by Leo E. Laurence, J.D.

Journalists in print, broadcast and on-line media need to avoid using the phrase “illegal immigrant” if the person involved hasn’t been convicted by a judge.

The phrase we journalists should properly use, as a matter of journalistic ethics and law, is “undocumented immigrant.”

We are a nation of laws.  In our system of common-law jurisprudence, the doctrine of  innocent until proven guilty is enthroned in our federal Constitution. It is basic to our law-and-order society!

The only person who can say that anyone is “illegal” is a judge, not a journalist or a member of an anti-immigrant group like the “Minutemen.”

When covering basic crime stories, reporters are usually careful to refer to criminal suspects as “alleged” thieves or murderers. That characterization respects our fundimental, constitutional doctrine  of innocent-until-proven-guilty.

But, for some unknown reason, that ethical and legal consideration breaks down when local and national journalists write or talk about undocumented immigrants.  They are casually referred to as “illegal immigrants,” even though it is improper as a matter of law and violates our S-P-J’s Code of Ethics.

“Well, everybody else does it, so I do it,” said one San Diego on-air TV reporter.

That doesn’t make it right!

Covering the gay-marriage issue is complex and journalsits need to be aware of its many facets. Not only is it a legal issue with three state Supreme Court rulings legalizing it, but it is also a religious and emotional issue.

And, there is no one gay “leader” who can accurately speak for the entire Gay & Lesbian Community. It is far too diverse. There are even some gay “leaders” who oppose gay marriages.

As a legal issue, three state high courts have ruled that it is a violation of the equal-protection clauses of their state Constitutions to have a two-tiered system of marriages: one for Gays & Lesbians (domestic partnerships) and another for straights (mariage).

But, some opponents say they follow a “higher law,” their religion. Unfortunately for them, religious law is not our rule-of-law in the United States.

In California, proponents of the statewide initiatve, Proposition-8 (which will amend the state’s Constituion and ban gay marriages, overturning the March state Supreme Court ruling) have raised nearly $20 millions, mostly from Mormons.

In TV ads running every day statewide, the Yes-on-8 campaign argues that the state’s high court should have respected the “will of the people” who voted on another initiative declaring marriage to only be between a man and woman.

The state’s Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in March. The court said neither voters, nor the legislature, can adopt an unconstitutional law.

If the voters had approved a state statute that said that wives were the property of their husbands, that too would have been found unconstitutional. So, the opponents of gay marriages are now trying to change the California Constitution.

They may do it. The Yes-on-8 campaign is better funded and statewide polls say the iniaitive is now running about 50-50, with less than 2 weeks before the election.

Even straight Latinos are speaking out on the issue.

“I now believe we simply can’t have a two-tiered system where some of us have the right to marry and others don’t, based on their sexual orientation,” Ruben Navarrette Jr., a vice president and columnist for the San Diego Union Tribune recently wrote.

“The fact that Gays and Lesbians – including those who are already in committed relationships – want to get married doesn’t weaken the institution.

“It strengthens it by allowing more people to participate. As more states allow Gays and Lesbians to marry – Connecticut recently joined California and Massachussettes – I’ve taken note that civilizations have not crumbled.

“Here in California, some people still worry (that) it might,” Navarrette wrote.

Proponents of Proposition-8 are throwing millions into the campaign. For example, Mormons have given over $18.8 million as of October 1st, over 77 percent of all the money raised by the Yes-on-8 campaign since June.

“Opponents of gay marriages make a fuss over the fact that a handful of justices overrode the wishes of millions of voters, Navarrette wrote.

“You don’t say?

“These people are all too eager to use the ballot iniatives to play citizen legislators, as they did eight years ago.

“But, when real legislators pass a law, whatever they come up with must be able to survive judicial review.

“The same goes for voter-approved initiatives.

“The opponents of gay marriages want all the power that comes from making laws, but none of the responsibility of making sure the laws they pass are constitutional,” Navarrette wrote.

In September, the impartial Californai Field Poll found that only 39 percent of likely voters supported Proposition-8.

Just one month later, there was a turnaround and now only 42 percent oppose it.

“One of the reasons for the turnaround seems to be radio and television ads.

“The Yes-on-8 (TVG ad) campaign plays on fear that, if gay marriages contiue, it would make its way into the public school curriculum.

“Good heavens! That (TV ad) does not explain that California parents have the right to be notified of any instruction of sexually-explicit material and to pull their children out of class if they so desire.

“Instead, what we wind up with is Willie Horton meets Sesame Street,” columnist Navarrette wrote.

And, he is a straight Latino.

We Americans are fairly predictable in our approach to newcomers, even as we hold ourselves up as the standard worldwide for diversity and tolerance. Yes, we’ve come a long way… BUT: Jews, Italians, the Irish… These groups went through it. Later the Chinese and Japanese went through it… Latinos are still going through it…. and now Arab Americans and residents whose roots lie in the Middle East are going through it: blatant xenophobia. Xenophobia is the companion of racism; certainly they walk hand in hand through the pages of American history and they lurk around corners and in our midst today. The American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (3rd ed.) defines xenophobia as “An unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.” Sound familiar? In this election cycle, while it is clearly unacceptable for voters to attack Barack Obama based on his race (most Americans manage to keep up with what’s acceptable to say in polite company), it seems to be acceptable to color him as an outsider, “foreign or different.” It is ugly to see and hear John McCain’s supporters placing a negative emphasis on Obama’s middle name, Hussein, because they believe anything that is related to Islam or Arabs is negative, bad, scary. So I ask, where’s the outrage!? I wish more of the multitudes of pundits and experts on cable news, on the web, and in our nation’s opinion pages would speak up. Here’s an excerpt from freep.com (by community activist TERRY AHWAL, OCTOBER 13, 2008): “During a town hall meeting last week, a member of the audience told Republican presidential nominee John McCain, “I don’t trust Obama, he is an Arab.” McCain replied defensively, “I have to tell you, Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States.” I don’t know what was most offensive, the initial remark, McCain’s answer — or the media reaction to the whole episode. It seems everyone challenged McCain on the negative rhetoric he introduced against Obama, but no one challenged him or the woman on their comments insinuating that Arabs are not decent or not good Americans. Sadly, these statements were not made in a vacuum. Since Barack Obama began his presidential run, hatred toward Arabs and Muslims has become a normal part of our language. Imagine for a minute if the person in the audience had used the word “Jew” or “black” or “Latino.” Would this interaction be overlooked by the media and the public? I am sure McCain was not demonizing “Arabs” on purpose, but while defending Obama, he let bigots off the hook.”

I notice a trend with a lot of my journalism friends on Facebook. To wit, they’re joining groups supporting (or dissing) one or another political party or candidate and/or declaring their political leanings in some other fashion. A wise man (my coworker Randy Reeves) recently advised our journalism students here at Mizzou to remove all such references from their Facebook pages and divest themselves of bumper stickers, t-shirts and other items that advertise their political leanings. I am hereby urging my SPJ colleagues and other friends in journalism follow suit! It’s one thing for a journalist to go to the polls and cast his or her vote; it’s quite another to declare to the world that we are for or against a particular party, candidate or issue. This is exactly why members of the public suspect that many journalists are not approaching their work with open minds. Of course, I can’t force you to do anything — and boy is it hard to keep things to yourself in this particular election cycle. I do hope I’ve given members and friends some food for thought and discussion!

The presidential campaign officially turned weird last week, when John McCain had to spend precious town hall meeting time defending his rival Barack Obama. If the two people we saw over and over again on the news are typical of McCain’s rally attendees…. Well, McCain will have a lot more defending to do. In case you missed it (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html?iref=newssearch), one guy told McCain he was afraid of living in a country under a President Obama. McCain – to his credit – told the man his rival was a good person and not a leader to fear. Then there was a woman who rambled for a bit before finally telling McCain she didn’t trust Obama because he’s “an Arab.” Say what? Here, McCain managed to defend Obama and alienate any Arab-Americans who might have been thinking of voting for the Republican candidate. He said that Obama was a decent man and a citizen. Awkward, offensive, weird. You could see by McCain’s body language and hear in his voice he was dismayed by the remarks of the two supporters I mention here. I wonder if he has spent this weekend having a few stern words with his handlers and his running mate about painting Obama as somehow not one of us. Is he re-thinking the strategy of asking, “Who is the real Barack Obama?” Certainly, Palin – for all her family values – seems unrepentant and exuberant in declarations. As the days in this presidential campaign dwindle, I am feeling a lot of things about the two candidates. A journalist is supposed to keep her political leanings to herself, but it’s hard in this cycle – as racism and xenophobia collide with an economic meltdown, a healthcare system in crisis, and the daily barrage of news about failing U.S. policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add sheer and often willful ignorance to the mix and it’s hard to stay neutral. Still, I remind my fellow journalists to count to ten, take deep breaths, and take stock of their biases. Now more than ever, we need to approach our work with cool heads — even if our hearts beat to the rhythm of a particular candidate’s words.