Will the sad decline of ethics in journalism ever end? There’s no mystery why the public doesn’t trust the media. It didn’t used to be this way. Journalists focus less on reporting facts and more on drawing attention. They frequently distort or omit relevant information. Sometimes, they use more indirect means to mislead, such as applying inaccurate labels to facts, or using inappropriate words to create false inferences or connotations. Truth and accuracy are sacrificed to sensationalism. They are victims of the competitive push for eyeballs and profits.
The Decline of Ethics in Journalism – The Trump Order on Immigration
Which brings us to the Huffington Post. On January 25, 2017 they published an article entitled “Read Draft Text Of Trump’s Executive Order Limiting Muslim Entry to The U.S. (EXCLUSIVE).” Now, that headline really got our attention. For one, it sure sounds like President Trump actually went ahead and limited Muslim entry into the U.S. We’ve got to read about that! The headline also emphasizes the word “exclusive” in bold print. The article must contain unique information that we really need to read because we won’t find it elsewhere.
The Huffington Post Article – Inaccurate Fact Reporting Plus Imprecise Word Use Leads to False Analysis
The Huffington Post headline intends to create the impression that the Trump Order places restrictions on future Muslim entry into the United States. And further, the words intend to suggest that (1) the limitation applies only to Muslims, and (2) there is no limit for other religious faiths. But none of that is true. And all of it is symptomatic of a decline of ethics in journalism.
Let’s take a look at the relevant parts of the article, and the Executive Order itself. The lead paragraph in the article states that:
The White House intends to temporarily shut down travel from a wide swath of countries to the United States and implement dramatic restrictions on immigration and refugee admission [our emphasis] . . .
Among the eight bullet points extracted from the Executive Order, the reporter included this:
Ban for 30 days all “immigrant and nonimmigrant” entry of individuals from countries designated in Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016 consolidated appropriations act: Irag, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. These countries were targeted last year in restrictions on dual nationals’ and recent travelers’ participation in the visa waiver program.
“Wide Swath of Countries” is Incorrect
The lead paragraph states that the Trump Order shuts down travel rom a “wide swath of countries.” A “swath” is generally a strip of land, and the idiomatic phrase “wide swath” indicates a wide or large variety. In this instance, the reporter used “wide swath of countries” to convey the impression that the Trump Order covers a “large number” of countries.
So where’s the support for the claim that travel will be temporarily shut down for a “wide swatch of countries?” The reporter correctly recited that the ban applies to six countries. The last time we looked, there are 196 countries on earth (of which one is the United States). Therefore, the Trump Order would put in place a 30-day ban on entry into the United States for 3.07% of the countries on earth. That is not a “wide swath.”
Now in fairness, the Executive Order also includes a process of visa suspension with respect to nationals of countries of “particular concern.” But these countries are not designated currently. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, will require the production of certain information from any country to permit a determination of whether individuals may be a threat to the United States. Countries that fail to do so within the specified period of time may thereafter be included in a Presidential proclamation that prohibits the entry of their foreign nationals into the United States. Accordingly, the countries whose nationals may be subject to this prohibition are yet to be identified. In fact, a country can avoid inclusion in the prohibition simply by providing to the Secretary of Homeland Security the requested information within the designated time period.
Thus, we are left with the six-country current ban. That is hardly a “wide swath” of countries. The lead paragraph in the Huffington Post is both misleading and incorrect. It is the first example in this piece of a decline of ethics in journalism.
“Dramatic” Restrictions on Immigration is Incorrect
Next we take a look at the lead paragraph’s claim that the White House is implementing “dramatic restrictions” on immigration. First, the reporter’s use of the word “dramatic” is definitionally incorrect. We suspect the error in usage is due to the connotation that the author intended to convey.
“Drastic,” Not Dramatic
“Dramatic” means “of or like a drama” or “filled with action or emotion.” “Restrictions” are not dramatic. On the other hand, we suspect that what the author really meant was that the restrictions are “drastic,” a word that means “extreme in effect” or “severe” or “harsh.” We grant that “drastic restrictions” could have “dramatic” consequences, but that is not what the reporter wrote.
Selective Data Usage Abets the False Conclusion – The Reporter Owes Us More
Second, definitions aside, are the restrictions in fact drastic? It all depends on the reporter’s choice for comparison. So let’s take a look at the sets of available data.
By way of absolute numbers, the Executive Order proposes to limit total refugee admissions for fiscal 2017 to 50,000. That limit, as the article correctly points out, compares to a 110,000 limit previously proposed by President Obama. As contrasted to the Obama proposal, the Trump limitation indeed looks like a drastic reduction. But notice that the Obama level was a mere proposal.
On the other hand, for fiscal 2015 President Obama implemented a limit of 70,000 refugees into the U.S. Throughout the George W. Bush administration refugees admitted into the United States averaged between 50,000 and 60,000 per year. Thus, the Trump limit is not a noteworthy change compared to the actual historical limits.
Thus, the reporter selected one proposed data point, not an actual historical reference, to create the impression that President Trump’s proposal amounts to a drastic reduction. Now the reporter may editorialize the issue if she wishes. But she should directly indicate that she is editorializing and not reporting. And to make the comment fair, she should first report all of the relevant facts. This would include reporting all of the refugee limits, both proposed and recent historical facts. The failure to do so is symptomatic of a decline of ethics in journalism.
The Misleading Headline – “Limiting Muslim Entry to the U.S.”
Now for the heart of the matter. The Huffington Post headline refers to “President Trump’s Executive Order Limiting Muslim Entry to the U.S.” Recall that the article recited eight bullet points extracted from the Order. None of those bullet points make any explicit reference to Muslims.
So what can we distill from the Trump Order by way of a limitation on Muslims? The reporter listed the six countries of Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Somalia and Yemen where the temporary ban will exist. Although the reporter does not draw a direct line from the temporary ban to her headline, perhaps she was simply inferring one. So does this temporary ban for the six countries amount to a limitation on Muslim entry into the United States?
Empirical Data Always Helps
Let’s turn to some empirical evidence. According to a Pew Research 2010 study, there were approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world in 2010. The combined total Muslim population in the six temporarily banned nations is 181 million. This amounts to approximately 11% of the total world Muslim population. According to the same study the United States had a Muslim population of approximately 2.6 million, an immaterial portion of the overall total.
Therefore, the Trump temporary ban has no impact on 89% of the world’s total Muslim population. The empirical data illustrates that it is inaccurate, and misleading, to state that the Order “limits Muslim entry to the U.S.” It does not.
To be complete, we note that the combined Muslim population across those six countries totals over 97% of the aggregate population. We could characterize any immigration restriction for these six countries as a “limitation of Muslim entry.” This is the case simply because virtually everyone in those countries is a Muslim. But any such characterization would also be incorrect. Why?
A fair answer to that question depends on the specific language contained in the Trump Order. The language states that the purpose of the ban, among other reasons, is “to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent the terrorist or criminal infiltration [into the United States] of foreign nationals. . . ” The ban is thus limited both in duration and to a stated national security interest.
Each of the six listed countries has a long, recent, and substantial history of terrorist activities. The temporary ban is reasonably targeted. It aims to reduce the risk of terrorism from specific countries with a history of terrorism. The temporary ban is thus not directed at Muslims. In matters involving national security, the Supreme Court historically acknowledges that the President has great latitude in his policy choices.
The Religious Persecution Exception As Proof of Muslim Targeting – More Inaccuracy
So what does the Huffington Post explicitly recite in support of the published headline? In fact, the reporter made only one clear argument to support the headline:
Trump’s initial campaign promise, that he would ban all Muslims from traveling to the United States, has been dialed back to a blanket ban on all travel from a smaller number of companies. But the focus is still on Muslims. The executive order says that priority will be given in the future to refugees who face religious persecution, “provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” In other words, an exception will be made for non-Muslims in the Middle East, which undercuts the argument that the policy does not target Muslims specifically.
The reporter’s conclusion here is also fundamentally misleading. It is another example of a decline of ethics in journalism. As we noted, across the six temporarily banned countries, only 3% of the population is non-Muslim. Therefore, all other religions combined are very small minority religions in each of the six countries.
Failure to Report the Presence of Religious Persecution
Moreover, and importantly, religious persecution has been documented in each of the six countries. Specifically, the United Nations has demonstrated religious persecution in Iran. Open Doors, a non-denominational mission supporting persecuted Christians, has documented religious persecution in Libya, as has the British House of Commons. The U.S. Department of Justice recently reported religious persecution in Somalia. Persecution in Syria is well-established by the civil war. Persecution in Sudan is documented. The international human rights organization Minority Rights Group has detailed persecution in Yemen.
The Missing Preamble
The reporter’s recitation of the exception omitted the key preamble to the religious persecution exception in Trump’s Order. This omission creates a false inference to support her claim that “an exception will be made for non-Muslims in the Middle East, which undercuts the argument that the policy does not target Muslims specifically.” We recite the omitted preamble:
Further, during the temporary suspension period . . . the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may continue to process as refugees those refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality [emphasis added].
Thus, the Trump Order indicates that the temporary ban will not interfere with a process that already permits admission of religious-based refugees from those six countries. There is no change in policy here. There is no inference that Muslims are targeted.
Editor’s Position – Continuing religious persecution in each of these six countries supports a religious-based exception to the ban. In fact, a failure to include such an exception would be contrary to American traditions granting refugee status for religious-based persecutions.
The “Exclusive” Story – Where?
Trump’s proposed Executive Order was widely available immediately upon it’s release. The Huffington Post did not receive exclusive access. Its recitation of provisions in the Trump Order was not unique. Numerous media outlets produced analyses on the same day. There was nothing “exclusive” about the Huffington Post story; other than, perhaps, the debunked claim that the temporary ban limited Muslim entry into the U.S.! Another example of a decline of ethics in journalism.
More to Come on the Decline of Ethics in Journalism
We will continue to cite examples of the decline of ethics in journalism, as circumstances dictate. When prominent media outlets fail in their mission to report facts as accurately as possible, the public loses. The country needs media that avoids distortion and does not omit data. We need to trust our media once again. But that is not the world we live in.
What do you think?
