When immigrant lives are at risk
Answering your questions on newsroom ethics, records and sources' safety
Many newsrooms realize that, when they cover immigrant communities—especially where some people may be undocumented or have precarious legal status—the information they collect can put those sources at serious risk. Beyond using aliases and obtaining informed consent, however, there are deeper layers of complexity that public media newsrooms must consider.
Last OIGO, I offered many tips on protecting sources and protecting your newsroom. It came at a good time. The post generated questions as well. This second installment addresses nuanced challenges such as whether to keep detailed records, how long to retain them, and what to do if sources later seek anonymity or retract consent after publication.
While I’m not a lawyer, I’ve been a news director and reporter with practical experience to share. Striking a balance between the public’s need for accountable reporting and the safety of vulnerable sources is neither straightforward nor static, but awareness of existing frameworks and ethical principles can help guide your decisions.
Questions so far have come in several categories:
The basis of reporter privilege
There is no single overarching rule that guarantees journalists the right to protect their work product from compelled disclosure. At the federal level, the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes held that there is no absolute First Amendment privilege allowing reporters to refuse testifying in criminal grand jury proceedings. However, the Court’s narrow ruling left room for states to legislate broader protections, hence the current patchwork system.
While some states have enacted “shield laws” that safeguard journalists from revealing sources or unpublished materials, these statutes vary widely. For public media outlets, these shield laws may or may not extend to personal records such as notes, recordings or off-the-record interview footage. Understanding your specific jurisdiction’s scope of protection is therefore critical. Talk to your organization’s counsel. If you don’t have one, consider asking your local Society for Professional Journalists or the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Legal Hotline and new immigration reporting guide for guidance.
Some states explicitly protect all “unpublished information,” while others only protect the identity of confidential sources. RCFP has a state-by-state breakdown of such protections. In addition, the federal Privacy Protection Act (1980) generally prevents government officials from searching or seizing work product directly from journalists, further reducing, but not eliminating, the risk that sensitive materials might be misused. It’s also hard to say if there will be test cases today, under the auspices used for recent visa revocations.
Accountability and source protection
Public media organizations and newsrooms should establish clear policies on what is retained, for how long and in what form.
Why? It is tempting for reporters to document every detail of an interview, especially when the subject matter is sensitive. If you face future scrutiny or need to defend the veracity of your reporting, detailed notes can be invaluable. At the same time, those same notes could be subpoenaed or obtained in a court proceeding, potentially exposing immigrant sources to legal or physical harm.
Some practices may help mitigate the risk of inadvertently handing over materials that disclose an source’s identity. For instance, a newsroom may opt for “information minimization,” where reporters code or pseudonymize data in their personal records, removing direct identifiers such as full names or specific addresses. Whether it is safe or advisable to do this depends on internal newsroom policy and advice from legal counsel.
Additionally, robust data security measures—encrypted devices, password-protected folders, limited user access—are essential to ensuring that any sensitive information you do keep remains safeguarded. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Surveillance Self Defense toolkits offer some methods to do this.
Retaining records
Public media outlets often have archiving protocols and editorial standards that dictate how long raw materials must be kept. In many cases, newsrooms retain full documentation for a set number of years. But is it wise to keep, for example, interview recordings for years when the story’s news cycle may last only a few months? The ethical principle of minimizing harm suggests a periodic review of stored files. If material is no longer editorially or legally essential, it may be best to dispose of it securely, assuming it is not subject to ongoing legal hold or other mandatory retention requirements.
Furthermore Poynter flags third-party tools that journalists use during their reporting, including Gmail, Slack and Otter, as part of this discussion. “Newsrooms should understand those platforms’ document retention policies and how they would respond to a subpoena,” the article notes.
Because shield law protections are not universal, you should proceed cautiously. Collaboration with your newsroom’s legal department is key. The last thing your organization needs is to inadvertently step into trouble. To illustrate, destroying records in the face of a pending subpoena could be misconstrued as obstructing justice. Thus policies should be written in a way that is both consistent with relevant laws and transparent enough for staff members to follow confidently.
Handling requests for anonymity, retractions
Especially for immigrant sources who initially agreed to share personal stories, circumstances can change drastically. A rise in enforcement actions, new legal developments or threats from political actors might prompt a source to request anonymity or removal of identifying information long after a piece has aired.
Your newsrooms may wish to implement “unpublishing” or content-update guidelines, weighing the public’s need for accurate historical records against the individual’s right to privacy and personal safety. The Center for Journalism Ethics provides a guide for creating an unpublishing policy, which strives to weigh out all needs.
The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics underscores the importance of minimizing harm. If a source or their family faces genuine risk, it can be ethical (and sometimes essential) to accommodate requests. Practical options include redacting surnames, removing photographs or clarifying that an individual was originally quoted on the record but has requested anonymity for safety reasons. While many outlets resist (and should) large-scale takedowns or total retractions as a measure of preserving editorial integrity, partial solutions can address immediate safety concerns without eroding the story’s factual foundation.
And yes, mission and community
Beyond knowing the legalese in this moment, public and nonprofit media also must get as great as we can in highlighting to all our audiences the power of community. Attacks on due process and coverage are, as Radley Balko says, not aimed at convictions, yet. They’re aimed at frightening professionals into compliance.
That matters to you in public media because stable economies and communities aren’t simply numbers. They’re about trust and perceptions of our neighbors. Intimidation sparks retreat, and that will harm the industry long term. “Without genuine community ties, citizens disengage,” Kyla Scanlon says “Civic participation declines, and as Guy Debord warned us, politics devolves into spectacle rather than substance.”
So here’s the charge: double down on the journalism that stitches communities together. Pair every immigration story with a service sidebar—hotlines, pro-bono clinics, know-your-rights guidance—and measure follow-through, not just clicks. When audiences see us convening, equipping and reporting with them instead of about them, trust grows, and fear loses its leverage.
Covering immigrant communities effectively
Protecting vulnerable sources, especially immigrants, requires constant vigilance and nuanced decision-making. On one hand, for instance, keeping thorough documentation helps public media reporters defend the accuracy of their journalism. On the other, retaining detailed records or publishing identifying information can potentially place individuals in real danger. Ultimately, the best course of action is to combine a solid understanding of applicable shield laws with a newsroom-wide commitment to mindful data retention, secure storage and ethical response to requests for privacy, particularly when a source’s safety is on the line.
How are you thinking about these considerations in your editorial and legal workflows? How can you uphold journalistic standards of accountability while reducing the chance that the most marginalized members of your community face unintended harm from their cooperation with the media? How can we keep our neighbors together? I’d love to continue our learning. 🟢
Cafecito: stories to discuss ☕
New content collab. The Latino Media Consortium has announced the Latino Media Content Hub, a distributed media service to deliver Latino news and media content through its partners. 📰
Video podcast launches. KQED has released Hyphenación, a new video podcast series devoted to examining the many identities Latinos hold. ✨
Solutions journalism and immigration coverage. Solutions Journalism Network hosted a webinar last week on how to cover stories with a solutions journalism lens as they’re emerging from within immigrant communities. ✍️
Hispanic-serving schools primer. More than 600 colleges and universities are classified as Hispanic serving. Journalist’s Resource offers a deep dive into the data related to these institutions as well as potential stories to explore. 🚌
Direct to consumer. Futuro Media, the home of public radio mainstay Latino USA, has launched its own subscription service, featuring ad-free listening, exclusives and behind-the-scenes content. Current shares more. 🔦
El radar: try this 📡
Talk with Hispanic Catholics more. The death of Pope Francis creates a moment for public media to engage more with local Latinx faith communities. And our industry has some marvelous coverage, such as at New Hampshire Public Radio, Spokane Public Radio and WUNC. With the pontiff’s funeral early tomorrow and the conclave ongoing, this may be a good time to keep in touch. 🙏🏼
Keep checking with local museums. WTTW highlights a local museum’s efforts to tell Latine stories in the region. Museums still tend to be active in sharing out these histories, so it’s worth looking in on. 🖼️
Interrogate the end of multilingual alerts. Grist has a new investigation on the end of multilingual emergency alerts from the National Weather Service, and how that may impact communities. As hurricane season approaches, this will be a story to watch, and cover. ⚠️
See who campaigns in Spanish. Gothamist investigated who among mayoral candidates was looking for votes in Spanish. A great reminder to think about such implications for democracy. 🫀
Talk about how parents connect with kids. El Tecolote has a great advice column on how parents from Latin American struggle sometimes to connect with their American-born children. This discussion feels so personal and rich, and worth exploring everywhere. 💬
Help communities spot misinformation. KQED offers a needed report on how audiences can verify the presence of an ICE agent before sharing it on social media. Great information for residents seeing accounts flood their feeds. 🧐
The next OIGO arrives May 9. Just two editions left before OIGO goes monthly for the summer. If you have initiatives or leaders you think need the spotlight, drop me a note. 📥 Also, the AI x Journalism Summit happens that week in Baltimore. If you’re in the area, I’d love to connect.
You can buy me a coffee if you’d like to support the newsletter.