Harvard Crimson: Yes, we should ask for comment from ICE

[Graham2001]

I found this editorial from the Harvard Crimson quite interesting, the crux of the issue seems to be this:

Last month, The Crimson covered a rally organized by campus group Act on a Dream that called for the abolition of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. During the course of our reporting, Crimson reporters requested comment from ICE — a decision that has proved controversial with many of our readers. We stand behind that decision, and we wanted to share with you our thinking.


...


After the protest had concluded, but before the story was published, The Crimson contacted an ICE spokesperson to ask if they wished to provide a statement in response to the protest.


...


A few days after the event, Act on a Dream and others expressed disagreement with The Crimson’s request for comment to ICE. It is our practice to meet with student groups whenever they have questions or concerns about our coverage, and — as a result — we contacted Act on a Dream shortly after seeing their criticisms on social media. We met with them to listen to their concerns and share our perspective by explaining our policies and the fundamental journalistic principles behind them.


A week later, Act on a Dream published a petition calling on The Crimson to change its policies so that it never contacts ICE for comment again and apologize for the “harm [it] inflicted on the undocumented community.” In this, the organization has called on other student groups to boycott speaking to The Crimson until the paper complies with their demands.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/10/22/note-to-readers-ice-comment/


As with the authors of the editorial, I thought it was standard practice to contact the subjects of an article (or the focus of a protest covered in an article.) for comment and they have the right the refuse such comment.


The idea that the subject of an article (or the focus of a protest covered in an article.) should not be contacted because reading or hearing their words will 'cause harm' seems wrongheaded.

 

[theprestige]

There seems to be a bit of this going around lately. "The time for conversation and hearing all sides is over. The time for silencing and suppressing is now!"

 

[Checkmite]

There seems to be a bit of this going around lately. "The time for conversation and hearing all sides is over. The time for silencing and suppressing is now!"

Do you think ICE, the federal government agency, has free-speech rights that are being silenced and suppressed by not asking them for comment about a student protest?

 

[Mumbles]

I don't really know how likely a government agency with a kickass acronym for a name, that helps run concentration camps, is to respond to comment requests from a student newspaper, but this strikes me as a common courtesy for public officials, government departments, and anyone else with a RP office.

I won't say Act on a Dream has no right to object to this practice, and I can see why they would - immigration enforcement is particularly ugly under this administration - but I don't see why the Crimson staff should simply give in either...

 

[luchog]

As with the authors of the editorial, I thought it was standard practice to contact the subjects of an article (or the focus of a protest covered in an article.) for comment and they have the right the refuse such comment.

The idea that the subject of an article (or the focus of a protest covered in an article.) should not be contacted because reading or hearing their words will 'cause harm' seems wrongheaded.

It's a fundamental principle of journalism to get all sides to every story, regardless of how wrong or bigoted or tasteless any particular side may be. How one communicates those sides can obviously vary depending on perspective, and one can easily slant a story that way; but refusal to do so is to abandon journalism entirely in favour of producing propaganda.

 

[Minoosh]

Of course the Crimson should have called for comment. The agency's answer could have been quite revealing. Sometimes the agency just makes things worse for itself with their comment. It's sad that anyone is discouraging the process. You *want* to give these people a chance to justify their practices, so readers will understand who they are.

Unlike a lot of people here I haven't made up my mind that ICE are evil, uniquely among law enforcement. I may detest a particular mission, but I can see why we need immigration enforcement. Maybe it's worth reorganizing and rebranding if the culture is particularly toxic, but you're never going to get rid of the actual mission; someone will still do that job.

There is maybe not quite as strong a feeling that articles *must* get a comment or a refusal out of an agency, but it's only fair. You might not feel required to bend over backwards with repeated calls etc., because online is different than print; comment can always be added later if the agency sees it can't just let an accusation hang there. But you should always try, and always update a story if you get a belated comment, or even a pro forma refusal to comment. It's a horrible precedent not to.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't really know how likely a government agency with a kickass acronym for a name, that helps run concentration camps, is to respond to comment requests from a student newspaper, but this strikes me as a common courtesy for public officials, government departments, and anyone else with a RP office.

I won't say Act on a Dream has no right to object to this practice, and I can see why they would - immigration enforcement is particularly ugly under this administration - but I don't see why the Crimson staff should simply give in either...

For what it's worth I agree completely; theprestige's specific objection just struck me as particularly silly.

 

[CORed]

While I certainly don't approve of much of what ICE is doing under the current administration, I see calls for the abolition of ICE as much like calls for the abolition of the IRS: The job they do is a necessary one, and another agency with a different name, but most likely a lot of the same people, will have to be created to replace them. It will, in effect, be not much more than a name change.

 

[theprestige]

For what it's worth I agree completely; theprestige's specific objection just struck me as particularly silly.

The silliness seems to be entirely non sequitur on your part.

 

[Graham2001]

The story seems to be getting wider interest. NBC and the Washington Post along with several right wing pundits are now talking about it.


Here is the Washington Posts article:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...rters-ask-ice-comment-face-blowback-students/


In it is a great response from one of the reporters at the New York Times:

“This type of journalistic transparency and moral clarity, even in the face of criticism that may seem overbaked, is something all newsroom leaders can learn from,” said New York Times reporter Astead W. Herndon

 

[dudalb]

While I certainly don't approve of much of what ICE is doing under the current administration, I see calls for the abolition of ICE as much like calls for the abolition of the IRS: The job they do is a necessary one, and another agency with a different name, but most likely a lot of the same people, will have to be created to replace them. It will, in effect, be not much more than a name change.

Pretty much this,unless you advocate scraping all immigratation laws, only a few extremists advocate.
But ,yeah, ICE needs to be purged of it's current leadership.

 

[Graham2001]

Pretty much this,unless you advocate scraping all immigratation laws, only a few extremists advocate.
But ,yeah, ICE needs to be purged of it's current leadership.

All well and good, but at the moment the actual issue is that there are people who seem to have confused advocacy journalism with general journalism, or worse, think that journalists should only say/do things pleasing to them.

 

[Max_mang]

All well and good, but at the moment the actual issue is that there are people who seem to have confused advocacy journalism with general journalism, or worse, think that journalists should only say/do things pleasing to them.

Exactly, not sure why people are talking about whether they approve of ICE or not.

 

[Minoosh]

I think it's telling that the Crimson learned about Act on a Dream's complaint from social media. Did it not occur to the group to contact the Crimson directly? Or would that have given them less scope to use the complaint to spark a round of indignation? That doesn't really hold up either; they could have done both. This tendency to air grievances on social media while seemingly making no effort to just call up the paper and ask about the policy is not a good trend IMO. It would have been simple to do that. It tells me they weren't interested in learning more about the way reporting works; the point was complaining, not trying to understand the process. Oh well. That's their right, but it's a lazy way to do things: Complain publicly without bothering to engage with the subject of their criticism. Why temper your indignation with understanding? It's simpler to just present one side of the story.

It seems like a bizarre complaint to me. The paper called ICE for comment ? I'm not sure why they even care. If I can get past paywall I'll read the Post story.

 

[theprestige]

I think it's telling that the Crimson learned about Act on a Dream's complaint from social media. Did it not occur to the group to contact the Crimson directly? Or would that have given them less scope to use the complaint to spark a round of indignation? That doesn't really hold up either; they could have done both. This tendency to air grievances on social media while seemingly making no effort to just call up the paper and ask about the policy is not a good trend IMO. It would have been simple to do that. It tells me they weren't interested in learning more about the way reporting works; the point was complaining, not trying to understand the process. Oh well. That's their right, but it's a lazy way to do things: Complain publicly without bothering to engage with the subject of their criticism. Why temper your indignation with understanding? It's simpler to just present one side of the story.

It seems like a bizarre complaint to me. The paper called ICE for comment ? I'm not sure why they even care. If I can get past paywall I'll read the Post story.

I don't think AD needed to talk to the Crimson. Their goal was to boycott the Crimson. For that, going straight to social media is the obvious choice. Talking to the Crimson just muddies the water with the paper's side of the story, and just confuses the target audience into thinking maybe the boycott isn't justified.

Kind of like how the Crimson trying to get ICE's side of the story risked undermining AD and confusing their narrative. This isn't about resolving a disagreement about proper reportage. This is all about getting your side of the story out there, avoiding alternative viewpoints as much as possible, and punishing anyone who gets in the way of that program however you can.

 

[Minoosh]

I don't think AD needed to talk to the Crimson. Their goal was to boycott the Crimson. For that, going straight to social media is the obvious choice. Talking to the Crimson just muddies the water with the paper's side of the story, and just confuses the target audience into thinking maybe the boycott isn't justified.

Right. I get that, but they could have done both. What's the point of a boycott? Do they want the Crimson to un-call ICE? It just seems like a silly thing to protest over. They did succeed in calling attention to themselves, though, so maybe the Crimson did them a favor by calling ICE and giving them something to complain about.

 

[Mumbles]

For what it's worth I agree completely; theprestige's specific objection just struck me as particularly silly.

I'm not too concerned with what he says, so I was more commenting on the OP.

deep breath

So...let's be clear - the actual problem starts at the top, with Dolt 45. I have far less issue with the Obama-era policy of ICE concentrating on immigrants who have committed major crimes. And ICE isn't the group that patrols borders and separating families there - that's, um, Border Patrol, and man y of them hate doing it.

However, Dolt 45's (and really, white nationalists like Steven Miller's) "zero tolerance" policy has led to parents being deported while their children are at school with no home to go back to, a major increase in sanctuary cities as governments try to reassure immigrants that they needn't worry about reporting crimes the witness or are harmed by, and so forth.

(I'll also note that I prefer penalizing supposedly rich companies that hire undocumented immigrants, but Dolt 45 own several such companies, so that's why he prefers his "torture the spics" approach to anything rational. Well, that and his white supremacism of course.)

But a lot of these distinctions get lost when people discuss immigration in general, particularly since ICE is the group that raids workplaces, churches, harasses people right outside courtrooms, and the like. It makes sense to help readers to understand these distinctions. I also note that the Crimson gave ICE no info on anyone they could harass or haul off. In short, I see no real issue - but protesting is almost a standard part of college life, so I'm not offended by that, either.

 

[theprestige]

Right. I get that, but they could have done both. What's the point of a boycott?

To punish the Crimson for trying to get the other side of the story.

Do they want the Crimson to un-call ICE?

They want the Crimson to think twice, the next time they think about trying to get the other side of the story. And they want everyone else who's watching to get that same message.

It just seems like a silly thing to protest over.

Silly, yes. But also deadly serious.

They did succeed in calling attention to themselves, though, so maybe the Crimson did them a favor by calling ICE and giving them something to complain about.

I'm sure they see it that way. They're probably not wrong, either.

 

[Pterodactyl]

While I certainly don't approve of much of what ICE is doing under the current administration, I see calls for the abolition of ICE as much like calls for the abolition of the IRS: The job they do is a necessary one, and another agency with a different name, but most likely a lot of the same people, will have to be created to replace them. It will, in effect, be not much more than a name change.

Indeed.

Taking this a step further, an agency can comment to its specific mission and strategy, but its ultimate goals are determined legislatively. Having an issue with an agency, specifically, doesn't make a lot of sense, because they're just implementing the laws/rules those elected have assigned.

 

[Checkmite]

While I certainly don't approve of much of what ICE is doing under the current administration, I see calls for the abolition of ICE as much like calls for the abolition of the IRS: The job they do is a necessary one, and another agency with a different name, but most likely a lot of the same people, will have to be created to replace them. It will, in effect, be not much more than a name change.

Pretty much this,unless you advocate scraping all immigratation laws, only a few extremists advocate.
But ,yeah, ICE needs to be purged of it's current leadership.

Strictly speaking, those who advocate "abolishing ICE" do advocate that a replacement agency be created, not that those functions should be abandoned entirely - or at least that's my impression.

The feeling is that racism and anti-immigrant (not merely pro-immigration-law-enforcement) attitudes generally have suffused through the agency so thoroughly from top to bottom, that just changing a few bureaucrats at the organizational leadership level is no longer sufficient to solve the problem. ICE is the kind of agency that, like most law-enforcement agencies, is more or less continuously hiring due to turnover; and I don't think it's really controversial to believe that this administration's open racism and contempt for immigrants has attracted numbers of people with certain attitudes to apply, who obviously the current agency is not going to feel compelled to screen out. When the leaders are replaced, the boots on the ground will stay the same, and you can't change a culture with a memo.