Vancouver resident Peter Bracchi says that when newspapers blur legal realities in favor of emotionally charged generalizations, they mislead the public rather than serve it
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
The word gaslighting has entered the public vocabulary, but it is still poorly understood. Gaslighting is not disagreement or debate. It is the repeated presentation of a narrative that causes people to doubt observable reality by blurring distinctions that matter.
Over the past several weeks, newspapers across the United States — including locally here in Vancouver — have published strikingly similar stories claiming that “immigrants are afraid to go out in public,” “afraid to shop,” or “afraid to visit their own neighborhoods.” Versions of this same theme have appeared in multiple cities nationwide, often using nearly identical language and framing.
The repetition itself should raise questions.
Words matter. Immigration status matters. People who are legally in this country — citizens, permanent residents, visa holders, refugees — are not at risk simply for walking down the street or shopping at local businesses. To imply otherwise is not factual reporting; it is narrative construction.
By using the blanket term “immigrants,” these stories collapse a critical distinction between legal immigration and unlawful presence. That rhetorical shortcut transfers fear from those who knowingly violated immigration law to an entire population, including people who followed every rule. The result is emotional confusion rather than public understanding.
This is how gaslighting works in media form. Readers are told fear is widespread and justified, while the underlying legal reality remains unchanged. Responsibility is shifted away from individual actions and toward vague, untestable forces — “the climate,” “the moment,” or “the atmosphere.”
When nearly identical stories appear in city after city, often quoting advocacy groups but rarely legal experts or enforcement authorities, repetition creates the illusion of fact. Readers are discouraged from asking the most basic question: Who, exactly, is at risk — and why?
Good journalism informs the public. It distinguishes between lawful and unlawful conduct. It provides context, not just emotion. Gaslighting does the opposite — replacing clarity with anxiety and substituting narrative consistency for factual precision.
This is not an attack on immigrants as people, nor a call for cruelty. It is a call for honesty. A society governed by laws depends on truthful language. When newspapers blur legal realities in favor of emotionally charged generalizations, they mislead the public rather than serve it.
Readers deserve better than coordinated fear narratives. They deserve reporting grounded in facts, distinctions, and reality — even when those facts are uncomfortable.
Peter Bracchi
Vancouver
Also read:
- Letter: When headlines gaslight the public
Vancouver resident Peter Bracchi argues that emotionally charged immigration headlines blur legal distinctions and mislead the public rather than inform it. - Opinion: California’s unemployment debt crisis mirrors Washington’s Employment Security Department failures
Mark Harmsworth compares California’s growing unemployment insurance debt with Washington’s Employment Security Department failures and argues both states must reform or risk continued economic harm. - Opinion: Hard work is being done to try to trade one bad health care system for another
Elizabeth New (Hovde) cautions that efforts to create a universal, taxpayer-financed health care system in Washington risk replacing existing problems with new challenges tied to cost, access, and centralized control. - Opinion: The progressive attack on Washington’s sheriffs
Nancy Churchill argues that proposed legislation would shift power over county sheriffs away from voters and concentrate control within state government. - Letter: Is Secretary of State Hobbs really JUST protecting your voter information?
Camas resident Rick Vermeers questions the Washington secretary of state’s refusal to provide voter roll data to the U.S. Department of Justice and raises concerns about voter list transparency and compliance with federal law.
wpDiscuz
