From the President

March 2012 Column

An Official Statement on Making Official Statements

In recent months, several people have raised questions regarding when and why the AEJMC president might—or might not—issue official statements. Individuals and groups, both inside and outside AEJMC, have asked AEJMC to take positions, then wondered why we failed to do so. I understand these questions, since the Association wants to have impact on public policy regarding media and journalism, to assert its leadership in protecting First Amendment rights and helping media professions meet ongoing challenges, to bring critical problems to public attention, and to make visible and available members’ research. We sometimes take stands, I would add, to highlight important principles (this assumption lies behind some of our ethics code, too), even if we have little probability of directly affecting (much less effecting) policy or law. It’s much easier for an AEJMC president to assert a position in this newsletter than to make an official declaration on behalf of the organization. Moreover, I have the strong sense that members prefer this column to argue something provocative rather than defend internal politics. Nonetheless, I want to explain how official statements emerge and evolve and why certain statements ultimately get deep-sixed. (So you learn something here: six fathoms of water are required for burial at sea.)

In November 2007 in this same space, Charles Self commented, “AEJMC could be the most influential academic association among media practitioners and media policy makers.” The “could” was ambiguous. It may merely have been a modest way of suggesting that AEJMC is influential. Alternatively, perhaps this was a way to highlight AEJMC’s potential influence. In any case, after AEJMC members approved eight Strategic Directions, a Strategic Plan committee began developing specific objectives to implement them. One concern was that the resolutions voted on at our August business meetings are not the best way for us to exercise leadership on public matters; by the time we come together for the annual conference, those resolutions are late, ineffective or irrelevant. A policy establishing the AEJMC president’s authority to make statements on important issues was therefore among the first initiatives emerging from our Strategic Plan (the other was the Emerging Scholars program). We have retained the resolution process: the PF&R committee still works with people to word resolutions submitted and voted on at the business meeting. Members can also propose resolutions from the floor. Some resolutions are fairly pro forma; others undergo lively debate. But now, waiting until August is no longer necessary.

A process endorsed by the membership in 2009 and emended in 2010 calls for three members of the PF&R committee (all elected, as you know) to advise the president. The PF&R representatives can propose issues for consideration. They definitely help draft and edit statements. Of course, anyone can propose an issue if it’s central to our mission, including someone who is not a member. More to the point, even when individuals or groups are the source of controversy or the centerpiece of an issue, they need not be AEJMC members.

After the president and Advisory Council work out the draft, it undergoes a second round of vetting, by representatives of each division, interest group and commission. The president and Advisory Council not only consider all their feedback, but can and do consult others. I talk to many people with research interests, expertise and/or background relevant to a particular issue.

So, the official comment process is complicated, time consuming and even a little cumbersome. In truth, I was slightly frustrated when I was invited to write a “resolution,” to be read three days later, at the funeral of Von Whitmore. Although I would hate to say something that offends or alienates the entire membership, here I was prepared to act on a certain friend’s reminder that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Luckily, the process was completed in time.

But not only does the elected president have the final decision on what statement, if at all, is issued, but the cumbersomeness can be advantageous. Slowing down to check out the facts or check out if facts exist is a good thing. Consulting with a lot of people may “tame” the language, but smart people can also sharpen it and elaborate the argument. In some cases, we issued no official comment because we decided that the situation was not as it was initially presented or as we had thought; in others, we cannot issue a statement because we can’t figure out what is going on. Drafts of statements, I’m happy to report, have enjoyed consensus, albeit not unanimity. One DIG chair voted against our statement highlighting the First Amendment rights of Occupy Movement activists and of journalists covering them. (After the fact, by the way, two people disputed the statement; 50 thanked me.)

Finally, it’s worth noting that I registered a personal statement on the FCC’s site supporting the FCC’s rule change regarding transparency. Three weeks later, we issued a statement on behalf of the association. Indeed, I encourage everyone to take stands. Let me know when you do! And, please suggest issues about which we should take an association-wide stand.

“An Official Statement on Making Official Statements” appears in the March 2012 issue of AEJMC News.

Contact Steiner: lsteiner@jmail.umd.edu

 Print friendly