How to cover threatened ICE raids without unnecessarily disrupting schools, terrifying parents, and interrupting kids’ lives.
By Alexander Russo
Two weeks into the new administration, a tremendous amount of media coverage has been focused on the threat of ICE raids on schools and other locations.
Immigrant communities are terrified. School district officials, educators, and parents are on edge. An unknown number of families are keeping their kids home from school.
At the same time, there are as of yet no confirmed cases of school-based sweeps or ICE agents trying to raid schools or anywhere else. And the Trump administration has told at least two news outlet that schools aren’t actually going to be targeted — and that interactions with schools will be rare,
All that could change at any moment, but even then the challenge will remain: How to report a story about a deeply alarming possible event without unnecessarily terrifying community members, disrupting schools, and interrupting children’s lives?
To cover this story, journalists must vet information carefully, evaluate government claims and advocates’ rhetoric for real-world viability, and — most of all — focus on events rather than worst-case speculation.
The possibility of ICE agents entering schools and rounding up kids is terrifying. But threats aren’t the same as events, and nationwide school ICE raids may never actually take place. Sloppy reporting is unnecessarily disrupting real peoples’ lives — and discrediting media coverage.
Sloppy reporting is unnecessarily disrupting real peoples’ lives — and discrediting media coverage.
Ever since the November election, local and national media have been chronicling the possibility of mass deportation sweeps at schools and other locations by the incoming Trump administration.
As a candidate, Trump had run on a campaign that promised mass deportation. As a President-elect, he seemed poised to find and remove as many undocumented persons as he could find.
And then last week, when newly-inaugurated President Trump removed the “sensitive locations” designation that had long protected schools and churches from immigration sweeps, the possibility loomed large.
Trump critics wrung their hands, blue city politicians and school districts pledged various degrees of support for immigrant families — and the coverage went into overdrive (AP, Washington Post, NPR, USA Today, New York Times, Chalkbeat).
Over this weekend, MSNBC ran a segment linking the Trump deportation plan to 2017’s family separation policy.
However, there was (and still is) a glaring problem with the looming school deportation narrative: a lack of credible reports of ICE agents approaching or targeting schools.
The White House has repeatedly disavowed the notion that schools will be targeted for deportation sweeps, and there have not yet been any credible reports of raids.
The only thing we know for sure is that an unknown number of terrified parents are keeping their kids home — disrupting the education, socialization, and nutrition that schools provide.
It seems more than possible that mistaken media coverage has played a part. The panic and fear that the Trump administration seeks to create is being aided by the news.
The panic and fear that the Trump administration seeks to create is being aided by the news.
What could journalists news outlets have done differently? What should they consider doing going forward?
Here are a few of the most obvious lessons, with examples where relevant:
Highlight critical facts.
A week ago, WBUR’s Here & Now ran a piece that noted there had been no confirmed raids on schools (which is still the case). But it was an exception. Most news stories have downplayed or ignored the lack of confirmed school ICE raids. For example, see this recent NPR story..
Vet rumors and claims.
In Chicago, local news outlets initially passed along what turned out to be false information from school officials about an ICE raid on a school — and had to rewrite the story. In San Francisco, they avoided repeating this mistake. “Our job is not to just spread what people are saying or hearing,” SF Chronicle ed reporter Jill Tucker told The Grade.
Press officials for clarification — and hold them to it.
It wasn’t until last Tuesday — a week into the new administration — that NBC News got a definitive White House statement that the removal of the sensitive locations exemption was “NOT a directive to go into schools and churches” (and that no schools have been raided).
Describe unintended consequences.
Few stories have noted how the deportation of the nearly three quarters of a million school-age children who are in the US without legal documentation would have enormous consequences for school budgets and the economy. Only a handful have noted that the decision by parents to hold their kids out of school for even a few days can have enormous consequences on children’s educational success.
Find a mix of voices.
The vast majority of sources quoted in these stories are at the extremes — concerned immigrant advocates or anti-immigrant Trump officials. One notable exception: Interviewed on last Thursday’s NPR Morning Edition, the Migration Policy Institute’s Muzaffar Chishti predicted “a storm, not a tsunami” when it comes to immigration enforcement. A recent Vox article explored the range of views among Democratic voters — including immigrants. More of this, please?
Add valuable context.
Few stories have noted that, while the public supports immigration reform, the polls are sharply against raiding schools, or that school-age kids make up less than 10 percent of the 11 million undocumented people in the US, or that the White House memorandum removing protected status from schools is subject to possible legal challenge because there is no accompanying ICE policy change.
Limit the amount of worst-case speculation.
“As with everything Trump, you quickly end up in this speculative zone,” noted New York Times education reporter Dana Goldstein in a recent interview. And it’s true. A certain amount of speculation is unavoidable, given the uncertainties of the situation.
But instead of focusing exclusively on worst-case speculation, journalists should ask themselves and their sources to consider the full range of outcomes that could take place. What’s the most likely outcome, based on available information, rather than the worst-case scenario?
What’s the most likely outcome, rather than the worst-case scenario?
Most of all, media coverage of Trump administration threats such as this need to assess the possible threat — and distinguish it from what’s actually happened. As Jamelle Bouie noted in a recent On The Media segment, too many people are “treating the threat as if it’s an accomplished fact.”
Despite all the rhetorical saber-rattling, there was never any hard evidence that the administration would target schools for widespread deportation efforts. There is no known plan, budget, or rationale for targeting kids and schools. Covering the threat of ICE raids on schools as if they are already happening — or will soon — is irresponsible and counter-productive for news journalists to be doing.
Previously from The Grade
How to cover Trump 2.0
How to cover education now that Trump has won?
Additional resources
Destigmatizing coverage of newcomer students
Reporters share tips on covering immigrant education
Four smart ways to cover immigrant students
Cover migrants as people, not political props (Kate Morrissey in The Objective)
Migration is about migrants. (Zach Seward)
