Two stories on MiamiHerald.com last week on the revival of the murder case of Chandra Levy were on the same subject, but in referring to the prime suspect they couldn't be more different.

One, by The Associated Press, said in the lead that an arrest warrant was being prepared against a ''Salvadoran immigrant'' for the murder, and never said more about his immigration status. The other, a feature by McClatchy Newspapers, plays up his status by saying in the first words that he ''sneaked'' into the country. It calls him an ''illegal immigrant'' in paragraph No. 2.

Which treatment is correct? If you don't see the issue, think race. Most of us probably agree that it is not correct to publish a suspect's race unless it is specifically relevant. What about immigration status?

In the Levy case, television-editorialist Bill O'Reilly and other immigration restrictionists were harshly critical of the AP story, accusing it and The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and network news shows of ''blatant press dishonesty'' for omitting that status from their stories. He accused them of pursuing an agenda to give amnesty to the country's 12 million illegal immigrants, who, he added, are responsible for ``millions of serious crimes over the past 10 years.''

Agreeing, a reader wrote to The Herald: ``It's politically incorrect to point out this type of truth.''

The Miami Herald has written extensively about illegal immigration, and the McClatchy story was published online even though it was the AP story that ran in print. ''If we feel immigration status is directly relative to the incident in the story, then we mention it,'' Senior News Editor Manny Garcia said. ``It's a balancing act of not looking to inflame folks, but at the same time providing as much accurate information as possible.''

The different concepts of what to publish turn on differences over what is relevant for readers, and are a reminder that a newspaper has a responsibility to its community as much as to the news. The problem is that defining that responsibility is a subjective -- not objective -- appraisal.

Newspapers used to report the race of a black American suspected of a crime, but made no mention of the race of a white suspect until blacks pointed out that the practice unfairly stigmatized them and amounted to fearmongering. Doesn't the same argument apply to immigrants, legal and illegal?

Getting in the way of an answer is that most Americans think that crime increases with immigration rates, and that illegal immigrants, in particular, are violent. The very illegality of their being here contributes to that perception.

Study after study, however, shows that immigrants, including those here illegally, are much less likely to commit violent and other crimes than native-born Americans. The dramatic cases such as the Levy murder are the exception, not the rule.

That, then, raises the question of whether highlighting the immigration status of suspects doesn't unfairly stigmatize immigrants and sow unfounded fear in our communities.

Some immigrant activists would have the newspaper make no mention of immigration status at all. This is similar to a demand they make of local police not to question criminal suspects about immigration status. The fear is that police, like newspapers, might get on a ''slippery slope'' of racial profiling and abuses affecting all Hispanics and other ethnic groups.

The concern is legitimate -- but if taken to an extreme, it leads to a ''slippery slope'' in the other direction that real criminals can use to slide back into the populace. Most efforts at immigration reform, and most Americans in polls, agree that immigrants who commit violent and other serious crimes, as opposed to immigration violations, should be deported.

How to accomplish that is debatable, but what's a newspaper to do? There is an answer, and it lies in reintroducing some objectivity in not just when you report immigration status, but how.

Keith Woods, the academic dean of The Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, summarizes it best by asking three questions.

• No. 1: What is the relevance of the suspect's legal status? Did it have anything to do with what he's accused of?

No, in the Levy case.

• No. 2: Will it add to my understanding of the story to know that he is in the country illegally?

Maybe.

• No. 3: Is it a relevant part of his biography?

Yes, although a proper biography includes perspective. The McClatchy story passes partially by this standard, but as Woods points out: Where you put status says how important you think it is. The McClatchy story wrongly leads with it.

''It's not my concern whether what I write inflames public sentiment,'' said reporter Michael Doyle. ``It's not my job to hide or bury his illegal status in order to communicate to the public one way or another. It is simply to tell the relevant facts.''

In my view, Doyle is right factually but wrong in his judgment.

Join the discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. In order to post comments, you must be a registered user of MiamiHerald.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.repliedToText@

@Nyx.replyAnswerText@

Reply to this Comment @Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@