Flunking “Journalism 101” at Harvard?
Recently, reporters from The Harvard Crimson requested comment from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement in response to a student-led protest calling for the abolition of ICE. This was condemned in a petition demanding The Crimson change their policy of contacting ICE for comment. In response, officers of The Crimson offered a defense of their reporters’ decision.
According to The Crimson’s President and Managing Editor, the student organization seeks to follow a set of journalistic standards, including “the belief that every party named in a story has a right to comment or contest criticism leveled against them.” Because of this standard, Crimson reporters “always make every effort to contact the individuals and institutions [they] write about” before publishing a story. This defense fails, even on its own terms: a review of The Crimson’s protest-related articles reveals that their reporters do not consistently follow this policy for contacting every subject of a story.
Since August 2016, I have identified 79 articles in The Crimson covering protests and like events. Of these articles, only 46 reported a comment or request for comment from a relevant party. 34 reported such a request made to all criticized parties. Of the 29 articles covering a protest that called for government reform, only 5 reported a request made to an elected official or government department for comment. These statistics reported as percentages are failing grades.
The list of reviewed articles is available here. A closer review of articles covering protests similar in subject matter to the Abolish ICE rally suggests The Crimson’s request for comment in this context was unprecedented.
While covering numerous protests surrounding the uncertain future of the Temporary Protected Status program, The Crimson has not contacted the Department of Homeland Security or the White House for comment, even when DHS and the Trump administration are lampooned at these protests — and their names are included in Crimson reporting.
When Harvard affiliates have challenged elected officials to make public statements in support of TPS, The Crimson has not reached out to these officials for comment — whether Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey or Governor Charlie Baker.
The Crimson has not recorded a single request for comment made to the White House in coverage of protests deriding President Trump, including a protest of Trump’s national emergency declaration in February 2019.
Before the Abolish ICE rally, there was only one reported attempt in The Crimson’s coverage of protests since August 2016 to request comment from a federal agency: when reporters reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services in November 2018 after Harvard medical students protested a leaked government memo eliminating recognition of transgender identity.
Even articles written by The Crimson’s President have not reported requests for comment from all criticized parties.
None of this data indicates that The Crimson failed in its moral duty as a journal to reflect ‘both sides’ of these protests. It is unrealistic to request comment from every party cited in a story, particularly at protest events with numerous targets of criticism.
A standard cited by a New York Times reporter would only require requests for comment from individuals or organizations “mentioned prominently” in a piece. The Washington Post, whose Editorial Board wrote a statement broadly supporting The Crimson, might concur.
Yet I did not notice a request for comment made to President Trump in The Post’s coverage of the Women’s March on Washington, even when discussing anti-Trump marches around the globe. Nor did I see any request for the Trump administration to comment in The Times’s reporting of the nationwide protests against his “zero tolerance” immigration policy and ICE in June 2018, even when referencing numerous criticisms of ICE and the Trump administration.
When journalists reported on the ‘lock him up’ chants against President Trump during the recent World Series game in Washington D.C., a host of publications — including CNBC, Forbes, Fox News, The Guardian, National Public Radio, and Politico — didn’t report reaching out to the White House for comment.
These violations of the above standard raise a question: is there value in reaching out to every subject of third-party criticism in a story, even when the criticism is strictly based on opinion? If this is truly “Journalism 101,” then journalists at esteemed publications are also flunking this standard.
In an interview with Patricia Gallagher Newberry, President of the Society of Professional Journalists and head of the journalism program at the Miami University of Ohio, I discussed this question at length. The SPJ Code of Ethics implores journalists to “allow [subjects] to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing” in an article, in concert with other principles.
When elaborating on the values behind this standard, Newberry remarked that no matter the inconvenience, “the journalist’s duty remains to tell as complete a story as possible in the moment.” This requires telling “both sides” of a story to balance reporting, as well as seeking comment to give subjects of criticism a chance to fact-check those criticisms and to contest perceived misrepresentations.
Presenting multiple perspectives on a story is an admirable standard in most contexts — perhaps even a requirement of good journalism — but this does not have to be done through requests for comment. When covering a protest or any event with a political slant, inserting and contextualizing existing public statements by the subject of criticism, or providing links to competing perspectives, should be sufficient to demonstrate even-handed reporting. Since leading publications do not seek comments in every story, these seem like acceptable measures to satisfy the aim of including a diversity of views.
When a standard is so strict that every publication violates it from time to time, it is time to set a new one. A refined standard would argue journalists should request comment from individuals or organizations when they are subjects of allegations of wrongdoing or criticism premised on new and contestable information. The SPJ Code of Ethics defends a right to response by citing the New York University Journalism Handbook. But when the NYU Handbook articulates the relevant standard in the context of the “no surprises” rule, its purpose is to fact-check criticisms before publishing stories — not to offer every individual cited in subjective third-party criticism a chance to respond.
I would challenge readers to find a criticism in The Crimson’s coverage of the Abolish ICE rally based on a new and contestable allegation that necessitated a response or clarification from ICE. An unelaborated call to abolish ICE is insufficient to give ICE a right of reply: the Chicago Tribune, Fox News, The Post, and The Times have all covered protests, speeches, or legislation calling for the abolition of ICE without requesting comment from the agency.
By this refined standard, The Crimson had no obligation to request comment from ICE before publishing this story. To cover this story from both sides, they could have reached out to conservative student organizations or the Republican Party for comment, or they could have included a former statement from ICE in response to the broader Abolish ICE movement. In reaching out to ICE, The Crimson flagged the protest for the agency, increasing the risk of retaliation against protestors, including, in the case of undocumented students, potential deportation, endangering their status as Harvard students. There is an entire section of the SPJ Code of Ethics devoted to minimizing harm in reporting; editors citing the individual principle referenced above in their defense of The Crimson would do well to read this Code in its entirety.
The Crimson and other publications are not living up to the standards they praise. Journalists should consider what standards might be both just and practical for future reporting. In the meantime, The Crimson and other publications should change their policies to no longer contact ICE for comment in articles that do not break stories with new allegations.
For further information, read a letter from Act on a Dream to The Harvard Crimson.
The Crimson President and Managing Editor declined to comment on the record for this piece. The author did not request comment from ICE.
