For 30 years, The Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has been advocating for sensible immigration policies that serve the broad national interest. Along the way we’ve seen the emotional divide between both sides of the immigration debate, but rarely have we seen such a manufactured divide between truth and fiction as was evident in the Anchorage Press’s December 4, 2009 article "FAIR play? A Controversial D.C.-based anti-immigration group organizes in Alaska."

Instead of focusing on the merits of House Bill 3, legislation which we believe will improve the integrity of Alaska driver’s licenses and for which we helped organize local support, the article was instead a vicious ad hominem barrage against FAIR. No fact checking was done and the paper relied entirely on unsubstantiated allegations by non-credible sources that function as attack machines intent on driving the open border and amnesty agenda.

The truth is that FAIR has well established track record for public service. FAIR has longstanding relationships with prominent members of Congress, is called upon more than any other immigration group to testify before local, state, and federal legislative bodies, has a membership of 250,000 people of every conceivable race, creed, color and political orientation, and is highly ranked by the Better Business Bureau for their non-profit Wise Giving Alliance. Moreover, FAIR has an abiding policy of never advocating policies that discriminate for or against anyone based on race, creed, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. FAIR must be judged on the basis of its actual record. The fiction is that FAIR is a “hate group,” a label the article simply parroted from the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) which engages in increasingly slanderous and reckless tactics. Concocting “hate” labels with no published criteria or definition - none exist - is standard practice for the SPLC in order to stir the pot and increase their fundraising. At least three reputable news publications – The Montgomery Advertiser (SPLC’s hometown paper), Harper’s magazine, and The Nation – have all examined SPLC’s record and concluded that they routinely distort and exaggerate the truth for the purpose of fundraising.

The SPLC thrives on reporters who neglect to distinguish between advocacy reporting and news. Readers don’t need journalists simply reporting what people say; they depend on journalists to find the truth. Anything less is a journalistic mistrial for the accused. Unfortunately, the Anchorage Press unquestioningly accepted the allegations and made no effort to corroborate them. FAIR senior officials were not consulted for comment prior to the publication of this article. Facts were not verified and original sources were not checked.

Relying on these sources for reporting is tantamount to simply printing what one candidate says about another in the heat of the campaign battle. The Anchorage Press has a professional and ethical obligation to adhere to journalistic standards and investigate the motives of any attacks. Immigration policy related stories should not be the exception to the obligation.

Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

Editor’s note: We welcome criticism of the Press, and we’re happy to print critical op-eds such as this one. However, FAIR’s response includes two points that we feel merit a response of our own.

The first is the question of factual accuracy. Twice the allegation is made the the Press didn’t check or verify facts (one of which seems to be a blanket statement about all the facts in the article). But in neither case have representatives from FAIR identified specific instances of factual inaccuracy. As FAIR themselves state, labels used by the SPLC and other groups contain an element of subjectivity.

In any case, our objective was not to determine the legitimacy of subjective labels, such as “hate group,” (nor would we have the resources to do so), but to alert readers to the fact that those allegations are being made about a group involved in public policy in Alaska. Sophisticated readers who care about immigration issues will rightly treat such reports as an invitation to educate themselves further before coming to conclusions.