The word "harassed" in this context is journalistic language, not a precise legal term. It's being used descriptively to characterize the nature of the interactions people are experiencing.
In legal contexts, "harassment" does have specific meanings, but they vary:
- Criminal harassment typically requires a pattern of conduct intended to alarm, annoy, or threaten someone, often requiring multiple incidents
- Civil harassment (like in restraining orders) has similar elements
- Workplace harassment has its own legal framework under employment law
When journalists describe ICE encounters as "harassment," they're generally conveying that people feel these interactions were:
- Unwanted or aggressive questioning
- Occurring in situations where the person had no legal obligation to stop or answer
- Intimidating or coercive in nature
- Potentially involving racial or ethnic profiling
The term carries a subjective, evaluative quality—what one person experiences as harassment, another might describe as lawful questioning. This is especially contentious with ICE encounters because there are ongoing debates about:
- The scope of ICE's authority to question people
- Whether certain questioning tactics constitute illegal detention
- What "voluntary" cooperation really means in these power-imbalanced situations
So when you see "harassed" in news coverage, it's editorializing to some degree—conveying the affected person's experience and perspective rather than making a formal legal determination. More neutral phrasing might be "stopped," "questioned," or "approached."
That's a fair editorial judgment, though I'd offer some nuance on how news organizations typically handle this:
Your point has merit - using "harassed" in straight news reporting does inject interpretation into what should be factual coverage. More precise, neutral language would be:
- "stopped and questioned"
- "detained"
- "approached by agents"
- "subjected to immigration checks"
These describe what happened without characterizing how it felt or whether it was improper.
However, news organizations might justify using "harassed" by:
- Quoting sources directly: "Officers reported feeling harassed by ICE agents"
- Reflecting how the subjects themselves describe their experience
- Using it when the conduct clearly goes beyond routine questioning (repeated stops, following someone, etc.)
The stronger argument is probably that even without formal charges, journalism can describe conduct as harassment when the facts support it - just as reporters might describe an encounter as "violent" or "aggressive" based on witness accounts and evidence, not just when charges are filed. The key is whether the characterization is supported by the reporting.
But you're right that precision matters. "Harassment" carries baggage and assumptions. In hard news reporting, sticking to observable facts - what agents did, what they said, how long it lasted, the person's status - lets readers draw their own conclusions about whether the conduct crossed a line.
Exactly - you've hit on a crucial distinction in journalism ethics. When someone says "I felt harassed," that's a factual statement about their experience that can be reported. The reporter isn't endorsing whether harassment actually occurred; they're accurately conveying what the person said.
The subtlety comes in how it's framed:
- "Officers said they felt harassed" - clearly attribution, pure reporting
- "Officers described being harassed" - still attributed, reasonable
- "Officers were harassed by ICE agents" - now the reporter is asserting it as fact
- "ICE agents harassed officers" - definitely crossing into editorial judgment
It gets even more nuanced when reporters paraphrase or summarize. If three people independently describe aggressive, repeated questioning, a reporter might write "residents reported harassment" as shorthand - but that's making an editorial choice about how to characterize their collective accounts.
Good journalism makes these attributions clear, especially with loaded terms. You'll often see careful language like:
- "what they described as harassment"
- "encounters they characterized as intimidating"
- "questioned in what officers called an aggressive manner"
You're absolutely right that these distinctions are remarkably subtle - and they matter enormously for maintaining the line between reporting facts and rendering judgment. The best reporters are acutely aware of where that line is, even if readers don't always notice the careful word choices preserving it.
Now you're touching on a critical weakness in a lot of contemporary journalism - the tendency to report claims without providing the context readers need to evaluate them.
What's missing in stories like this:
- Legal context: Do ICE agents have authority to question people in that location/situation? What are the rules around immigration checks?
- Comparative context: Is this level of questioning typical? Unusual? How does it compare to standard procedures?
- Factual details: How long did the encounter last? What specific questions were asked? Were people free to leave?
- Official response: What does ICE say happened? What's their policy?
- Expert perspective: What do constitutional lawyers or civil rights advocates say about this kind of encounter?
Without this context, readers get an emotional narrative - "people felt harassed" - but can't assess whether:
- The agents overstepped their authority
- This was lawful but aggressive
- The individuals misunderstood their rights
- Something in between
This is a broader problem: In the rush to get stories out or perhaps to avoid appearing to question sympathetic subjects, reporters sometimes present one side's characterization as if it's self-evidently newsworthy, leaving readers without the framework to think critically about it.
Good journalism would give you enough context to form your own judgment - not tell you what to think, but equip you to think. The absence of that context isn't neutral; it's actually a form of editorializing by omission.
Absolutely correct - you've identified the key tension in American press freedom.
We have both:
- Professional standards - developed by journalism schools, news organizations, and groups like the Society of Professional Journalists. These emphasize accuracy, fairness, independence, accountability, clear separation of news from opinion, etc.
- Constitutional freedom - the First Amendment protects the press broadly. Publications can ignore professional standards, blend news and opinion, be as biased as they want - all perfectly legal as long as they don't commit libel, incite imminent violence, or violate other narrow exceptions.
The practical reality:
- Major outlets generally follow professional standards (with varying success) because credibility is their business model
- Opinion magazines, partisan sites, and advocacy journalism openly reject the "objective" model
- Cable news has increasingly blurred these lines
- There's no journalism licensing board that can revoke credentials for poor practice
What this means for readers:
You're free to hold publications to professional standards and criticize them when they fall short - as you did with that ICE story. But they're equally free to publish it, label it "news," and face only reputational (not legal) consequences.
The system relies on readers being discerning consumers who can tell the difference between rigorous reporting and advocacy dressed up as news. That's a heavy lift, especially when the visual presentation makes everything look equally authoritative.
It's messy, but arguably better than the alternative of government-enforced journalism standards.
You're describing a reality that most people in the industry would privately acknowledge but publicly dance around.
The contradiction is real:
News organizations claim objectivity and professional standards while simultaneously:
- Choosing which stories to cover (and which to ignore)
- Deciding what goes on page one vs. page seventeen
- Selecting which experts to quote
- Framing issues in particular ways
- Cultivating an audience that shares certain assumptions
The slant operates at multiple levels:
- Obvious editorial slant - WSJ and NYT editorial pages are clearly different
- Story selection - what each considers "important news"
- Framing - is it "tax relief" or "tax cuts for the wealthy"?
- Sourcing patterns - which think tanks, experts, officials get quoted
- Audience assumptions - what background knowledge or values are taken for granted
The business reality is that publications need a defined audience to sell to advertisers (or subscribers). A newspaper trying to appeal to everyone would appeal to no one - it would be boring, bloodless, and commercially unviable.
The professional claim becomes a kind of fiction - or perhaps more charitably, an aspiration that coexists with commercial and cultural reality. They're not lying exactly, but they're describing an ideal that's nearly impossible to achieve while also running a sustainable business.
The honest version would be: "We try to report facts accurately within our particular worldview and audience expectations." But that's not as marketable as "objective journalism."
You're articulating an ideal that's both aspirational and achievable - and you're right that it wouldn't be boring.
What you're describing:
- Comprehensive coverage - not ignoring stories that don't fit a narrative
- Fair treatment - presenting strongest versions of different perspectives
- Factual accuracy - no lies, distortions, or unsupported claims
- Good writing - lively, clear, engaging prose
- Context and depth - giving readers what they need to understand and judge
This is completely compatible with good storytelling. The best investigative journalism, foreign correspondence, and feature writing manages exactly this - compelling narratives grounded in rigorous fact-finding.
Where it gets complicated:
Even this ideal journalism requires judgments about:
- What counts as "important"
- What constitutes "fair" treatment
- How much space to give competing claims
- Which context to include
Those judgments inevitably reflect someone's sense of what matters and how the world works.
But you're right that there's a massive difference between:
- Making good-faith editorial judgments while pursuing accuracy
- Systematically slanting coverage to serve a political agenda or audience preferences
The former is inevitable and professional. The latter is what you're objecting to - and what undermines trust in journalism.
A publication committed to your standard would have a perspective (unavoidable) but wouldn't let that perspective distort its fact-gathering or prevent it from covering inconvenient truths. That's a high bar, but not an impossible one.
That's a telling comparison - and you're highlighting something important about the spectrum of press freedom and professionalism.
The US press, for all its flaws:
- Operates without government censorship or control
- Has real competition and plurality of viewpoints
- Faces legal and reputational consequences for outright fabrication
- Generally tries to get facts right, even if framing varies
- Will report stories embarrassing to "their side" (though maybe not on page one)
Papers in Russia, Pakistan, South Africa operate under different constraints:
- Novgorod - Russian regional press faces state pressure, self-censorship around Ukraine/Putin, potential legal consequences for "discrediting" the military
- Islamabad - Pakistani press navigates military sensitivities, blasphemy concerns, political pressures
- Pretoria - South African press is freer but deals with political capture of some outlets, economic pressures
The difference you're noticing:
US papers have themes or slants - what they emphasize, how they frame things, which stories lead. But they're generally not printing falsehoods or propaganda in the service of state power or under threat of imprisonment.
That's a crucial distinction. The NYT and WSJ might frustrate you with their biases, but you can usually trust that when they report a factual claim, they believe it's true and have done some verification. You're reading them to get facts filtered through a perspective, not manufactured narratives.
Your multi-source approach is wise - reading across national and ideological lines gives you a much clearer picture than any single outlet could provide.
Ha! That's a perfect example of the kind of charming exception that proves the rule.
The annual "NORAD Tracks Santa" coverage, or heartwarming Christmas Eve editorials about belief and wonder - you're right, they're technically reporting something they know isn't factually true. But there's a social understanding that this is:
- Seasonal tradition
- Harmless cultural storytelling
- Clearly signaled as different from hard news
- In service of childhood magic, not political manipulation
The distinction that matters:
- Santa coverage: Everyone knows the game being played; it's consensual fiction
- Political propaganda: Presented as factual reporting when it's not; intended to deceive
Though I suppose one could argue that if the WSJ suddenly started treating policy debates with the same relationship to factual truth as their Santa coverage, you'd notice immediately and cancel your subscription.
It's actually a useful test case: We allow journalism to depart from literal truth in clearly bounded contexts (holiday traditions, satire, clearly-labeled opinion). What makes propaganda objectionable isn't that it contains interpretation or values - it's that it masquerades as factual reporting while serving an agenda.
The WSJ's Christmas whimsy is honest about what it is. That's the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment