The following piece is an opinion and does not reflect the views of The Eagle and its staff. All opinions are edited for grammar, style and argument structure and fact-checked, but the opinions are the writer’s own.
Despite journalism ethics being one of my favorite college courses, I often asked myself, “What do my professor, peers and textbooks mean when they tell me I must be impartial and unbiased in my work?” Journalism is a field I’ve grown to love for its ability to create social and political change. My love for journalism persists because of, not despite, my passion for opinionated writing.
Straight news journalism can certainly contribute to societal progress in its own way. Regardless, President Donald Trump conflates the two types of journalism in his efforts to label all journalism fake news if he sees it as unfavorable to him, as it often is, especially during his second term. Trump and his administration continue to directly attack the free press by attempting to take over the press pool and discredit long-established news organizations and journalists, all while pretending to be arbiters of “restoring free speech and ending federal censorship.”
This executive order says it will ensure that no federal officer, employee or agent is involved in any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge any American citizen’s free speech. However, Trump and his allies are spearheading efforts involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detaining and threatening to deport activists and opinion journalists alike.
Without warning, ICE arrested Rümeysa Öztürk, a PhD student at Tufts University. Her lawyer said she held a valid F-1 visa, and Trump revoked it, citing her alleged support of Hamas with no evidence. This arrest follows her involvement in an op-ed piece for The Tufts Daily — published over one year ago — about the Tufts president’s response to Tufts’ Senate’s vote to acknowledge what the editorial writers call the plausible Palestinian genocide. The piece called on Tufts to, “apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.”
How is it that, even when Öztürk and her peers did not express support for Hamas, Trump has the authority to label her a terrorist and undeserving of the visa she legally obtained?
The supposed legality of this can be argued in various ways by those who support the move. However, the truth feels painstakingly simple. This move is upheld by the belief that writing or endorsing a statement that an institution should “end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination” is worthy of ICE detention and deportation threats. Such a viewpoint is based clearly on a racialized framing of terrorism, and, in many such cases, a religious one as well.
Öztürk was on her way to break her Ramadan fast when plain-clothed ICE agents arrested her. It is merely my assumption that her Turkish identity and Muslim faith are what characterized her involvement in a pro-democratic, pro-Palestine opinion piece as warranting her visa revocation and arrest. Nonetheless, with the Trump administration’s targeted attacks against pro-Palestine international students and our government’s history of uplifting and systematizing Islamophobic sentiments after 9/11, it is difficult to find any other explanation.
At the recent “Media, A Free Press, and the other ‘P’ Word” panel discussion, sponsored by the Abdul Aziz Said Chair in International Peace and Conflict Resolution at AU, journalist Sharif Abdel Kouddous made a connection worthy of mention: when one source says it is raining outside and another says it is not, it’s not our job as journalists to quote them both — instead, all we have to do is look outside.
This sentiment referred to the expectation on journalists to always platform both sides of what is happening in Israel and Palestine, when sometimes it is enough, and essential, to instead reckon with the disproportionate nature of events since Oct. 7 and the stories of the victims of indiscriminate bombing. Though this consideration in reporting is easier said than done, journalists must continue to strive toward it to ensure fairness and accuracy.
For journalists and all those who value the need for a free press, arrests like Öztürk’s should be a cause for concern. If opinion journalists cannot express something as basic as pro-Palestinian sentiment in their work, how do the lessons in objectivity that I am learning through journalism school matter? Even if I pursue a career in journalism that is more objective and I leave opinion writing behind, what is the point of doing so if I could be targeted as a journalist regardless?
Student journalists — especially international and minority students — now fear arrest for their opinions. Those who are merely covering events like pro-Palestine encampments have been arrested for their reporting work even when strictly following standards of objectivity.
The difference between news and opinion journalism that I ruminated on at the beginning of this piece does not matter when our president constantly blurs the lines between the two and calls for the punishment of both kinds. As journalists and supporters of a free and fair press, we must call out the systemic injustice threatening the journalism industry before it is too late, or stories like Öztürk’s will never be told or have the chance to be righted.
Quinn Volpe is a junior in the School of Communication and Kogod School of Business and the assistant opinion editor for The Eagle.
This article was edited by Alana Parker and Walker Whalen. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks, Olivia Citarella, Emma Brown and Nicole Kariuki.
