'Maryland man' is the sort of thing that cost the media its credibility

Is there anything more useless than a journalist who deliberately muddles crucial facts?

Perhaps a four-cornered wheel?

The latest example of our press being supremely unhelpful comes in the form of one Salvadoran national named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom ICE officials and deported to a Salvadoran prison earlier this year, against orders from a U.S. court.

The details of the case are complicated, both legally and morally, and, unfortunately, we don’t have a meticulous and thoughtful media to help readers develop informed opinions, giving them accurate descriptions and addressing obvious questions.

No one could blame you if your first brush with the coverage of Garcia's story left you with the impression that the Trump administration had wrongly arrested and deported a U.S. citizen.

Our media bizarrely insist on referring to Garcia, a Salvadoran national, as a “Maryland man.” But he is not a “Maryland man.” He is a Salvadoran national who has been living in the U.S. illegally since 2011, most recently residing in the state of Maryland. Yet you’d hardly know this from casually following the news.

The unwillingness to distinguish between lawful and unlawful immigration — or perhaps the inability to do so, based on political changes to journalistic style guides — seems to have corrupted the media's ability to tell this story at all.

“Outrage grows over Maryland man’s mistaken deportation to El Salvador prison,” reported the Associated Press.

Said the New York Times, “U.S. Renews Opposition to Bringing Back Maryland Man Wrongly Deported to El Salvador.”

“Bukele rejects returning Maryland man Trump officials mistakenly deported,” reported the Washington Post.

If one didn’t know any better, one would assume that this story was about bureaucratic incompetence or even racial profiling, resulting in the arrest and deportation of a Hispanic U.S. citizen.

But one would be wrong. This “Maryland man” tick is neither new nor exclusive to the Garcia case. Our press has previously deployed “Indiana man” to describe an undocumented 43-year-old Mexican national. It has used “Athens man” to describe the Venezuelan national who murdered University of Georgia student Laken Riley. 

Also, a personal favorite: Members of the press have used “ice cream man” to refer to a 71-year-old Lebanese national and suspected war criminal. 

It is as funny as it is nonsensical.

For perspective, consider the case of U.S. “influencer” Sam Jones, who called down the collective wrath of Australia earlier this year after she forcibly removed a baby wombat from its mother. Australian authorities threatened Jones with immediate deportation. Rather than go through the rigmarole of legal removal, Jones fled the country. Now, let’s pretend Jones had insisted on staying, residing in Toowoomba. It’d be crazy for those covering the wombat story, including the threats of deportation, to refer to Jones as a “Toowoomba woman,” right? 

The media were not so wedded to her having a natural right to reside in Australia. Instead, headlines from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the Associated Press accurately and succinctly referred to Jones as an “American,” because she is an American national.

Why, then, do these same organizations insist on referring to a Salvadoran national as a “Maryland man?" Why “Athens man” for a Venezuelan national? Why “ice cream man” for a Lebanese national?

It’s as if these people are intentionally trying to muddy the waters. Either that, or they’re so beside themselves with righteous indignation that they have forgotten how to clear the most basic hurdle of their chosen profession — presenting the facts clearly.

Consider political commentator Tim Miller of the Bulwark, who alleged of the Garcia case that the Trump administration had sent a “legal resident to a 3rd world ‘gulag’ … without trial.”

In response, my friend Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner correctly pointed out that García is an illegal immigrant. “He never got parole,” Carney added. “Was denied asylum. Wasn't on [Temporary Protected Status]. His illegal status was never disputed by [García] or his attorneys.”

These are not insignificant details, especially in as determining the legality of the Trump administration's actions. You would think a pundit who makes a living talking about politics would be at least somewhat concerned that he got a significant part of the story wrong. But one would be wrong.

“Is the problem the U.S. kidnapping people and sending them to a foreign torture prison w/ no recourse?” Miller asked. “Or is the problem that I called a kidnapee a ‘legal resident’ rather than an ‘undocumented resident with legal protection from deportation?’ Tim appears to think its the latter.”

Actually, it can be both. It can be that the García deportation is wrong (legally and morally), and also that it’s essential to keep facts straight. It helps no one to spread falsehoods or confuse the issue. It simply makes it more difficult for anyone to have an informed opinion. 

And keeping people informed is sort of the entire point of the news and punditry business, isn't it?

When it stops doing that, what happens then?

Becket Adams is a writer in Washington and program director for the National Journalism Center.