Headlines are often the first thing readers see and, in some cases, the only thing they will read. They make the reader focus on a specific part of the story, allowing the reader to make a quick and immediate judgment.

Most of the time, journalists create something that is perfect for online use, to get on top of the Google search page, or that quickly sums the story up in a short, attention-grabbing way. Usually, there is less focus on wording in the headline than in the story itself, but headline word choices matter more than people may think, and they can have a lasting impact on how a story is understood.

When it comes to immigration reporting, headlines are especially powerful, influencing how the public perceives the parties involved and what they associate with the issue overall. The word choices used by media can not only paint a situation wrongly, but can also help reinforce harmful stereotypes over time, shaping long-term perceptions without readers even realizing it.

Publications often use terms like “illegal alien,” language that automatically paints a person as if they did something wrong, suggesting that their mere existence is illegal. Terms like these allow readers to devalue a person’s existence, even if that is not the intention of the writer. In the end, it allows people to create a class of people that is seen as deserving of less respect and empathy, which can have real-world consequences beyond just the headline itself.

This isn’t a new issue, and the media have failed to fix it over time. George Orwell, in his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” showed how language can manipulate public opinion by describing inhumane actions in softer and less direct ways. “Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air… this is called pacification.” This idea still applies today, especially in how headlines frame sensitive topics and shape initial reactions.

Using framing terms takes away from the general ethics of journalism, which aim to minimize harm and to report fairly. The Society of Professional Journalists, a deeply respected organization in the field, calls on journalists to minimize harm whenever possible. Its Code of Ethics states, “Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage” and “use heightened sensitivity.” This means that words used in immigration reporting that allow readers to question a person’s existence go directly against what the SPJ advocates and stands for. When journalism stops showing compassion for groups who are at risk of being beaten up or killed simply for existing, it fails its purpose in a very real and meaningful way.

This issue is far from being solved, but work has started to be done in some areas. The Associated Press Stylebook advises against labeling people as “illegal,” recommending that journalists instead describe actions, such as entering the country illegally, rather than defining a

person by that label. This shift shows that even major institutions recognize the impact of language choices and the responsibility that comes with them.

Journalists should be aware of the power they have with their written language. It plays a major role in how people view issues, so it is important to set aside personal feelings and recognize the harm that can be done through word choice alone, especially in something as visible as a headline. Modifying your language, like saying “person with an expired visa” instead of “illegal,” is not about politics; it is about human decency and basic respect.

While terms like “illegal alien” are used in federal law, federal law should not dictate morals or how people should be viewed socially by others. The usage of the term argues that a person’s existence is criminal, rather than focusing on the situation they are in, and that difference matters more than people think it does.

When people first read headlines, they develop a pre-reading bias toward the person involved before they even get into the story itself. Writing in The New Yorker, Maria Konnikova explained how this works, showing how headlines guide attention and shape interpretation for readers. Even when two headlines are accurate, they can lead readers to focus on entirely different things and walk away with different impressions, depending on the wording that is used. Applying the same idea to immigration reporting, look at these two headlines: “Illegal alien ran away from police” vs. “Suspect ran from police.” Both headlines are technically accurate, but the first one makes people come up with some sort of bias toward the person before they even understand the situation. The second headline shifts focus away from labeling and more toward what actually happened, allowing the reader to form a more neutral understanding.

Headlines, in general, should drop the fact that a person is “undocumented,” because simply being in the United States without authorization is a civil offense. “Unauthorized presence alone is a civil offense, not criminal,” the American Immigration Council writes in a 2021 article. Including that label in a headline often adds little value while increasing the chance of bias. Imagine including the fact that a person is a jaywalker in a headline. It is unnecessary, so why is this treated as if it is?

This comparison shows how selective language choices can be, and how those choices are not always as neutral as they appear at first glance. You don’t always have to agree with the actions of the person the story is being written about, but the headline should not be focused on the fact that a person is undocumented. It should be about what happened, why it matters, and what readers need to understand, which is what news media was meant to do at its core. “Illegal alien” and similar terms are not the only problem in this subject. Phrases like “immigration crisis” reinforce the idea that people’s existence is a mass issue rather than a complex situation.

The term “crisis” can make people react quickly, with little thought or understanding of the full situation. It creates a sense of urgency and chaos that may not fully represent reality. This goes back to framing, that the mere existence of someone is treated as a problem. When this

language is used throughout an article and paired with bias formed from the headline, it allows the reader to focus on terms that misrepresent the situation entirely, rather than engaging with the facts themselves. While framing may not go away, journalists can follow the SPJ Code of Ethics more closely and use terms to frame situations as neutrally as possible, starting with their headlines. It is the responsibility of journalists to recognize their word choices and all the harm that can be done with those associated words, especially high-impact topics like immigration.

I urge my peers and future colleagues to push back on editors when headlines begin to question a person’s existence. Follow the SPJ Code of Ethics and help change it when it needs to be changed. Do not allow history to repeat itself, because journalists are supposed to give a larger voice to the people that they represent. That responsibility should not be taken lightly.

Alex Bucknam is a junior communication-journalism and political science major at the State University of New York at Fredonia.