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:
- Opinion: Transit agencies need accountability not increased state subsidy
Charles Prestrud argues that Washington transit agencies face rising costs and declining ridership due to governance structures that lack public accountability. - Letter: ‘For years, American foreign policy too often felt like a blank check’
Vancouver resident Peter Bracchi argues that the 2025 National Security Strategy marks a long-overdue shift toward clearer priorities, shared responsibility, and interest-based American leadership. - POLL: Are you better off than you were a year ago?
This week’s poll asks readers to reflect on their personal financial situation and whether they feel better off than they were a year ago as economic conditions continue to shift. - Opinion: Does tailgating cause speeding?
Target Zero Manager Doug Dahl examines whether tailgating contributes to speeding and explains why following too closely increases crash risk with little benefit. - Opinion: ‘The Democrats’ part of the bargain’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance reflects on a New Year’s Eve encounter and a Bill Maher commentary to assess what he sees as cultural and political changes from the past year.
wpDiscuz
