After covering a protest against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Harvard University on Sept. 12, The Harvard Crimson contacted ICE for comment on the story they were writing, to which the government agency did not respond.
A month later, the protest’s organizers, student-led advocacy group Act on a Dream, chastised The Crimson for reaching out to ICE and have refused to cooperate with the news organization in the future.
But The Crimson was correct to seek comment from ICE. In fact, it would have been irresponsible for them not to.
It is The Crimson’s right and duty as a newspaper to contact both sides of a story. In this case, ICE was directly implicated and extremely relevant to the coverage of the event. If The Crimson had, on the other hand, sought comment from ICE for a story only loosely related to the group, The Crimson would have been wrong to seek comment.
But by expecting The Crimson to not reach out to ICE regarding a protest whose main subject was ICE themselves, these groups are asking The Crimson to take a political stance and violate a basic principle of journalism.
Some groups have even said they would not be giving statements to The Crimson because of this incident. Boycotting this newspaper is an incredible disservice to the student body; it is the holistic journalism that the newspaper provided here that informs Harvard students and Cambridge residents.
ICE is not a fringe radical group The Crimson has propped up or given a bigger platform to. They are a large government agency that, whether they should or not, have legitimate authority and the right to comment on a protest directly targeted against them.
No one is off-limits when news directly involves them. Entire films and television series have been built upon journalists’ interviews with murderers and serial killers. How is a statement from ICE worse than giving these criminals platforms?
The Boston Globe published a story on this disagreement and, unsurprisingly, sought the statement of not only Act on a Dream, but The Crimson themselves. The two organizations were the main characters of the story and were rightfully asked to explain their stance and contribute to The Globe’s thorough reporting.
Act on a Dream included in a petition against The Crimson, “in this political climate, a request for comment is virtually the same as tipping them off, regardless of how they are contacted.” But there was no “tip” involved — The Crimson contacted ICE well after the event was finished. Besides, what is the purpose of a protest when the subject of controversy is fully oblivious to it?
The Crimson even noted that they have a specific policy in place in order to not give the subject of a protest any notice of it in advance, instead reaching out for comment after the event occurs. They fully complied with that policy here and it should inspire other publications to adopt similar guidelines.
It is the job of The Crimson to objectively report on news that occurs on the Harvard campus and in Cambridge while providing fair coverage of the events. The public can then form their opinions based on the hard truth as reported by the media.
There is no group so frowned upon that a newspaper should go so far as to exclude from their reporting. The job of the media is ultimately to report what happens in the world, not to decide which news should be written and which voices should be heard.
A quote or notice of contact in an article does not directly translate into promotion. It informs the public and gives them the tools to have their own thoughts on divisive issues. Asking The Crimson to stray from the foundations of journalism in favor of political leaning is dangerous and limits the press from providing comprehensive and objective news.
Instead of focusing on seemingly punishing The Crimson for good journalism, these groups should aim their attention and effort at the issues they believe justify the censorship they’re asking for.
Restricting the freedom of the press and refusing to cooperate with The Crimson only perpetuates the misinformation that has led to the ignorance these groups claim to fight. Informed residents are essential to making substantial and sustainable progress.
“With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”
-Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72