Something is deeply wrong here. And it’s not the .
The outrage is that this statement of principle, explaining why journalists seek comment from all sides of a story, has to be made at all. But it does, and the editors of the Harvard Crimson do it well.
The Harvard student newspaper covered an anti-ICE rally & afterward contacted ICE for comment. Because of this normal act of journalism, the rally organizers have tallied 670 petitioners demanding an apology & change in editorial policy. Good grief.
Good for for issuing this statement, and not good at all that it needs to be made
This type of journalistic transparency and moral clarity, even in the face of criticism that may seem overbaked, is something all newsroom leaders can learn from. Good on
“At stake here, we believe, is 1 of the core tenets that defines America's free & independent press: the right, & prerogative, of reporters to contact any person or organization relevant to a story to seek that entity's comment & view of what transpired.”
That Harvard’s paper is having to defend this most *basic* notion says something frightening about media illiteracy, even among America’s brightest. It’s not just a journalistic notion. It’s a matter of critical reasoning.
This is a very good statement. Congrats to for upholding its principles.
Harvard: 1 Northwestern: 0