immigrants as criminals and rapists also employs them in large numbers to keep him well-groomed—with clothes laundered and ironed—and his luxurious resort beautiful and running smoothly.

When asked where she goes for fact-checking stories, Jordan excluded government agencies. "There are experts at different think tanks, non-partisan organizations like The Migration Policy Institute or Pew Research Center that are helpful. Sometimes I call on experts there to help me locate data that could help shed light on a story. Other times, I turn to immigration attorneys and advocacy groups."

CJR asked "how you prioritize stories...without yielding to the Trump administration’s own agenda."

I’m always conferring with my editor, [deputy national editor] Kim Murphy, on stories. We have to be careful that we’re not just reporting on an issue. [!] If the administration announces a policy that will have deep detrimental impact on any particular immigrant group, even if that policy is a policy that the administration is unveiling to quote-unquote placate the base of the president’s supporters, I still have to write about it, because of its impact. [Italics in the original.]

This underlines why liberal media outlets don't want to do "Illegal alien kills Kate Steinle" stories, or "intoxicated illegal immigrant plows into car full of nuns." Those are placate-Trump-base stories...and are defined as Not Really News.

They asked Jordan when she knows her story has succeeded?

Maybe the average Times reader didn’t bother to click on that story. They might have shrugged and thought, Figures, under this administration there would be obstacles to becoming American. But the fact that it was circulated on the Hill tells me, Hey, this could lead to some positive change. [Italics in the original.]

This isn't journalism. It's advocacy for a left-wing agenda, spun as "positive change."

This approach is not new for Jordan. When she left The Wall Street Journal to join the Times in 2017, her farewell note to colleagues bragged about "In the U.S., I discovered an undocumented student, 'Dreamer' and salutatorian of his Princeton graduating class, who has been deemed the classics scholar of his generation."

PS: Last July, Rich Noyes and Bill D'Agostino reported that illegal immigrants and "banned" travelers and their families and their lawyers accounted for 478 of the 1,087 soundbites from nonpartisan sources aired on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts, or nearly 44% of the total. "An additional 163 soundbites came from protesters opposed to the administration’s immigration policies (individuals or plainly understandable chants), plus 85 soundbites from activists associated with liberal groups." That's about 67 percent.

In the same study period, these newscasts aired 83 soundbites from law enforcement, 13 soundbites from U.S. citizens identified as border residents (three of whom were opposed to Trump’s policies), and five soundbites from friends and family members of those who died because of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. There were only four soundbites from activists associated with border-enforcement groups.