L.A. Times immigration article is classic example of modern journalistic demagoguery

The article: "Kern County sheriff a defiant California maverick on immigration" by Kate Linthicum, published April 9, 2015.

http://www.latimes.com/local/great-reads/la-me-c1-kern-sheriff-20150410-story.html#page=2


So he's a maverick.  Is that good or bad?  Does the media take an implicit role in normalizing illegal activity and the Malthusian issue of illegal immigration?  Well, assuming you'll have to read through to find out, the author will have achieved her objective of planting her liberal seed unless you maintain a critical eye - something that the media relies on you NOT to do, and what I estimate 3/4 of the U.S. population doesn't care about anyway.

In the above linked article, a California sheriff retains his prerogative in areas where state and federal laws don't mesh on the deportation of illegal aliens, and the journalist ends her article with this quote:

"If everybody thought the same, this would be a pretty boring place," Youngblood said. "This is where I learned my behaviors and my thoughts and my beliefs. None of which make me right." 

It's sadly conventional wisdom that journalists harbor an iconoclastic ethos in order to dismantle traditional values and institutions of the American republic.  [The American Journalist - Pew Research Center]

This article's hidden agenda is exposed at the end:  Vilify any figure opposed to liberal runaway detrimental policies supporting illegal immigration, with subtlety or not. 

Here, the author ends with a sentence that was cut-off mid-stream.  Backing up, the core of her article was how an illegal was severely beaten, and afraid to ask for help due to the possibility of being deported - in the grand scheme - due the sheriff's obedience to the rule of law.

The final part of the story focuses on seemingly mute details, such as the sheriff's traditional hearth, and the conservative presence within. 

Building up to that point, she ends the article with, "None of which make me right," prompting the ordinary reader to wonder what the sheriff said next.  Surely the interview didn't end there, with the sheriff contradicting himself. 

Congratulations - by cutting off there, the sheriff never gets to complete his thought, and the reader will walk away thinking, "Oh, the sheriff just said he was never right," assuming the litote is true: the affirmation of the negative.  A strong negative at the end of the article isn't an explicit claim that the sheriff is wrong in any conservative practices, but it is a great example of how the media conditions the public, has shifted from taking neutral positions to aiming at conservative values, and debunks common sense.