With his significant experience as a journalist AND as an activist, my trusty colleague @jasonpramas has a unique and informed perspective on the college newspaper debates raging on campuses including Harvard’s. Wise words. Read here … https://twitter.com/DigBoston/status/1194616206919184384 …
Alternatives for feuding student immigrant advocates and journalists
As someone who has been both a journalist and a left-wing political activist for a long time, I suppose it’s inevitable that I would feel the need to weigh in on a debate currently raging between Harvard immigrant advocates and the independent Harvard student newspaper, the Crimson.
At issue is that paper’s coverage of a Harvard rally calling for the abolition of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement held by a coalition of campus activist groups led by Act on a Dream—“the premier immigrants’ rights advocacy group” at the elite university, according to its website.
The action took place on Thursday, Sept 12, and drew about 100 attendees. The Crimson wrote a very straightforward news piece about it the next day. Just like I did dozens of times covering all kinds of left-wing protests over the years. The two student reporters quoted the protesters at length, as I would have. They then asked ICE for a quote, as I myself did for literally every story I ever wrote—and there were many—on protests against the federal agency. ICE didn’t reply. Like its press liaisons refused to reply any of the times I asked them for a quote. Like they refuse to reply to many news outlets that ask them for quotes. Which is disgusting practice for a government agency in a democracy, full stop.
The immigrant activists and their allies immediately got angry at the Crimson. Not because of any error of fact. Or because they thought they had been slighted in some way. But because the reporters contacted ICE for comment.
They demanded that the Crimson agree to stop calling ICE for comment going forward.
The activists met with Crimson editors about the matter, and the editors refused to back down. Unsatisfied, the activists organized a petition on change.org entitled “Harvard Crimson: Stop Calling ICE for Comment.”
In the petition text, the activists said, “We are extremely disappointed in the cultural insensitivity displayed by The Crimson’s policy to reach out to ICE, a government agency with a long history of surveilling and retaliating against those who speak out against them.” Following a link to examples of such retaliation, the activists continued, “In this political climate, a request for comment is virtually the same as tipping them off, regardless of how they are contacted.”
The activists concluded: “We demand that The Crimson: 1. Apologize for the harm they inflicted on the undocumented community. 2. Critically engage with and change their policies that require calling ICE for comment. 3. Declare their commitment to protecting undocumented students on campus.”
Over 900 people, and a number of Harvard student groups, signed the petition. The activists called for Harvard students “to boycott the paper by refusing to return requests for comment,” according to the Washington Post—one of several major news organizations that have covered the dustup.
Two top Crimson editors responded with “A Note To Readers” in which they stated “Let us be clear: In The Crimson’s communication with ICE’s media office, the reporters did not provide the names or immigration statuses of any individual at the protest. We did not give ICE forewarning of the protest, nor did we seek to interfere with the protest as it was occurring. Indeed, it is The Crimson’s practice to wait until a protest concludes before asking for comment from the target of the protest—a rule which was followed here. The Crimson’s outreach to ICE only consisted of public information and a broad summary of protestors’ criticisms. As noted in the story, ICE did not respond to a request for comment.”
The editors concluded, “We understand that some readers may disagree with The Crimson’s policies. But our mission is facts, truth, narrative, and understanding. In our view, consistent application of a commonly accepted set of journalistic standards is the best way to fairly report on the campus in a sensitive and thorough manner.”
That statement was published on Oct 22. Since then, the activists have not relented. They have essentially made their campaign against the Crimson a major focus of their activism for this school year.
On Sunday, the Harvard student government, the Undergraduate Council, narrowly passed a somewhat vaguely worded statement calling on the Crimson to change its policy: “We condemn actions or policies that endanger undocumented and immigrant students on campus, and we encourage the Harvard Crimson to revisit their policies and make adequate changes. It is imperative for the Harvard Crimson to commit to journalistic practices that do not put students at risk. With this stated, we understand that upholding journalistic standards within the Crimson is vital; however, we do not believe that upholding such standards and ensuring the wellbeing of students are mutually exclusive.”
The statement concluded: “The Undergraduate Council commits to exploring methods for continued safety for undocumented students and other student activists in interacting with the Crimson; such methods include but are not limited to reviewing and publicizing Harvard Public Affairs and Communications Crimson trainings, and working to make reporting policies more accessible and public.”
In the student newspaper’s article on the council statement, Crimson President Kristine E. Guillaume responded: “Fundamental journalistic values obligate The Crimson to allow all subjects of a story a chance to comment. … This policy demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that the individuals and institutions we write about have an opportunity to respond to criticisms in order to ensure a fair and unbiased story.”
And that’s where things stand as of this writing.
Having looked over the positions of the parties to this dispute at some length, I’m sympathetic to both. As a journalist, I have to agree that the Crimson not only did nothing wrong in its protest coverage, but also produced a well-written and eminently fair piece of journalism that I’d happily run in DigBoston. Far better than the articles the Daily Free Press—a student newspaper I once worked for—wrote about my fellow Boston University activists and me during the campus anti-apartheid movement in the mid-1980s. Mocking us at every turn… even as its editors threw me off the staff for being too sympathetic to political movements they disagreed with (and, as I was told on the quiet, because the BU administration under John Silber threatened to pull university ads in the paper if I wasn’t removed).
As a longtime advocate for undocumented immigrants, and immigrant communities in general, I understand implicitly why the Act on a Dream activists want to protect undocumented students involved in calling for the abolition of ICE—a position that I support—from harm.
However, I think that the activists have chosen the wrong target in their just effort to make America safe from a reactionary law enforcement agency created in the wake of the tragic 9/11 attack. An agency whose leaders—that fraction of its employees who do their jobs with unmatched racist and nativist zeal, and the politicians who give it marching orders—I dearly hope to one day see up in the dock on charges of crimes against humanity for its baby concentration camps on our southern border.
The Crimson journalists have literally nothing to do with making undocumented students at Harvard—or anywhere in the US—unsafe. If anything they are helping them with fair coverage of student activist actions in defense of undocumented students.
So I think the best course for the activists would be to drop their petition drive and boycott, and focus on the real enemy, ICE… and the politicians and nativist movements that make its existence possible.
Though I also think that the Crimson could help diffuse the situation by agreeing to publicly list some ways it is willing to alter its reporting practices to avoid harming article subjects like undocumented immigrants. Practices that I typically list under the rubric of the “compassionate journalism” that we try to follow at Dig when dealing with individuals and communities we adjudge to be oppressed by powerful forces like ICE. Or the Republican Party. Or Democratic Party leadership. Or multinational corporations. Or any of the various mafia organizations.
Like only publishing photos of designated activist spokespeople at political actions in support of undocumented immigrants. And not publishing photos—purposely blurred or otherwise—that show the faces of rally attendees.
Or not posting updates about political actions involving undocumented immigrants to the social media accounts of the Crimson or any of its staffers while they are still going on.
Or allowing undocumented immigrants to be quoted using a nom de plume or nom de guerre, as long as the Crimson editors know their real names.
Or delaying publication of certain stories if early publication is highly likely to result in harm to undocumented immigrants.
Those are reasonable accommodations that violate neither the Crimson staffers’ First Amendment rights nor their audience’s right to know about important Harvard developments in a timely fashion.
What is not reasonable is telling the Crimson—or any news outlet—that its staffers cannot contact ICE or any party to any story being reported for comment.
Ultimately, if immigrant activists and their allies remain unhappy with the Crimson—for whatever reason—there is one alternative course they can pursue entirely on their own. Perhaps the best option of all. Like my fellow BU left activists and I did over 30 years back with our bu exposure, they can start their own student news outlet. And they can run it however they want. And they can go head to head with the Crimson in covering issues of the day at Harvard and beyond. And readers can decide which publication does a better job of covering one of the most important social movements of our age on that campus.
Which would be great outcome to an unfortunate fracas. In an age when this nation is losing newspapers every week, rather than gaining them.
Apparent Horizon—recipient of 2018 and 2019 Association of Alternative Newsmedia Political Column Awards—is syndicated by the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism. Jason Pramas is BINJ’s executive director, and executive editor and associate publisher of DigBoston. Copyright 2019 Jason Pramas. Licensed for use by the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism and media outlets in its network.
Lynne Doncaster addresses crowd at Somerville News Garden event. Photo by Derek Kouyoumjian.
Seeks more participation from Somerville residents
It has been nine months since DigBoston and the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism partnered with the Somerville Media Center to organize an event asking Somervillians what kind of coverage was missing from their city’s remaining news media. The February 2019 Somerville Community Summit ultimately attracted 115 locals—many of whom were members or staff of 22 co-sponsoring civic organizations—to give powerful testimony to 15 professional journalists about six topic areas that they thought were getting short shrift. In an age when the consolidation of news media by a handful of giant corporations and the rise of digital media owned by another handful of big companies have done tremendous damage to local news production… in Somerville, and around the nation. Turning municipalities into what media researchers call “news deserts”—areas that no longer have professionally produced news outlets.
That first event was the result of the lived experience of my Dig and BINJ colleagues—Chris Faraone and John Loftus—and me over the nearly four years to that point during which we tried (with some success) to provide Boston-area communities with reportage that would otherwise be absent from the regional news ecology. We noticed local cities and towns having their newspapers of record (some of them over 100 years old) gobbled up by the huge media conglomerates, squeezed for profit, and then—often as not—discarded like so much refuse. Leaving Mass municipalities without the news that is the lifeblood of our democracy.
And we believed, as we still believe, that the more community news organizations that were forcibly shrunk to a fraction of their former capacity or shut down outright, the more that democracy is in danger.
So, we decided that it was important that we initiate a community organizing effort in the wake of the February summit to help Somerville rebuild its news infrastructure—strengthening the independent news outlets that remained, and possibly creating new news media to replace what was lost. All with the goal of helping a community talk to itself about issues of the day. In the way that it and communities around the nation had done for over two centuries since the founding of our republic.
As I said in my Dig editorial on the first event, Somerville Community Summit: Convening a City to Improve Its News Media, such a grassroots effort could not be primarily led by paid organizers from an organization like the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism. The effort could be sparked by a group like BINJ, but its success or failure would lie with local volunteers who would either step forward to help improve news production in Somerville in their own interest… or not.
Which is why it has been great to see the positive response we’ve gotten to the community organizing campaign—the Somerville News Garden—that we launched via BINJ in late June. Twenty-five Somerville residents stepped up at the first meeting, and about 15 of those folks have become very active with the garden in the intervening months. With the result that the role of BINJ staff has started getting less central to the endeavor.
All to the good given that the news garden already has four projects in progress: the Somerville PR Wire that is almost ready to launch a volunteer-curated website that will put a feed of pitches and event listings from community members in front of all the area journalists interested in covering Somerville on a regular basis, a quarterly volunteer-run PR Clinic that will train Somervillians on how to talk to local journalists about issues and happenings they’d like to see covered, a Research Group that has just begun deploying its first survey instrument to Somerville residents to find out what kind of news they consume about the city and where they get it from, and a Neighborhood Media School that has already recruited educators to teach our first batch of inexpensive courses on journalism and news analysis starting this winter.
Everything the Somerville News Garden does is meant to be transparent and replicable. So whether our experiments succeed or fail, communities around the country will be able to follow our roadmap and create their own news gardens wherever a news desert is threatening democracy.
In that spirit, I am pleased to give a quick report about the news garden’s first public event—held last Saturday at the ever-fabulous and community-spirited club ONCE Somerville—Real News, Fake News, No News: Reviving Local Journalism in Somerville. But I’d like to set a precedent for truth-telling from the get-go. Because as both a journalist and a longtime labor and community activist, I have noted a tendency for otherwise well-meaning nonprofit community organizing efforts to ever and always “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative” when discussing their progress.
And I’ve stated previously that I don’t think it helps anyone—least of all people interested in duplicating our effort elsewhere—to hear nothing about the news garden but happy-talk of the the type too many nonprofits often aim at major funders. Due, in the main, to the fear of losing big donations by failing to succeed at every turn. An unrealistic expectation at the best of times.
As such, I will start by saying that I thought Real News, Fake News, No News was a qualified success. The main aims of the event were—having already solidified the commitment of the first group of Somerville News Garden volunteers—to attract more Somerville residents to become active with the effort, to provide some public education on the crisis in journalism at the national and local levels, to have a good discussion with community members about specific issues and happenings that they think need more coverage in area news media, and to let attendees be the first people to take our survey.
I think news garden volunteers had varying turnout targets on their minds as they put posters up around the city and activated various social networks, but I was hoping for 40-60 people—given that we knew in advance that some community activists would be working on the Nov 5 municipal elections and that Real News was happening on a nice sunny Saturday, Nov 2.
We ended up with 42 participants. About 25 of whom were new. So that was good. Though not as good as we were hoping. We had enough people to have an acceptably large audience for the excellent presentations by Professor Gino Canella of Emerson College and lifelong Somerville resident and sometime journalist Lynne Doncaster (followed by some great comments by audience members who had worked with the Somerville Journal, Somerville News, and Somerville Times back in the day), and two breakout groups with nice conversations—led by Jane Regan of the newly revived Somerville Neighborhood News at Somerville Media Center—about “Headlines We’ve Never Seen” (resulting in several new article ideas for local journalists to cover). Which then ensured that a reasonable number of participants (led by our Research Group convener Leanne Fan) took our new Somerville Media Consumption Survey (which has already given us some great data and inspired us to start to disseminate the survey instrument widely around the city).
My concerns about the event, however, are twofold. First, although we did direct outreach to the same civic groups that turned out for the Somerville Community Summit, most of them did not respond to our call to attend the Real News event. Which makes sense. Because, a) we were reaching out to staff and active members of those groups who are already busy with their own work, and b) we did not have an audience of journalists on hand this time for those groups to pitch article ideas to. Lessening their desire to attend. But it’s going to be difficult to solve Somerville’s accelerating news crisis without active community groups involved. So the Somerville News Garden needs to find ways to partner with them going forward that are more obviously and directly beneficial to all sides.
Second, it’s hard to expect volunteers (no matter how committed) to handle community organizing campaigns—or serious public events like Real News—while going to school, holding down jobs, and taking care of kids and grandkids. The news garden has one paid staff person, me, attached to it from the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism. Yet, again, staff can never substitute for a growing number of engaged volunteers when it comes to organizing a community like Somerville to better talk to itself. Fortunately, news garden volunteers did indeed conceive of the Real News event basically from soup to nuts, and did much of the work to put it together. But I still had to step in and nudge things along from time to time. Something else we need to work on.
Now that the event is over and we have interest from over a dozen of the new attendees in starting to work with the news garden, everyone has to try hard to shore up the commitment of the initial volunteers, integrate the new volunteers, and make sure that all those folks can handle work on our four projects without everything devolving into a staff-driven endeavor. Which I think would be the end of the news garden initiative. Because staff-driven campaigns are all too often “astroturf” efforts (fake grassroots) rather than the actual grassroots efforts that are needed to effect long-lasting positive change at the community level.
Genuine community commitment will be critical if we’re going to do more public events in all of Somerville’s neighborhoods and get more buy-in from all the different populations that make up the city. Right now, the news garden is primarily reaching white, educated homeowners with a habit of reading newspapers—most of whom are older and have lived in Somerville for a long time. We need to reach younger people, immigrants, and a variety of other folks if the news garden is going to truly represent the community it’s aiming to assist. Each of those groups has different interests and consumes different kinds of news in different media. One solution on the journalism front will decidedly not fit all.
These are the challenges the Somerville News Garden currently faces. And at the end of the proverbial day, our new organization will only succeed if significant numbers of Somervillians think that local news is important enough to put volunteer time into saving. We’re getting a fine response in our first few months of organizing. But 42 people at a well-advertised public event is not 60 people. Or the 115 we got at the last February’s community summit.
All of which is to say that Somerville residents reading this are cordially invited to join the Somerville News Garden and work with us to strengthen local journalism in the interest of democracy. Interested? Our email is somervillenewsgarden@binjonline.org. Let’s talk.
