It's no secret that for years readers of the nation's newspapers have been so shortchanged by a generation of irresponsible reporters and their editors that many of them may seriously doubt whether there is any difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien. But you think that even after more than five years following 9/11 and a roiling national debate over what must be done about illegal immigration and reducing levels of those who arrive here playing by the rules, their newspapers would have admitted their glaring shortcomings in terms of balanced journalism. Take, for example, this column by Timothy J. McNulty, the Tribune's public editor, who bemoans the "xenophobic" response to his paper's decision to include Spanish words in its Super Bowl special section, "Innocent idea pushes immigration hot button," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 9.

"But the newspaper's role is to bring serious thought, not prejudice and vitriol and hate, to public debate."

Excuse me while I roll up my trousers legs, clean the bottoms of my shoes, and throw open the windows.

Does a paper's support of amnesty and churning out sob-sister stories about the "plight" of illegals "forced to live in the shadows" without equal time given to our side constitute "serious thought?" Wouldn't we all love to see just how many column inches each year are given to this sort of coverage and compare them with the space given to American taxpayers, especially our working poor, who are the real victims of our "broken immigration policy"? McNulty (e-mail him) associates words like "toxic" with those frustrated beyond belief by Congress' refusal to listen to what a majority of Americans want done about this crisis. I think that word is better suited to describe his paper's reporting standards that have blinded its readers to the mounting costs of leaving our borders wide open and the abandonment of internal enforcement of our immigration laws.