Washington Post Ombudsman Acknowledges Shortcomings Re: Stories on Illegal Immigration
 
The Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell recently  responded to readers who claimed that the paper's reporting on illegal immigration is too biased in favor of those who reside in the country in violation of our immigration laws.
One reader wrote that, "Your recent article on growing opposition to illegal aliens (immigrants?) in Maryland once again used the familiar ploy of labeling those citizens who oppose illegal aliens as being 'anti-immigrant.' This is baloney. There is a clear difference between the two classes, and I certainly welcome those who are here legally."
The reader’s complaint is well founded. The Washington Post and most other mainstream media publications have engaged in sympathetic reporting by failing to employ language that is both accurate and descriptive. It would go a long way towards dispelling the assertion that the liberal broadsheets are biased if they would simply stop using euphemisms in their reporting on this phenomenon.
Howell acknowledges this by stating that,
"Readers are right that some journalists tend to write sympathetically about the underdog. But you cannot ignore the human story". In the words of the papers associate Metro editor, Ashley Halsey, "It's impossible to cover this issue without the challenges faced by people who are here illegally. We have tried not to be repetitive in those stories." All too often, opponents of illegal immigration are characterized as xenophobic or "anti-Hispanic".
The choice of language used to describe the issue of illegal immigration matters. Not only does it help shape the contours of debate, but also, the decision on whether to use descriptive and accurate (illegal immigrant) or euphemistic (undocumented) terms clearly indicates whether the reporters have an ideological bias on the issue.
Newspapers are not the only media organs guilty of distortion, for when it comes to reporting on this issue, obfuscation abounds. How many times have we heard TV broadcasts describing those opposed to the Immigration Reform Bill as "anti-immigrant"? This type of coverage lumps together and makes no distinction between those who have broken our laws and those who have entered the country lawfully.
Can those journalists in the media who consistently use the term anti-immigrant to describe those opposed to amnesty, point to one instance of a rally by these same opponents against those immigrants in this country lawfully?
Of course not…
Howell admits the Post has been guilty on this score:
“A few "anti-immigrant" references have popped up in recent stories -- and shouldn't have. The Post also went astray in a March 18, 2007, story about a federal raid on a New England plant; the story reported on what happened to illegal immigrants swept up in the raid but never quoted immigration officials. I also worry that advocacy groups on both sides of the issue are quoted uncritically”... Newspapers are quick to report sympathetically on the plight of illegal immigrants but rarely in the same story do they report on the legitimate concerns of U.S. citizens who are asked to foot the staggering social services bill and endure the social dislocation that massive illegal immigration creates in their communities. Halsey addressed this issue by stating, "Is it possible to quantify how illegal immigrants affect public school expenditures, crime and housing? Just how bad are the problems? Halsey said this is a daunting job, because trustworthy figures are hard to come by".
 Has The Washington Post not heard of the well regarded Heritage Foundation's report on the cost of illegal immigration?
Howell further states that,
The Post does not use "alien" in news stories and prefers "illegal immigrant." Even if "alien" is legal terminology, to me, it sounds like someone from outer space. "Undocumented workers" is also discouraged. The Post stylebook says of "undocumented": "When used to describe immigrants, this is a euphemism that obscures an important fact -- that they are in this country illegally."
If the Post's style book properly characterizes use of the term "undocumented" in connection with illegal immigrants as highly misleading, then why not insure that the paper's editors delete all references to this specious terminology? She simply says, use of this phrase is discouraged.
Ms. Howell deserves credit for her candor on this issue, but much work still needs to be done to honestly and accurately portray the debate over illegal immigration as it is reported in the major news dailies.
 
Beacon Street Journal
Monday, March 3, 2008
By John Kinsellagh