Złodziejem ona się dorówna, uchwyconego kadrze się sequelu niego straszy and when Arizona claims to have somewhere the neighborhood of 460 illegal immigrants. was going to have to house a whole bunch of unNorth American Americans. Getty Can we just stick them some slums and harass them when they try to leave? Has anyone thought of that yet? It's a good thing a for-profit prison company had a plan! They didn't just have a plan, they were the driving force behind the law itself. According to this investigation, the Corrections Corporation of America, a publicly traded billion-dollar company that imprisons people for profit, helped draft SB 1070 because immigrant detention is their next big market. They added, We're also considering fucking up some babies. Before the was ever introduced to legislators, before you or anyone Arizona heard of it, a group of businessmen and interest groups wrote it, named it and voted on at the Grand Hyatt hotel Washington, D.C. not even Arizona. And 't think that just because the CCA had a heavy hand writing the that they nobly recused themselves from campaign donations or lobbying legislators, because of course they didn't. Even better, a solid year before the passed, representatives from the company started pitching a prison to house illegal women and children, since women and children are clearly Arizona's number one perpetrators of mayhem. Getty Oh yeah. That kid means trouble. What's wrong with prisons that make a little money? Nothing, except for two small things. One is that private prisons are pretty at their jobs. One private prison has been accused of using beatings as a behavior management tool. At another facility, immigrant was left for 13 hours solitary confinement after suffering some sort of mysterious injury. He died not after, and family and friends are still the dark about what happened to him the first place. Unfortunately, we'll never know. Let's say you're investigative reporter. And for shits and giggles, let's say you work for Fox News. let's say that you are investigating agriculture company, and you discover the company has a stupid amount of synthetic bovine growth hormone its milk. Which is interesting because milk containing that particular hormone is banned all over the developed world you make your report, do your consequent 83 edits required by your news station, then, presumably because your boss is the devil, you get asked to make it the hormone sounds as harmless as apple pie. Naturally you threaten to report your station to the FCC. Then, for the sake of a good story, let's say you're fired and subsequently blackballed from the media. Or, pretend you work for the news program and you do expose on a certain big shoe company's labor practices. When you try to update your report with a timely follow-up, you're denied. When you try to respond to a nasty piece about your report, you're denied. Two years later, the same station that aired your report cuts a deal with and lets their sports reporters sport -labeled parkas while reporting on the Olympics. both cases, corporations, specifically Monsanto and influenced the editorial content of news programs. the Fox News case, the story of Monsanto's hormone-enhanced milk was hyped to the nines by the station, until Monsanto found out about it and wrote to the president of Fox News. The reporters on the story, who refused to downplay the presence of the hormone, were fired, but their story was aired the end wait, actually, of their story was aired. 2003, the Court of Appeals agreed that, yes, news media does have the right to lie about everything. After all, why should politicians have all the fun? As for 1998 sponsored coverage of the Olympics Japan, and part of the deal was that reporters would wear swooshed parkas while reporting. The same parkas that were presumably made the sweatshops Baskin of had exposed two years earlier. Naturally, Baskin was pissed. Especially since the upper brass hadn't let her