AEJMC: Obama’s Promised “Change” Lacks Transparency

Comments

1. AEJMC says:
   July 10, 2010 at 9:51 am

   THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS FIRST APPEARED ON AN OLDER VERSION OF THE AEJMC “HOT TOPICS” WEBSITE. DUE TO MIGRATION OF THE AEJMC “HOT TOPICS” WEBSITE TO A NEW SERVER, THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS DID NOT TRANSFER AND WERE ADDED HERE BY AEJMC STAFF MEMBER, MICH SINEATH. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS APPEAR IN THEIR ENTIRETY, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, AND AS ORIGINALLY POSTED IN JUNE 2010.

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I do not agree with this statement, and I am angry that it has gone out to the public with the appearance of being from AEJMC membership as a whole. The president and advisory council of AEJMC should have made that clear. You do not and should not speak for me.

   COMMENT BY MELINDA ROBINS ON JUNE 7, 2010, AT 3:42 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   [...] for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, not known as being a firebrand normally, today released a letter of protest against Pres. Obama’s lack of transparency with the press. When you haven’t had a news conference in 10 months [...] – To All the President Obama Fans… « The Same Rowdy Crowd http://thesamerowdycrowd.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/to-all-the-president-obama-fans/

   COMMENT BY ANONYMOUS ON JUNE 7, 2010, AT 4:21 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   Your statement is beyond the boundary of a professional association and would in danger any attempt at a non-profit status. To brand it out of bounds is light since as a member I do not agree as I am sure many members also would. It is not appropriate for a “professional organization.”

   COMMENT BY HANS WENNBERG ON JUNE 7, 2010, AT 5:54 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   A very well written article. Straight forward and to the point. Bringing up Obama’s failed promises at transparency is indeed journalistic fair game. His lack of access to the journalists is a simple fact. Not only is he NOT transparent as he promised, but he breaks the record for being less transparent than all the other presidents. Bringing these obvious facts up has nothing to do with chosing a political side. In fact… NOT bringing up facts like these is why American has lost faith in real journalism and fair reporting.

   COMMENT BY MICHAEL ON JUNE 7, 2010, AT 6:25 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I sympathize with the intent of the statement, but that horse has left the barn.

   Through institutions carefully constructed and coordinated over 40 years, the political Right has undercut the news. By 1980, 70 such institutions (i.e., Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute) so changed Americans that we elected Ronald Reagan (who now looks like a moderate); by 2000, there were 430 more, which helped to seat a governor who lost the popular vote, then pushed us into Iraq and useless war. One measure of their impact is the U.S. nearly defeated even watered-down health care 100 years after its proposal, decades after passage by every other western democracy. Obama is treading water in a regime of news dependent on the sourcing and the framing of the Right.

   LA Times Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus told me that Karl Rove (with whom I taught at UT Austin) had so outflanked the Washington press that they remain at a permanent disadvantage. McManus and 30 others I interviewed acknowledge that the rise of the Right is the signal influence in news in the past 40 years. I report these studies in a book appearing Labor Day: “I Don’t Want to Call Karl Rove a Liar, but…How the Political Right Stole Reality, Beginning with the News.” I don’t blame Obama; he’s seeking to keep his head down in an environment in which, as Ben Bagdikian observed, the Right controls. And we, as AEJMC, need to grapple with that reality.

   COMMENT BY BILL ISRAEL ON JUNE 7, 2010, AT 8:11 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I am very very disappointed that our so-called leadership has taken this position. “Well written”??? It reads like a Tea Party statement. I can identify an abundance of (more pressing and timely) issues that this advisory committee could have addressed. For example, what about that so-called news organization Fox News abandoning all principles of journalistic integrity in favor of right wing advocacy and Republican Party talking points, and dissemination of lies and half-truths? I think our leadership has botched its (first?) attempt at becoming more politically relevant.

   COMMENT BY DWIGHT BROOKS ON JUNE 8, 2010, AT 6:01 AM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   Rather than leaping to fragmentary, fretful conclusions that fail, apparently to represent the sentiments of the membership, you might consider exploring the very interesting thesis Mr. Israel sketches in this thread. At least you’d be doing some work.

   COMMENT BY TOM MATRULLO ON JUNE 8, 2010, AT 7:23 AM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   For an objective, quantitative accounting of President Obama’s first year in office I encourage readers to take a look at the following report by CBS news:

   “Obama’s First Year: By the Numbers”
   http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6119525-503544.html

   Some relevant highlights:
   411 speeches, comments and remarks
   158 interviews (90 television, 11 radio, 57 newspaper/magazine)
   42 news conferences

   It is unfortunate that the AEJMC press release above relies on a couple of anecdotes instead of more comprehensive data.

   COMMENT BY JASON REINEKE ON JUNE 8, 2010, AT 8:33 AM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I am curious what AEJMC bylaws say about issuing partisan political statements such as this one in the name of the entire organization. Does the President’s Advisory Board have a mandate to speak for all members in this divisive manner without prior consultation? And since when was this tradition started? I’ve seen weighty press releases by AEJMC in the past; but they were issued only after extensive consultation with the membership through the various divisions. I think this sets a terrible precedent for AEJMC and its implications ought to be discussed in Denver.
   Ali.

   COMMENT BY ALI MOHAMED ON JUNE 8, 2010, AT 1:19 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I am a paid member of AEJMC and I totally disagree with this statement. This does not represent my opinion on the issue. This sounds more like something from FOX News. This type of writing should go out as an individually signed opinion. I plan to attend the Denver convention and will be willing to talk about this issue.

   COMMENT BY SANDRA L. COMBS ON JUNE 8, 2010, AT 2:28 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   Just did a Google search on “Obama TV interviews” Returned 15,200,000 results http://bit.ly/cJ0wcn Just can’t get this guy to talk to reporters

   http://twitter.com/jbrianhouston/status/15731716803

   COMMENT BY J. BRIAN HOUSTON ON JUNE 8, 2010, AT 2:57 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   My problem with this statement is a little different. I am not disturbed that the AEJMC President’s Advisory Council has taken a stand without consulting the entire membership. Nor does it outrage me that it has expressed a view that might be different from mine. I think it’s good that a professional association takes stands. Those stands are never going to please all parts of the membership, but tolerating that kind of discord is better than having a toothless association.

   What bothers me about this statement is that it is so thinly reasoned and badly researched. We are an academic organization. Think about that. We believe in research. If we stand for anything, we stand for thinking it through, after gathering the facts and reviewing the literature. That’s what professors and graduate students are supposed to do. That is our niche. Forgive the expression but that is our brand. We’re the footnote people. The “what does the data say?” crowd. The “know what you’re talking about” (and show your work!) team. Surely every member of AEJMC understands this.

   Now let’s look at this statement: Obama’s Promised “Change” Lacks Transparency. It says that Obama’s transparency agenda is a failure, that he is not accessible to journalists, and his claims for new era of openness have not been met. Now, remembering that research is our strength, our brand, consider this: what is the evidence provided for Obama’s failure? As I read the statement, a single piece of evidence is provided: Obama has not had very many presidential press conferences. That’s is all.

   Is this fact enough of a basis for the conclusions the fact is supposed to support? Can it bear the weight the AEJMC has placed on it? I say it cannot. In fact, it is not even close to adequate.

   Where are the figures totaling up the number of press conferences and comparing it to other administrations? Missing. Where is the data for the number of one-on-one interviews with journalists Obama has given, and the comparison to other presidents? Missing. Where is the consideration of the administration’s argument that these interviews count as “openness” and “access” too? There is no consideration of that argument. It’s like we didn’t know of it.

   Where is the recognition that “transparency” is an agenda that reaches far beyond the president’s relationship with journalists to take in such factors as whitehouse.gov and the whole “open data” movement? Shockingly, it is absent. It’s like we are ignorant of what transparency means. Where is the attempt to assess whether, apart from the number of press conferences, the Obama White House has been successful in making the government more transparent and putting its vast collections of data online? Missing.

   Where is the critical evaluation of such pivotal figures as Vivek Kundra, the new federal chief information officer, who has made transparency his cause? Is he a failure because Obama hasn’t had very many press conferences? Absurdly, the statement is silent on that.

   Where is the sophistication? Nowhere seen. Where is the deep background knowledge for which we academics are (I hope, I hope…) still known? Where is the multi-variate analysis? I don’t see a single sign in this statement that we–the AEJMC–know who we are supposed to be here.

   Listen up, President’s Advisory Council: You don’t go making big statements about presidential openness and press conference behavior without checking in with Martha Joynt Kumar of Towson University, who has been keeping track of that bit of institutional history more carefully than anyone else. You don’t make judgments off the top of your head. You collect the data. You think it through. You look at the big picture and the specific facts. You consult the scholars who know.

   This AEJMC statement is crude– gross even. It is thinly sourced and badly reasoned. It is as narcissistic as the White House press corps as its worst. The statement doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Hitting Obama for not being transparent enough is an important thing to do, and a valid thing to do, necessary in the extreme…. if he is not being transparent enough. But the only way to make it stick is to be who we are in AEJMC. The people who know what they’re talking about, who have the data, who see the full institutional picture, who speak with authority.

   This statement does not come close to meeting that standard. It is not professional quality work.

   Sincerely,

   Jay Rosen, PhD
   New York University, Dept. Chair, 1999-2005

   COMMENT BY JAY ROSEN ON JUNE 8, 2010, AT 9:25 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   President who?

   COMMENT ROBERT WHEELER ON JUNE 8, 2010, AT 10:19 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I hope this discussion and the related digital discussions on AEJMC lists leads to more transparency in the AEJMC decision making process and more accessibility for AEJMC members to that process. The leadership of an organization that criticizes another leader for lack of transparency and accessibility should set a positive example in their own organization.

   Siempre Adelante,

   Felix Gutierrez
   University of Southern California

   COMMENT BY FELIX GUTIERREZ ON JUNE 10, 2010, AT 4:59 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   As a longtime AEJ member, I am troubled that a few years ago when the association wanted to issue a statement about the way G.W. Bush was treating the press, the matter was put to the whole body at an annual conference for discussiion and vote. I too am disturbed that a so poorly researched and reasoned statement that is NOT so time urgent as it could not wait for the early August conference as did the better founded and reasoned statement on Bush was sent out. I do want the organization to be able to move quickly in issuing press releases about timely matters and I think this one was inaccurate and ill advised. I am so sorry that it has already gone out “for immediate release.”

   COMMENT BY E-K. DAUFIN ON JUNE 10, 2010, AT 5:44 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I decided not to go to AEJMC this year because I plan to spend my money on far superior conferences. Statements like this one from the AEJMC “leadership” just further justifies my decision. It is very unlikely that I will ever attend an AEJMC convention again.

   Scholars and practitioners who are interested in conferences related to Journalism and Mass Communication should see the International Communication Association http://www.icahdq.org/ and the International Association of Media and Communication Researchers http://iamcr.org/.

   Can anyone recommend USA-centric conferences that can serve as an alternative to AEJMC?

   COMMENT BY ANONYMOUS ON JUNE 10, 2010, AT 7:19 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   The provocative press release that AEJMC President Carol Pardun and her Advisory Council sent out regarding transparency reflects on the entire AEJMC membership, which is why so many of us are asking the critical question very well articulated by Jay Rosen:

   Where’s your evidence, documentation and support for charging Obama with lack of openness?

   Seriously colleagues — if you have it, please please let us know what it is.

   COMMENT BY SHARON BRAMLETT SOLOMON ON JUNE 10, 2010, AT 8:42 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I don’t have the lengthy tenure in the association as some others, but in the time I have been a member – over 10 years – I don’t remember a time when leadership has released such a statement without getting the pulse of the membership. There was a general meeting discussion years ago when leadership considered taking a position about press treatment during the Bush administration. The president’s advisory council seems to be a good idea but not if the advice given doesn’t represent the breath of the organization. I understand leadership is shocked and surprised at the criticism. Another example of why diversity at the table is critical.

   COMMENT BY KAREN M. TURNER ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 5:45 AM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   It is nice to see that AEJMC has publicly demonstrated what a messed up and irrelevant organization it is. I was a member for more than 15 years until I finally let my membership lapse. AEJMC really revolves around a bunch of pompous people who actually think they know something about journalism education and research. Sorry, but you don’t.

   COMMENT BY JIM MORRISON ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 7:02 AM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   The Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA), an organization comprising the nation’s electronic media and journalists, routinely issues statements either supporting or criticizing actions affecting press freedom.

   This seems appropriate for a professional body even if such statements may not reflect the consensus of the membership.

   AEJMC, however, is an educational organization and there would appear to be less urgency is issuing proclamations such as this one claiming a lack of transparency by President Obama.

   Such a statement should be robustly debated by the general membership at the next convention. If the majority approves, then by all means release it.

   In the absence of such support, this seems premature.

   COMMENT BY STEVE COON ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 9:07 AM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   Response from AEJMC President, Carol J. Pardun

   http://www.aejmc.com/topics/archives/766

   [EDIT BY AEJMC STAFF MEMBER, MICH SINEATH: LINK CHANGED TO REFLECT URL OF POST ON NEW AEJMC "HOT TOPICS" WEBSITE]

   COMMENT BY MICH SINEATH, AEJMC STAFF, ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 2:11 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I want to thank the PAC, I believe it is called, and president Pardun for standing up for long established principles of open government. This statement ROCKS!

   The history of the institution of journalism in the United States is replete with partisan journalism and sensational news. But today, some members of this organization, who probably think they are in the majority, want to excuse the President from open questioning by journalists. And what is the excuse? The disingenuous statement that the press is biased and right winged. In this age of the bloggosphere and everything from the WSJ and Fox to MSNBC and Moveon.org we have a range of media from all sides of the spectrum.

   The cold hard fact is the President needs to talk with them. If you aren’t man or woman enough to talk with your detractors, you don’t lead a country, you lead a party. Thank you for this statement. You have increased my faith in this organization. I believe the majority of the membership agrees that we need more open access at the highest levels of government.

   COMMENT BY STEVE ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 3:32 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   I strongly diasgree with the so called statement from the AEJMC Board. Why issue such a statement without debate and critique?

   COMMENT BY SANJAY ASTHANAN ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 5:23 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   The “PAC” is advisory to the president. Statements such as these should be attributed to the president by name, followed by title (President) and affiliation (AEJMC).
   There is attribution and accountability.

   The statement has the credibility of coming from an individual who has been elected to this position. However, it is not presented as an official statement of the organization, but is attributed to an individual.

   Also, “PAC” is an unfortunate acronym. It is likely leaving the impression among some that AEJMC has a political action committee — especially in context of this discussion.

   Tim Hudson, Dean
   School of Communication
   Point Park University

   COMMENT BY TIM HUDSON ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 5:49 PM

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   The irony here is that an editorial ran under a “lacks transparency” headline — one much more general than the article itself — while the article offered little of the kind of transparency we expect from academic organizations: data and details, the “how do you know?” behind the “what do you have to say?”

   And for an association with “Journalism” in its name, the first problems I see are in the headline…

   “AEJMC: Obama’s Promised ‘Change’ Lacks Transparency”

   Opening with “AEJMC” and a colon sounds like a statement approved by the membership. No wonder it has raised eyebrows and hackles.

   Second, the quotes around the word “Change” are ambiguous — and could hint that the word was meant in a mocking tone.

   Third, “lacks” and “transparency” both sound like absolutes — while neither is. As Professor Rosen points out, appearance at more freewheeling, no-holds-barred press conferences is only one facet of this shimmering thing we call “transparency.” It’s hard to defend a broad statement about the president’s “accessibility to journalists” when the NY Times and US News pointed out that Obama gave 161 interviews during his first year, compared with 50 by George W. Bush and 53 by Bill Clinton. (The Times citing political scientist Martha Joynt Kumar at Towson.)

   As individuals, we can deal in soundbites and blog posts. As an organization of media researchers, “AEJMC:” statements on a subject should be broader, I think, and well supported by clearly cited research.

   Just a few months ago — for “Sunshine Week” — Obama said he intended to “recommit my administration to be the most open and transparent ever, an effort that will strengthen our democracy and ensure the public’s trust in their government.” A George Washington University study that month gave the administration an “‘A’ for effort” under a measured headline:

   “The Clear Obama Message for
   Freedom of Information
   Meets Mixed Results”

   The debate of this topic at the Huffington Post a few months ago ran to 21 pages, with dozens of comments per page. Politifact has “transparency” as a running topic showing more green (promise kept or in the works) than red (stalled or broken) amongst 30+ subtopics.

   For anyone else who, like me, hadn’t been paying much attention to the issue until Professor Pardun’s message, here are a weekend’s worth of links to follow:

   http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/transparency/

   http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/transparency/?page=2

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html

   http://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-transparency-problem?comment_sort=ASC

   http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/16/obama

   http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/21/nation/la-na-ticket21-2010mar21

   http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-sunshine-week

   http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB308/index.htm

   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04memo.html

   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/us/politics/15open.html

   http://marthakumar.com/profile.html

   http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-breaking/

   http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2010/02/18/obama-is-snubbing-the-white-house-press-corps.html

   http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/16/the-vanishing-barack-obama

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/14/AR2010021403550_pf.html

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020702693.html

   http://gawker.com/5474977/white-house-press-corps-to-obama-we-will-not-be-ignored

   http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/obama-speaks-transparency-subterfuge/

   COMMENT BY BOB STEPNO ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 6:28 PM

   # # #

   Reply

Speak Your Mind Cancel reply

Name *

Email *

Website

CAPTCHA Code *