New UCLA Study Cites Anti-Latino/Anti-Undocumented Hate Speech by KFI Radio

Hat tip to Media Matters for news of a recently completed study by UCLA’s Chicano Studies Research Center.  The report, “Quantifying Hate Speech On Commercial Talk Radio,” carefully researched “hate speech” documented in Southern Calfironia talk radio stations.  The report cites KFI’s “John and Ken Show” as a prime example of a program that “disproportionately targeted Latino, Mexican and immigrant groups.”

The study, which you can see here,  examined evidence dating back to 2008.  The study cites the John & Ken Show for repeatedly comments about immigrants, Latinos and Mexicans.

John and Ken trail the Lou Dobbs show in the total number of references and the study says the duo only have a 55 percent accuracy rate on their claims “related either entirely or predominantly to undocumented immigrants and governmental agencies or public officials that were characterized as supporting them or facilitating their negative impact on society.”

John and Ken, and KFI, are the subject of an advertiser boycott from the National Hispanic Media Coalition that started after John and Ken gave out the personal cell phone of immigrant rights activist Jorge-Mario Cabrera over the air where he received death threats. Several large advertisers including AT&T, Verizon and GM have already pledged not to advertise on the program (this is what brought Glenn Beck down from Fox).

  21 comments for “New UCLA Study Cites Anti-Latino/Anti-Undocumented Hate Speech by KFI Radio

  1. Phil
    November 10, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    What? John and Ken regularly point out what illegal immigration costs Californians and how our failure to crack down has harmed us. I listen to them from time to time and they are never racist. Reality is that most illegals in California are Latino. Does that make them “racist” because they want people to obey our laws?

    How’s Santa Ana doing with the drunk illegal who ran over and killed a baby last night? He shouldn’t have been on the road. In Santa Ana, that’s okay behavior.

    I will make sure and patronize Jon and Ken’s advertisters. The haters want to silence free speech. Not going to happen!

    • junior
      November 10, 2011 at 6:35 pm

      Excellent Phil! Well said.

    • Francisco Barragan
      November 10, 2011 at 10:08 pm

      1) FED LEVEL:
      See 2007 White House Council of Economic Advisers “Immigration’s Economic Impact” Discovered that immigrants (both legal and illegal) have a NET POSITIVE effect to the USA economy and the individual pocketbook of Americans.

      see:
      http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.html

      2) STATE LEVEL:
      The National Conference of State Legislatures has also looked at this issue, and has found that although some states have a greater burden than others, the net effect is a POSITIVE one.

      Go look at their website.

      3)
      “In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants Can Be a Plus for Both States and Students”
      http://chronicle.com/article/In-State-Tuition-for-Illegal/127581/

      The above must be considered as we look for solutions to this issue.

  2. junior
    November 10, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    John & Ken are not anti-Latino – they are pro legal immigration.

  3. November 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    “California, facing a budget deficit of $14.4 billion in 2010-2011, is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures on illegal aliens”.

    http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/1026578677?page=NewsArticle&id=23190&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1761

  4. Francisco Barragan
    November 10, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    Do you really think that drunk driving is okay in Santa Ana? Really….no, no …. really?

    FOR COMPARISON:
    A study by the Huntington Beach Police Department showed that the high concentration of bars and restaurants selling alcohol downtown is linked to the city’s number one public safety threat –drunk driving (“Surf City’s Alcoholic Downtown”).

    http://www.surfcityvoice.org/2011/02/saving-face-councilman-matt-harper-didnt-disclose-his-own-drunk-driving-conviction/

    Drunk driving affects all communities, and should not be tolerated, whether from an illegal or not.

  5. Kathy Findley
    November 11, 2011 at 8:15 am

    If anti immigration folks are so concerned about costs, why isn’t there as much outrage at the employers? The answer to that is many Americans want cheap labor. They don’t want pay fare wages and provide health care. It’s easy to go after the workers, and it is motivated by racism and only racism, than to put solutions into play by holding the employers responsible. There are plenty of baby killers and drunk drivers in all races. To make it seem like that is some how a problem that stems from “illegals” is lazy. So if that argument holds water, then I suppose because John Albert Gardner raped and murdered 2 girls in San Diego, white men are a problem that must be dealt with? Or white men are the “ones” who commit those kinds of crimes? Critical thinking is time consuming and requires effort, but it’s worth it. Those 2 guys should give a try.

    • November 11, 2011 at 11:35 am

      In California it’s not possible to go after employers that hire illegal aliens because the Democrat controlled state legislature passed AB 1236 and Governor Brown signed the bill.
      The law prohibits state municipalities from passing mandatory E-Verify ordinances. Without E-Verify an employer has no way of knowing who is legally eligible to be employed.

      “E-Verify is an Internet-based system operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA). E-Verify is currently free to employers and is available in all 50 states. It provides an automated link to federal databases to help employers determine employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers. While its usage remains voluntary throughout the country, some states have passed legislation making its use mandatory for certain businesses.”

      Map of States with Mandatory E-Verify Laws
      http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/map-states-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html

      • Kathy Findley
        November 11, 2011 at 12:20 pm

        “AB 1236 – In October, 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB1236 into law. The law prohibits state municipalities from passing mandatoy E-Verify ordinances.”

        It only prohibits mandatory e verify. They can IF they want to do, and they don’t. And no one wants them to. Let me share a story with you. When I was working as a waitress, I heard the manager tell one of the busboys about his cousin who they’d just hired as a dishwasher, “Your cousin is using the same social security as one of the other busboys. Tell him he needs to get me a different number by tomorrow.” I worked for the same company for nearly 10 years, and guess how many white guys applied for jobs as cooks, busboys or dishwashers? One. He got the job and was a good worker, but until white people are willing to take those jobs, and employers are willing to pay a decent living wage, the “immigration” problem isn’t going to change. Even in this economy, in California, white folk almost never go for the “back of the house” jobs or jobs picking produce, period. Like I said, it’s about racism, not immigration.

  6. junior
    November 11, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Kathy,

    Is it possible for one to …

    1. Support secure borders
    2. Support reserving our social support systems for legal residents
    3. Be opposed to illegal immigration
    4. Support legal immigration

    … and not be accused of being anti-Latino?

  7. Kathy Findley
    November 11, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    It is Junior. It is in how one presents. A racist is as easy to pick out as a pig in a chicken coop.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45246594/ns/business-us_business/t/why-americans-wont-do-dirty-jobs/#.Tr2vPkOa9tM

  8. junior
    November 11, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Kathy,

    I wish that you would convey that information to the main scream media. Because, what I have described to you is the way 95% of conservatives and Tea Partiers believe – and the MSM portrays us as anti-Latino racists.

  9. Manuel Nelson
    November 12, 2011 at 7:29 am

    Why is it all the anti-immigration advocates never ever have even a half hearted solution to their arguments?
    It’s seems to be O. K. to have undocumentied workers as long as they are USED in the fields tending our crops and stay their out of site…”Where they belong”! If and when they get sick or injured just arrest them, send them back and hire another. This way our medical facilities are not used because the employers opt not to insure.
    One last thing, who do you see working in our streets and who do you see begging in them??

  10. Bankrupt NewSantaAna blogger
    November 12, 2011 at 11:09 am

    So where is the self proclaimed leader of the Latino people on this. No post about racist governor Jan Brewers visit to OC. And even Gabriel San Roman screwed up the date of the book signing while a Gabacho like Dan writes about immigrant issues.

  11. Mearl Hinckley
    November 12, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Of course we have an open-border policy. Do you really think it’s possible or affordable to police our huge border with Mexico? Let me answer for you: Impossible. Far too expensive. It would take an entire army division to do so. Fence? Even more ludicrous. Fences can be climbed over, dug under, or punched through. The problem is poverty in Mexico. And until that changes, we have no way of limiting immigration. We’re fighting biology here, in the form of hunger and despair. Far better to declare a universal amnesty and collect income tax. So anyone who rants about “illegal immigration” is either ignorant of the facts or a racist. California and the American southwest will be brown in my lifetime. So be nice to your Mexican neighbors. You may be working for them sooner than later.

  12. Manuel Nelson
    November 13, 2011 at 8:15 am

    You are so right Mearl. The only constant is change!

  13. junior
    November 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    “Far better to declare a universal amnesty ..”

    Is that because the last amnesty worked so well? Not.

    What about the amnesty after the next one – and the next one and the next one ……………

  14. junior
    November 14, 2011 at 6:21 am

    “Do you really think it’s possible or affordable to police our huge border with Mexico?”

    We are doing a much better job of policing the border right now. With a bit more effort we can do an excellent job of protecting our borders.

    It doesn’t take a fence – it takes committment, determination and a will to get the job done.

  15. Mearl Hinckley
    November 14, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Why not? What’s the problem?

Comments are closed.