Diversity at Work

By O. Ricardo Pimentel

The recent call was similar to many I've received over the years. An editor, reading proofs, saw it right there, plain as day.

Undocumented immigrants. No pseudonyms. Real names. Photos even.

The conversation generally goes something like this.

"Ricardo, what do we do about naming illegal immigrants? I mean, if we name them, doesn't that expose them to capture and then deportation?"

And my reply generally goes like this:

As journalists, we often have conflicting values at work. In this case, it's the desire not to act as arms of law enforcement, lest we forsake our credibility by becoming mere appendages of the institutions we cover. In this case, that conflicts with the imperative for maximum disclosure on sources, avoiding anonymous ones.

We all know why we strive for the latter. Our credibility has already taken a battering over the years. Some folks just plain don't trust us, perhaps even thinking we make up sources. Beyond that, we want readers to know much about the people we quote because their identity and their roles will tell the readers how credible they are in the context of the story.

So, in this conflict, which value wins?

The fullest possible disclosure of identity, if --

That "if" is a big one, though.
 
When doing stories on undocumented immigration, think of Miranda rights. Not as in, "You have the right to remain silent," but, "I'd like to use your real name, but do you know what that means?"
Our preference on fully identifying sources should come first, in covering immigration no less than when we're reporting on some new, juicy government scandal. Our subjects should be apprised of our preference up front.

Whistle-blowers and government officials generally are pretty sophisticated when it comes to the media. Undocumented immigrants can be. But often they are not.

Their lives are led so furtively that some might not have to be told what full disclosure could mean. They live with the fear of exposure every day.

Still, it's been my experience that, if asked, names have been forthcoming. And then we should say something like, "OK, but this will be in the newspaper. Many will read it." You likely won't have to add, "Including immigration agents." They generally get it at that point.

If they say, "yes," we can be reasonably assured that they have weighed the risk.  That risk is slight. Most immigration agents are not perusing the news columns. I've heard of instances where an illegal immigrant has been snared in this fashion. I'm reasonably sure that this is rare.  But it happens and there is that risk.

When our sources are unsophisticated about news coverage, we have an obligation to bring them up to speed. I'm also reasonably certain this might not be a universal sentiment, in and out of journalism circles. It becomes sort of a source-beware philosophy. Which, in my book, is just "gotcha journalism" of the kind that has also tarnished our reputations in the past.

It's one thing to expect an elected official, for instance, to know what it means to talk to a reporter. It's quite another to expect those who don't routinely deal with the media to full appreciate the consequences. As I said, it's not a universal sentiment.

And then there's this: To many, these immigrants are lawbreakers, plain and simple. We wouldn't protect any other lawbreaker in our coverage. Why these?

Well, because undocumented immigrants are not illegal in the same way as armed robbers or burglars are. Some crossed the border without papers. But more came here legally, and then overstayed visas. Their offenses are more often than not treated as civil violations, not criminal ones.

Moreover, covering immigration is not like covering the cop beat. While anonymity is a professional must for the average criminal, an illegal immigrant's social anonymity is often about the worst-kept secret around. There are no illegal immigrants around, right? Wink. Wink.

They are here because our economy demands that they be here. If they weren't here, we'd be bemoaning their absence, Lou Dobbs' ratings-seeking assertions notwithstanding.

You can cover an armed robbery without talking to the armed robber. How do you cover as complex an issue as immigration -- reasonably and with needed context and balance -- without talking to undocumented immigrants? You can't. Not if you want to do the job well.

So, please, let's talk to them. And let's also try to use their full names when possible. After, however, they've been Mirandized.