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

[Minoosh]

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

I don’t know. I need to read more. If you call an agency asking them to respond to complaints that they shouldn’t exist you’re probably not going to get a juicy quote unless the person in PR is having a really bad day and they make a smartass retort. Either way it’s not going to make the agency look good; it’s not going to make protesters look bad. They just sound ignorant to me. But I’m basing that only on what’s posted in this thread, and I may be wrong.

 

[Puppycow]

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?

It's about proper journalistic practice, not violating anyone's free speech rights, technically.

There's no constitutional "right to be asked for comment" that I'm aware of, but it is a convention that many newspapers and other news organizations follow. When this convention isn't followed, mistakes tend to happen. Bad reporting happens. Reporters and their news organizations may end up with egg on their face.

I think the silly part is the protestors demand that the Crimson not follow established journalistic practice in reporting the story. And their objection that asking ICE for comment somehow puts the protesters in danger doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[theprestige]

I don’t know. I need to read more. If you call an agency asking them to respond to complaints that they shouldn’t exist you’re probably not going to get a juicy quote unless the person in PR is having a really bad day and they make a smartass retort. Either way it’s not going to make the agency look good; it’s not going to make protesters look bad. They just sound ignorant to me. But I’m basing that only on what’s posted in this thread, and I may be wrong.

It's not about whether it would have produced anything. It's about the fact that they even considered doing it at all. That's what AD is trying to nip in the bud.

 

[Graham2001]

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.

Sadly the Harvard Undergraduate Council is not so understanding.

Harvard’s Undergraduate Council voted to pass a statement at its meeting Sunday in support of immigration advocacy group Act on a Dream’s concerns about The Harvard Crimson’s news policies and made recommendations to make reporting policies more transparent.


...


The council’s vote approved its own statement regarding the issue to be sent out to students in its weekly email.


“The Undergraduate Council stands in solidarity with the concerns of Act on a Dream, undocumented students, and other marginalized individuals on campus,” the statement reads. “It is necessary for the Undergraduate Council to acknowledge the concerns raised by numerous groups and students on campus over the past few weeks and to recognize the validity of their expressed fear and feelings of unsafety.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/11/11/uc-supports-aod/

 

[xjx388]

Given this assault on good journalism and the assaults on fundamental rights by student groups . . . I can only conclude that the youth have gone crazy and the country is heading to a very bad place where the 1st Amendment means nothing.

 

[Brainster]

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.

It's not common courtesy. It's Journalism 101.

 

[luchog]

I can only conclude that the youth have gone crazy and the country is heading to a very bad place

The cry of reactionaries in every single generation that sees substantial social change. The kids of today just don't respect the beliefs of their elders and betters.

Funny how the only parts of the country that are in a bad place are the parts governed by reactionaries. The kids seem to be doing pretty well aside from that.

 

[Puppycow]

. . . I can only conclude that the youth have gone crazy and the country is heading to a very bad place . . .

Here it comes ...

























Wait for it ...






















OK Boomer!!!!

Bwahahahahaha!!!1!!

 

[Puppycow]

Sadly the Harvard Undergraduate Council is not so understanding.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/11/11/uc-supports-aod/

After reading the story, in the end it's just a symbolic statement of support with no actual practical effect. It "acknowledge the concerns" and "recognize the validity" of their feelings. And it barely managed to gather a plurality of support among the student council:

The statement, passed 15-13-4

And the people who sponsored it emphasized that it wasn't really meant to be a criticism of The Crimson but more a statement of support for "marginalized" students.

Johnstone said he and Urbina wrote the legislation in response to student requests for a UC statement in support of undocumented students.

“We think it’s really important that we amplify student voices on campus, especially those that are often marginalized,” Johnstone said. “We’re not attacking The Crimson at the same time. We just think they need to come together and come up with a sensible solution.”

Urbina said at the meeting that the council’s statement is not a call to boycott The Crimson.

“This statement does not mention the boycott whatsoever,” Urbina said. “It is simply a stepping stone that we recognize the concerns of Act on a Dream and undocumented students on campus, and we can begin and continue having conversations with these groups and finding solutions.”

Some council members, such as UC Vice President Julia M. Huesa ’20, said they are concerned the vote may be construed as “commenting on what the press does” and an attempt at censorship. Other students, such as Elm Yard Representative Phillip Meng ’23, called the statement “vague” and said they are not sure exactly what stance the statement is taking.

The wording of the statement does sound a wee bit patronizing and vague to me. It's not a full-throated articulation of a position on either side of the issue, really. When you say that you "acknowledge" someone's concerns, that's really not quite the same thing as saying that you agree with them 100%. When you tell someone that their feelings are "valid" that sounds like something a therapist might say, which seems a bit patronizing as I mentioned earlier.

 

[xjx388]

Here it comes ...



Wait for it ...



Ok Boomer!!!!



Bwahahahahaha!!!1!!

I knew that was coming!

The cry of reactionaries in every single generation that sees substantial social change. The kids of today just don't respect the beliefs of their elders and betters.

So I guess that confirms it...I am viewed as a reactionary.

Anyway.

I get it. I was being a little over the top there. And maybe the youth of today are right. Maybe the USA is just a little bit too free. I mean it’s possible that Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech are overblown Freedoms and there’s a good argument for allowing more restrictions.

I’d like to hear that argument because I don’t think the youth of today are making a good case. Certainly this “Harvard Crimson don’t get a statement from ICE,” thing is not a good argument.

Funny how the only parts of the country that are in a bad place are the parts governed by reactionaries. The kids seem to be doing pretty well aside from that.

The kids are not alright, as shown by this incident and the others making news lately. They are all up in arms because a newspaper asked for comment from the other side of the story? Really?

 

[Seismosaurus]

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!"

Not sure if that's more common lately, or if it's just being applied more to people it previously wasn't.

I mean, the battles for equal treatment of women and minorities were (and still are) frequently met with "shut up about it", "now isn't the time", "don't push", etc, yes? So is this really a new thing?