At our October panel “Covering Immigration: Reporting Across Language, Cultural Divides,” our panelists discussed how Donald Trump’s first presidency transformed their approach to immigration reporting.
“The general tilt of [immigration] reporting suddenly felt, looked, and was different,”said Jonathan Blitzer, staff writer for The New Yorker and author of Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here: The United States, Central America, and the Making of a Crisis. Where press attention may have previously granted interviewees greater protection, during Trump’s first term, “the pendulum swung in a very scary and unprecedented direction in which people who talk to [journalists] suddenly were targets.” As we approach a second Trump presidency, here are our takeaways from the discussion led by Mazin Sidahmed, co-executive director at Documented, and featuring Blitzer, Mica Rosenberg, investigative reporter covering immigration for ProPublica, and Gwynne Hogan, Brooklyn reporter at the CITY:
- Consult with experts when weighing safety concerns.
- After Trump’s first election, Blitzer contacted connections with enforcement agency backgrounds to clarify what kinds of identifying details in his reporting might put his sources at risk. Hogan and Rosenberg regularly run their work by immigration attorneys with specialized expertise and bring this feedback into conversations with editors where they weigh the editorial value of certain details against their potential detrimental impact.
- During interviews, ensure informed and continuous consent.
- Immigration reporting can involve interviewing sources unfamiliar with the journalistic process – and in some cases, in the throes of acute trauma. Hogan draws on her previous experience in breaking news and crisis reporting when speaking to sources in emergency conditions. Hogan emphasized the importance of meeting individuals “where they are on a human level,” and accommodating changing interview terms.
- Push for the full story but be discerning about details.
- Being sensitive to sources’ safety and legal concerns doesn’t mean being deferential. As a journalistic imperative, “you are always pushing for the full thing,” says Blitzer, whether that entails beginning interviews on-the-record or chasing a complicated policy story. Still, Rosenberg says journalists should review their work for superfluous details. “You have to say, what is the purpose of this story? Is using this colorful flourish just to make the writing more exciting…or is this part of the story really essential to explaining this phenomenon or injustice?”
- Clarify your role pre- and post-publication.
- Immigration reporting frequently involves meeting sources through advocacy, legal, and direct service organizations. Rosenberg stressed the importance of journalists distinguishing themselves from these formal advocates. Maintaining this boundary involves avoiding, even implicitly, communicating that reporting may directly lead to material improvements in sources’ lives. “It’s unfair, misleading, and potentially dangerous to imply that there is somehow a particular utility to someone in talking to you,” added Blitzer.
- Avoid the trap of “positive” and “negative” stories.
- Immigration reporting doesn’t take place in a vacuum. When asked about counterbalancing negative political rhetoric about immigrants with positive coverage, Rosenberg encouraged reporters to look beyond this binary. “In immigration reporting,” she said, “there’s an assumption that everyone’s an asylum seeker,” leading to a lack of in-depth reporting on issues like fraud or legal exploitation. Rosenberg implored reporters to pursue stories that complicate and deepen public understanding: “It’s part of our job to write about things in a 360 view.”
