Jordan Fabian’s story in The Hill on the 5th Circuit’s immigration decision quotes four “advocates” of Obama’s amnesty (Fitz, Hincapie, Leopold, Smith) and zero people who oppose it — i.e. the side that won. This is standard procedure in MSM immigration reporting. The conventional rules (“talk to both sides”)  don’t apply. I’m not quite sure why it happens. Is it because a) Everyone knows there is only one credible side on the amnesty issue and anyone who opposes it is really too much of a nativist yahoo to quote (unless you’re quoting Steve King to mock him); b) The advocates’ phone numbers are the only ones journalists have — that’s who immigration beat reporters hang out with; or c) the advocates are the ones initiating the stories, and they might stop feeding them to you if you call the other side? …  All of the above, obviously. But I think (c) is often overlooked. …