3 ms·

This report (dated 13 July 2011) by the NYTimes with the title "Visa Delays Put Iraqis Who Aided U.S. in Fear" is the exact opposite of "nary a peep". [0] [0]

This report (dated 13 July 2011) by the NYTimes with the title "Visa Delays Put Iraqis Who Aided U.S. in Fear" is the exact opposite of "nary a peep". [0] [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad... EDIT: remove appositional identification of the NYTimes as "widely considered the US newspaper of record". Change from interrogative to declarative mood.

adventured 10y ago
Yep, hardly a peep at all. Where were the large scale protests? Where was the 24/7 media coverage across every possible outlet? Where was the widespread outrage? It didn't exist, which is why the story didn't continue to have legs and most forgot it ever happened.
- danso 10y ago
  From the 2011 NYT story (which was on A1): > The Obama administration has required new background checks for visa applicants, reacting to a case in Kentucky in which two Iraqi immigrants were arrested on suspicion of ties to an insurgent group, according to American officials in Baghdad. You're surprised that there weren't nationwide protests for "required new background checks for visa applicants", versus an outright ban against green card holders? Maybe because most people don't know of a current visa applicant from Iraq, but many people know of green card holders -- i.e. people who have been living legally in the United States -- who are now banned from re-entry.
- mistersquid 10y ago
  The "peep" is national media coverage. The insinuation of the GGP was that mainstream media did not cover this fact. Given the reputation of the NYTimes as the US newspaper of record, the article I cite is the journalistic equivalent of using a bullhorn. The fact that people did not protest the 2011 executive order which suspended the approval of visa applications from Iraq indicates people were not unduly alarmed. In the present case, however, many people believe that the indiscriminate ban on immigration from 7 majority-Muslim nations is immoral and possibly a violation of the US Constitution. The protests indicate that public opinion opposes this administration's executive action. In other words, the media were very "loud" about Obama's 2011 and Trump's 2017 executive actions halting immigration. The people, however, see these two things very differently, as well they should. EDIT: grammar, readability, clarification of subject in second paragraph, change metaphor from "shouting" to "using a bullhorn".

adventured 10y ago

Yep, hardly a peep at all. Where were the large scale protests? Where was the 24/7 media coverage across every possible outlet? Where was the widespread outrage? It didn't exist, which is why the story didn't continue to have legs and most forgot it ever happened.

danso 10y ago
From the 2011 NYT story (which was on A1): > The Obama administration has required new background checks for visa applicants, reacting to a case in Kentucky in which two Iraqi immigrants were arrested on suspicion of ties to an insurgent group, according to American officials in Baghdad. You're surprised that there weren't nationwide protests for "required new background checks for visa applicants", versus an outright ban against green card holders? Maybe because most people don't know of a current visa applicant from Iraq, but many people know of green card holders -- i.e. people who have been living legally in the United States -- who are now banned from re-entry.
mistersquid 10y ago
The "peep" is national media coverage. The insinuation of the GGP was that mainstream media did not cover this fact. Given the reputation of the NYTimes as the US newspaper of record, the article I cite is the journalistic equivalent of using a bullhorn. The fact that people did not protest the 2011 executive order which suspended the approval of visa applications from Iraq indicates people were not unduly alarmed. In the present case, however, many people believe that the indiscriminate ban on immigration from 7 majority-Muslim nations is immoral and possibly a violation of the US Constitution. The protests indicate that public opinion opposes this administration's executive action. In other words, the media were very "loud" about Obama's 2011 and Trump's 2017 executive actions halting immigration. The people, however, see these two things very differently, as well they should. EDIT: grammar, readability, clarification of subject in second paragraph, change metaphor from "shouting" to "using a bullhorn".