Media critic Becket Adams argues in a recent opinion piece that major news organizations have lost credibility by profiling figures with controversial backgrounds as sympathetic victims of policy changes. Adams points to recent features in The New Yorker and The New York Times as evidence of an ideological monoculture that fails to resonate with ordinary readers. The critique centers on stories about a noncitizen political consultant, an AI-impacted academic fraud middleman, and immigrants with significant criminal histories.
What the Left Is Saying
While Adams' piece is an opinion column, the underlying stories he critiques reflect a progressive media framing that emphasizes the human cost of immigration enforcement and technological displacement. In The New Yorker profile, Daysi Gonzalez, a Salvadoran national who has lived in the U.S. for 25 years, is presented as a skilled professional contributing to Democratic campaigns. Her boss, Chuck Rocha, is quoted expressing frustration that legal avenues to remain in the country have failed despite her contributions and long-term residency.
The New York Times coverage of Teresios Bundi, a Kenyan who previously wrote papers for American students, frames his job loss due to artificial intelligence as part of a broader dismantling of lower rungs of the global labor market. The narrative highlights the economic precarity faced by workers in the global south who are displaced by Western technological adoption, portraying them as victims of forces beyond their control.
Additionally, media outlets have highlighted the plight of immigrants like Orville Etoria, who described his deportation experience in terms reminiscent of historical slavery, and Romeo Perez-Bravo, whose identity theft case was framed as a situation where 'both paid the price.' These narratives often prioritize the personal stories of immigrants and workers over the legal or ethical complexities of their situations.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative critics, including Adams, argue that these profiles demonstrate a severe disconnect between media elites and the general public. Adams contends that profiling a noncitizen who is paid to influence U.S. elections as a tragic figure ignores the irony of a non-voting foreign national benefiting from temporary protected status while actively engaging in political engineering. He notes that Gonzalez’s firm received over $180,000 from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, challenging the notion of her as a helpless victim.
Regarding the Times' story on Kenyan academic fraud, Adams argues it is preposterous to present a middleman in a cheating scheme as a sympathetic figure suffering from AI disruption. He suggests the media is out of touch if it cannot find more compelling examples of AI job loss than those involved in what he describes as 'global academic fraud.'
Critics also point to the profiles of Romeo Perez-Bravo, a thrice-deported Guatemalan with convictions for domestic violence and forgery, and Orville Etoria, a Jamaican national with a murder conviction. Adams notes that Perez-Bravo’s identity theft caused an American citizen to face wrongful IRS fees and a lawsuit, yet the media framed the story as a shared tragedy. Similarly, Etoria’s 25 years in prison for murder were omitted from some sympathetic retellings of his deportation, leading Adams to question the media’s moral compass.
What the Numbers Show
The article cites specific financial and legal details to support its critique. Daysi Gonzalez has resided in the U.S. for 25 years, with nearly a decade spent in political consulting. Her firm, Solidarity Strategies, was paid more than $180,000 by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the current cycle. Gonzalez entered on a tourist visa and remained after El Salvador qualified for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) following 2001 earthquakes; the TPS designation expired recently.
Orville Etoria lived in New York for nearly 50 years but spent 25 of those years in state prison for murder, having also served time for other offenses in the 1980s. He received a final order of removal in 2009 but remained in the U.S. for another decade. Romeo Perez-Bravo was sentenced to seven years in federal prison for identity theft and has been deported three times previously.
Adams references a historical data point to illustrate the media’s insularity: Pauline Kael’s 1972 remark that she knew only one person who voted for Nixon, despite Nixon winning 60% of the popular vote and 520 electoral votes that year. Adams uses this to argue that the media’s narrow social circle has become a structural feature rather than an anomaly.
The Bottom Line
The debate highlights a growing tension between media editorial choices and public perception of credibility. Adams argues that the media’s ideological monoculture leads to a lack of self-awareness, resulting in stories that alienate ordinary readers by offering sympathy to figures with questionable ethical or legal standing. This trend suggests that trust in mainstream institutions may erode further if newsrooms do not align their narratives with the values and concerns of a broader audience. The implications extend beyond individual stories to the overall legitimacy of media coverage on immigration and economic disruption.
Readers should watch for future coverage of Temporary Protected Status expirations and AI-related job losses to see if news outlets adjust their framing. The persistence of these profiles may indicate a deepening divide between media elites and the public they serve, potentially impacting engagement and subscription models for major publications.