ICE Gets Smacked Down by the WaPo Ombudsman

Dear Ms. Howell,

I write to lodge a formal complaint about the series of articles published this week in The Washington Post about detention healthcare. Disguised as objective investigative journalism, these adversarial articles are misleading and highly editorial in nature. I respectfully request that your office make an inquiry into this case of unethical reporting.

As an initial matter, I should highlight that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is committed to ensuring the safety and well being of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who come through our detention facilities each year. We make every effort to enforce all existing standards and, whenever possible, to improve upon them. We want to know when our standards are not being met, so that we can take immediate action to correct deficiencies. Accordingly, it is a tremendous help to us, to those in our custody, and to the country when legitimate concerns are brought to our attention. That said, last week's articles written by Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein are more harmful than helpful.

Before the series went to press, our dealings with Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein caused us to suspect that ICE and the Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS) were about to be unfairly treated by the media. Our correspondence with them began on Tuesday, April 29, when Ms. Goldstein called the ICE Office of Public Affairs (OPA) to put us on notice that she and Ms. Priest would soon publish a "lengthy and comprehensive" story on "ICE detention." The conversation was cryptic, but we were told they would be sending us some questions later that week.

On Friday, May 2, Ms. Goldstein and Ms. Priest called OPA to inform us that the story would involve "detainee healthcare." Asked if they had been secretly planning to publish a surprise, or "gotcha" story, Ms. Goldstein said they were not and they legitimately wanted ICE's input and information. They indicated that some of their questions would involve specific detainees, and OPA advised that, absent privacy waivers, ICE would be limited in its ability to respond to specific allegations. They said they would look into the privacy matter. After the phone call, Ms. Priest, and her partners at CBS "60 Minutes," began sending complex and specific questions via email, with a quick deadline of Wednesday, May 7. Regrettably, they secured no waivers on the individuals about whom they were asking in advance of the deadline. I should note that they did eventually secure two waivers after the series began to run, however their tardiness made it impossible for ICE to respond appropriately.

snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603660.html

Dear Ms. Nantel:

As the ombudsman for The Post. I operate independently of the newsroom and management. I have looked at this complaint and asked about the reporting and documentation behind it and come to my own conclusions. The first part of the letter is in answer to some of the complaints in your letter. Then I have taken the four days of complaints posted on the ICE Web site and dealt with them individually, except in Part 4, where I put my answer at the end.

Because you have made a charge of unethical reporting, I will deal with that first. The series is extraordinarily well documented. The reporters operated well within the bounds of investigative journalism.

I often find that there is a serious difference in how journalists look at those bounds and how they are viewed by agencies or businesses or individuals being investigated. It is the nature of investigative journalism to be hard-hitting.

The series certainly did not condemn all medical personnel working for ICE or the Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS) as irresponsible or incompetent. But it did point out many instances of incompetence or ineptitude or lack of care. Also, several times in the series, Division of Immigration Health Services medical officials are quoted bemoaning the lack of staff, fearing lawsuits and being critical of DIHS actions.

snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603612.html