Leftist Univision Chairman Absurdly, Viciously Calls Marco Rubio “Anti-Hispanic”, Miami Herald Expose’ Reveals Network Leftist Agenda

Home » Leftist Indoctrination » Leftist Univision Chairman Absurdly, Viciously Calls Marco Rubio “Anti-Hispanic”, Miami Herald Expose’ Reveals Network Leftist Agenda

Leftist Univision Chairman Absurdly, Viciously Calls Marco Rubio “Anti-Hispanic”, Miami Herald Expose’ Reveals Network Leftist Agenda

Jan 3, 2012 7 Comments ›› Angelia

Human Events:

Haim Saban is an Egyptian born Israeli-American and Chairman of Univision, the Hispanic television station. For the past several months, Univision has tried to get Marco Rubio to come on Univision for an interview and offered to kill or run a negative story on Marco Rubio’s brother-in-law depending on what Rubio did.

Senator Rubio would not be bought and Univision ran the story on his brother-in-law. Subsequently, all of the Republican candidates refused to participate in a debate on Univision, opting instead for a debate with Univision’s competitor Telemundo.

The New Yorker has a big story on what Univision did or did not do to Marco Rubio. It’s fully pro-Univision spin. The Miami Herald has reviewed it. About all you need to know is that Haim Saban, Chairman of Univision, claims that Marco Rubio is “anti-Hispanic.”

MiamiHerald:

Univision shows bias, negotiation tactics in New Yorker piece on Marco Rubio, immigration

Univision honchos showed they’re biased when it comes to covering immigration and they acknowledge offering “options” to Sen. Marco Rubio amid talks over a controversial story about the drug bust of the Republican’s brother in law a quarter century ago.

That’s a takeaway from the New Yorker’s piece “War of Choice. Marco Rubio and the G.O.P play a dangerous game on immigration.” It hits news stands tomorrow.

The piece mentions our Oct. 1 Miami Herald report (it is here in full) in which Univision insiders and Rubio staffers told us that the network’s news chief, Isaac Lee, offered to soften or kill a story about about the drug bust if the Senator cooperated with the network. Based largely on the Herald report, Republican presidential candidates later announced they’d boycott a proposed Univision debate if the network or Lee didn’t apologize.

Lee denies offering a quid pro quo. He wouldn’t speak with us for our original piece, and instead issued a written statement. He sat down with The New Yorker, though, and shed more light on the subject:

[H]e o?ered three Univision options: report a stand-alone news story on Orlando Cicilia; have Senator Rubio coöperate on a network pro?le; or have him be interviewed on Jorge Ramos’s “Al Punto.” Whatever the venue, Lee says, the issue of Orlando Cicilia would have been raised.

That means a standalone drug-bust story might not run depending on how Rubio played his cards. That is, if Rubio appeared on “Al Punto” and answered a question or two about Cicilia as part of a broader interview, then a standalone drug-bust story might not run. And just because an issue is “raised” in an interview doesn’t always mean it will be fully broadcast.

Consider those points, and Lee’s on-the-record New Yorker comments along with our original story that said in the second paragraph: If Rubio appeared on Al Punto —Univision’s national television show where the topic of immigration would likely be discussed — then the story of his brother-in-law’s troubles would be softened or might not run at all, according to Univision insiders and the Republican senator’s staff.

Picking up where The Herald left off, The New Yorker writes: Although Jorge Ramos has interviewed every President since George H. W. Bush and every prominent Hispanic public o?cial, he has been unable to lure Rubio to his show to discuss immigration, or anything else.

Note the verb “lure.” It implies offerings, enticements. The paragraph also speaks to a sense of frustration at Univision over Rubio.

The New Yorker piece also reveals the levels of bias at the top levels of Univision:

According to Univision’s news president, Isaac Lee, the network is openly committed to “pro-Hispanic” immigration reform, and it has a particular slant on the news: a dog biting any man is not a story, but a dog biting a Hispanic man is…

Haim Saban, the chairman of Univision, wrote, in an e-mail, “The fact that Rubio and some Republican Presidential candidates have an anti-Hispanic stand that they don’t want to share with our community is understandable but despicable. So ‘boycotting’ Univision, the largest Spanish-language media company in the U.S., is disingenuous at best and foolish at worst.”

Just how the Cuban-American Rubio has an “anti-Hispanic” stand is not spelled out in the piece or by Saban. But it appears that Univision sees opposition the DREAM Act and so-called “amnesty” as a sign of ethnic bigotry. The Democratic National Committee must be giddy that this comes from the nation’s largest and most-influential Hispanic network. But then, the DNC appears to already be funded by Saban, whose political largesse wasn’t mentioned in this particular New Yorker article.

You can read more here.

Digg Digg

Jpgomez

Its obvious you didn’t actually read the whole New Yorker story by Ken Auletta, I’ll be happy to send it to you. Instead it seems that you only read Marc Caputo’s spin of the story by in his blog where he audaciously interprets the conclusions reached by the author and carefully ignores key quotes that call him out on the poor job he did on his original Miami Herald story. Here is an example that clearly states that there was no such “extortion” ever attempted:

Could I see the notes that Alex Burgos took during the call? After I asked a second time, he said,
“It’s fine.”

The notes conclude with Burgos asking if the story
might not run if Senator Rubio cooperated on a profile of his life or gave an interview on “Al Punto.”

Lee’s response, Burgos writes, was
“Your interpretation is fair.” Lee says,
however, that he offered three Univision
options: report a stand-alone news story
on Orlando Cicilia; have Senator Rubio
cooperate on a network profile; or have
him be interviewed on Jorge Ramos’s “Al
Punto.” Whatever the venue, Lee says,the issue of Orlando Cicilia would have
been raised.

The Herald portrayed the conversation
as a shakedown; the notes suggest a contentious discussion. Furthermore, all six
of the Univision employees on the call
deny that there was any such offer and say
they were not called. When I asked
Manny Garcia, one of the article’s co-
authors, whether any of the “Univision
insiders” he spoke to were among those
six, at first he told me that the network
wouldn’t “volunteer” anyone on the call.
Jpgomez

Its obvious you didn’t actually read the whole New Yorker story by Ken Auletta, I’ll be happy to send it to you. Instead it seems that you only read Marc Caputo’s spin of the story by in his blog where he audaciously interprets the conclusions reached by the author and carefully ignores key quotes that call him out on the poor job he did on his original Miami Herald story. Here is an example that clearly states that there was no such “extortion” ever attempted:Could I see the notes that Alex Burgos took during the call? After I asked a second time, he said, “It’s fine.”

The notes conclude with Burgos asking if the story might not run if Senator Rubio cooperated on a profile of his life or gave an interview on “Al Punto.”Lee’s response, Burgos writes, was “Your interpretation is fair.” Lee says, however, that he offered three Univision options: report a stand-alone news story on Orlando Cicilia; have Senator Rubio cooperate on a network profile; or have him be interviewed on Jorge Ramos’s “Al Punto.” Whatever the venue, Lee says,the issue of Orlando Cicilia would have been raised.The Herald portrayed the conversation as a shakedown; the notes suggest a contentious discussion. Furthermore, all six of the Univision employees on the call deny that there was any such offer and say they were not called. When I asked Manny Garcia, one of the article’s co- authors, whether any of the “Univision insiders” he spoke to were among those six, at first he told me that the network wouldn’t “volunteer” anyone on the call.
Jpgomez

Its obvious you didn’t actually read the whole New Yorker story by Ken Auletta, I’ll be happy to send it to you. Instead it seems that you only read Marc Caputo’s spin of the story by in his blog where he audaciously interprets the conclusions reached by the author and carefully ignores key quotes that call him out on the poor job he did on his original Miami Herald story. Here is an example that clearly states that there was no such “extortion” ever attempted:Could I see the notes that Alex Burgos took during the call? After I asked a second time, he said, “It’s fine.”

The notes conclude with Burgos asking if the story might not run if Senator Rubio cooperated on a profile of his life or gave an interview on “Al Punto.”Lee’s response, Burgos writes, was “Your interpretation is fair.” Lee says, however, that he offered three Univision options: report a stand-alone news story on Orlando Cicilia; have Senator Rubio cooperate on a network profile; or have him be interviewed on Jorge Ramos’s “Al Punto.” Whatever the venue, Lee says,the issue of Orlando Cicilia would have been raised.The Herald portrayed the conversation as a shakedown; the notes suggest a contentious discussion. Furthermore, all six of the Univision employees on the call deny that there was any such offer and say they were not called. When I asked Manny Garcia, one of the article’s co- authors, whether any of the “Univision insiders” he spoke to were among those six, at first he told me that the network wouldn’t “volunteer” anyone on the call.
Jpgomez

Its obvious you didn’t actually read the whole New Yorker story by Ken Auletta, I’ll be happy to send it to you. Instead it seems that you only read Marc Caputo’s spin of the story by in his blog where he audaciously interprets the conclusions reached by the author and carefully ignores key quotes that call him out on the poor job he did on his original Miami Herald story. Here is an example that clearly states that there was no such “extortion” ever attempted:Could I see the notes that Alex Burgos took during the call? After I asked a second time, he said, “It’s fine.”

The notes conclude with Burgos asking if the story might not run if Senator Rubio cooperated on a profile of his life or gave an interview on “Al Punto.”Lee’s response, Burgos writes, was “Your interpretation is fair.” Lee says, however, that he offered three Univision options: report a stand-alone news story on Orlando Cicilia; have Senator Rubio cooperate on a network profile; or have him be interviewed on Jorge Ramos’s “Al Punto.” Whatever the venue, Lee says,the issue of Orlando Cicilia would have been raised.The Herald portrayed the conversation as a shakedown; the notes suggest a contentious discussion. Furthermore, all six of the Univision employees on the call deny that there was any such offer and say they were not called. When I asked Manny Garcia, one of the article’s co- authors, whether any of the “Univision insiders” he spoke to were among those six, at first he told me that the network wouldn’t “volunteer” anyone on the call.
Jpgomez

Its obvious you didn’t actually read the whole New Yorker story by Ken Auletta, I’ll be happy to send it to you. Instead it seems that you only read Marc Caputo’s spin of the story by in his blog where he audaciously interprets the conclusions reached by the author and carefully ignores key quotes that call him out on the poor job he did on his original Miami Herald story. Here is an example that clearly states that there was no such “extortion” ever attempted:Could I see the notes that Alex Burgos took during the call? After I asked a second time, he said, “It’s fine.”

The notes conclude with Burgos asking if the story might not run if Senator Rubio cooperated on a profile of his life or gave an interview on “Al Punto.”Lee’s response, Burgos writes, was “Your interpretation is fair.” Lee says, however, that he offered three Univision options: report a stand-alone news story on Orlando Cicilia; have Senator Rubio cooperate on a network profile; or have him be interviewed on Jorge Ramos’s “Al Punto.” Whatever the venue, Lee says,the issue of Orlando Cicilia would have been raised.The Herald portrayed the conversation as a shakedown; the notes suggest a contentious discussion. Furthermore, all six of the Univision employees on the call deny that there was any such offer and say they were not called. When I asked Manny Garcia, one of the article’s co- authors, whether any of the “Univision insiders” he spoke to were among those six, at first he told me that the network wouldn’t “volunteer” anyone on the call.
Jpgomez

Its obvious you didn’t actually read the whole New Yorker story by Ken Auletta, I’ll be happy to send it to you. Instead it seems that you only read Marc Caputo’s spin of the story by in his blog where he audaciously interprets the conclusions reached by the author and carefully ignores key quotes that call him out on the poor job he did on his original Miami Herald story. Here is an example that clearly states that there was no such “extortion” ever attempted:Could I see the notes that Alex Burgos took during the call? After I asked a second time, he said, “It’s fine.”

The notes conclude with Burgos asking if the story might not run if Senator Rubio cooperated on a profile of his life or gave an interview on “Al Punto.”Lee’s response, Burgos writes, was “Your interpretation is fair.” Lee says, however, that he offered three Univision options: report a stand-alone news story on Orlando Cicilia; have Senator Rubio cooperate on a network profile; or have him be interviewed on Jorge Ramos’s “Al Punto.” Whatever the venue, Lee says,the issue of Orlando Cicilia would have been raised.The Herald portrayed the conversation as a shakedown; the notes suggest a contentious discussion. Furthermore, all six of the Univision employees on the call deny that there was any such offer and say they were not called. When I asked Manny Garcia, one of the article’s co- authors, whether any of the “Univision insiders” he spoke to were among those six, at first he told me that the network wouldn’t “volunteer” anyone on the call.
Jpgomez

Its obvious you didn’t actually read the whole New Yorker story by Ken Auletta, I’ll be happy to send it to you. Instead it seems that you only read Marc Caputo’s spin of the story by in his blog where he audaciously interprets the conclusions reached by the author and carefully ignores key quotes that call him out on the poor job he did on his original Miami Herald story. Here is an example that clearly states that there was no such “extortion” ever attempted:Could I see the notes that Alex Burgos took during the call? After I asked a second time, he said, “It’s fine.”

The notes conclude with Burgos asking if the story might not run if Senator Rubio cooperated on a profile of his life or gave an interview on “Al Punto.”Lee’s response, Burgos writes, was “Your interpretation is fair.” Lee says, however, that he offered three Univision options: report a stand-alone news story on Orlando Cicilia; have Senator Rubio cooperate on a network profile; or have him be interviewed on Jorge Ramos’s “Al Punto.” Whatever the venue, Lee says,the issue of Orlando Cicilia would have been raised.The Herald portrayed the conversation as a shakedown; the notes suggest a contentious discussion. Furthermore, all six of the Univision employees on the call deny that there was any such offer and say they were not called. When I asked Manny Garcia, one of the article’s co- authors, whether any of the “Univision insiders” he spoke to were among those six, at first he told me that the network wouldn’t “volunteer” anyone on the call.