On Monday, June 7th, the President’s Advisory Council (PAC) and I sent a statement to the AEJMC membership. Within hours, the blogosphere was alive with comments concerning our statement. Many of the responses were against the statement. While we certainly expected criticism, we were stymied by the volume, tone, and accusations. As members of AEJMC, the PAC and I are staunch advocates for journalism and mass communication and do not represent any political entity or side. It was not our intention to categorize Obama’s presidency as a failure or to offend anyone by insensitivity in the statement. In fact, it grieves me to think that we may have given that impression to any AEJMC member, let alone an entire division or commission.
The PAC and I present the following as background on how we arrived at the statement released on June 7 along with some analysis about ways we think the process can be improved:
At the 2009 conference in Boston, the AEJMC membership approved the formation of a President’s Advisory Council. The PAC grew out of an initiative in AEJMC’s Strategic Plan, approved by the membership during the 2008 meeting in Chicago, to strengthen the organization’s identity, image and influence.
As explained at the Boston meeting, the PAC assists the AEJMC president “to weigh in on important issues that are central to the association’s mission.” The three-member subcommittee of the Standing Committee of Professional Freedom and Responsibility, elected by the AEJMC membership, is responsible for taking ideas from members to the president and advising the president on how to proceed. Committee membership rotates each year.
All statements by the PAC are released to the membership and posted on the AEJMC website. The PAC issued its first statement in October, and has since released three other statements. All statements have addressed issues central to AEJMC’s mission – which includes “supporting freedom of communication consonant with the ideal expressed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
The PAC’s most recent statement – issued June 7, 2010, and addressing issues similar to those in earlier statements – has hit a nerve with many AEJMC members. We appreciate the “uninhibited, robust and wide-open” debate this statement has prompted about the issue we addressed (journalists’ access to the president in open, full press conferences) and about the statement itself.
The fact that members might have substantive differences with any statement issued by AEJMC is not surprising; no single statement issued by an organization as large and diverse as ours will meet with approval from all members.
We do want to address concerns by some members about the motives and process behind our most recent statement (“Obama’s Promised…”). Concerns seem to center on three major themes:
- The appropriateness of the statement in light of other issues. Throughout this first year for the PAC, a number of issues have been proposed for statements. The PAC generally discusses these issues in terms of their potential scope, impact and timeliness. Some issues, for instance, do not merit statements because they may be so local in focus as to lack relevance to a wider context. Others may have potential for wide impact but do not result in statements because they are resolved quickly (such as a legislative vote or administrative decision involving a public institution). Another consideration is the potential for action: Can a positive outcome result from a statement? (For instance, is a decision pending? Or, might public officials consider changing their communication practices?) This last point might be a reason the PAC chooses not to issue a statement about the political bias of a cable news network.
The PAC chose to address the issue involving the current White House administration and its relationship with journalists because, in the PAC’s estimation, the issue met the above-mentioned criteria. The PAC invites discussion and suggestions about how to more finely tune the general criteria it uses to judge topics for statements in light of the organization’s mission statement.
- The accuracy of the statement. Several AEJMC members have publicly disputed the statement’s assertion that the current White House administration needs to be more accessible to the press. This assertion – and any arguments to the contrary — depend on how “accessible” is defined. In their arguments that the statement’s assertions were wrong, members have pointed to the work of scholar Martha Joynt Kumar (Towson University) and to news articles parsing the availability of the current president in relationship to previous administrations.
The PAC understood many of the same sources as supporting the statement’s concern: for the lack of open-ended, full-length press conferences by the president that allow unfettered questions on a variety of issues, and the lack of general, day-to-day access by reporters to the president. The numbers and anecdotal evidence support this assertion.
We acknowledge that our statement could have – and should have been – clearer about its definition of openness, and we’re grateful for the constructive feedback from AEJMC members in this regard. Although the PAC reads and consults with AEJMC members and non-members before issuing any statement, the process to ensure that releases are clear about their intent can and should be improved – and we welcome suggestions. We know the headline has a strong influence on how any statement is read and we now realize that we should insist our reviewers consider the headline to the statement as carefully as they do the statement. From now on, we will make sure that this process occurs in tandem.
- The sensitivity of the statement. The PAC is open – and, indeed, eager – to understand more about how to avoid wording and/or assertions insensitive to the diverse populations (by gender, race, ability, sexuality and age, for instance) in any of the statements it has issued. Although the PAC has made it a practice of outside consultation before issuing any statement, it has been suggested – and we concur – that it would be wise to put a system into place that ensures consultation considering the diversity of AEJMC’s constituents. There are a number of ways to ensure such consultation.
We welcome input of AEJMC members – either individually or through the organization’s many divisions and interest groups – about the PAC’s work. To those who have provided us with constructive feedback: Thank you. We look forward – with your input – to improving the process as AEJMC implements its strategic plan.
Most of all, thank you for your concern about issues facing us and our profession as we continue to work toward upholding and safeguarding the tenets of the First Amendment.
About PAC
The AEJMC President’s Advisory Council allows the association’s president to weigh in on important issues that are central to the association’s mission. A three-member subcommittee of the Standing Committee of Professional Freedom and Responsibility helps inform and advise the president of important issues.About AEJMC
The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication is a nonprofit, educational association of journalism and mass communication educators, students and media professionals. The Association’s mission is to advance education, foster scholarly research, cultivate better professional practice and promote the free flow of communication.
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 AND JULY 2010.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Carol:
When you break with the status quo , the status quo doesn;t like it.
Your statement is a case in point.
Even if I disagreed with your statement, which I don’t, I would have applauded your effert to address broader issues than the place of four-way anovae in quantitative analysis of arcane and obscure topics.
Anyway, keep at it. Getting a little flak comes with the turf. That’s what we call leadership.
jack zibluk
arkansas state
COMMENT BY JACK ZIBLUK ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 2:47 PM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
It is not this particular Papal Bull-like declaration that caused me to lodge a gentle protest with Pres. Pardun. It is the fact that we do it all. Yes, doing so was approved at an AEJMC business meeting, but I’m told the turnout for that meeting was minimal to say the least and not representative by any measure. There are easy ways (Survey Monkey, e.g.) to sound out the AEJMC electorate to determine whether any particular PAC statement is supported..
COMMENT BY WALLY EBERHARD ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 4:04 PM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Whether President Obama — or, for that matter, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or Nixon — has or has not conducted enough free-wheeling press conferences is not the question. Since time began, journalism organizations have chided sitting presidents for failing to do so. It’s a rite of passage a year or two into a president’s term.
More troubling is the reaction of association members. Personally, I admire President Obama and would respect him even if I did not. But I would never be so blindly loyal to any politician that I automatically would react as if criticism were inaccurate or, worse yet, inappropriate and insensitive.
If rather routine criticism of a president who happens to be of African American dissent is regarded as being an attack on diversity, I cannot see how we as a society will ever be able to engage in meaningful public dialogue. The same would be true if routine criticism of any president were considered unpatriotic.
Like an editorial in a newspaper, the statement was designed to make people think about the assertions — agree, disagree or simple ponder without conclusion. Look up the work of scholar Martha Joynt Kumar. Think about your own impression of how open the president has been.
Good journalism facilitates discussion. Stifling discussion because of questions of sensitivity and appropriateness in light of other issues is not good journalism. And it’s not good democracy.
Should we also look into whether Fox News has a conservative slant and the Washington Post has a liberal slant? Why not.
COMMENT BY ERIC MEYER ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 6:07 PM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Carol,
I see where you are coming from and I appreciate your explanation. What bothers me is that you are critiquing the President the way a politician would do it rather than as an academician, which you are. A politician is interested in winning a debating point by appealing to his audience. A scholar focuses on what the President is trying to accomplish. Obama has said he would rather do what’s best for the nation (not his party) than work on trying to get reelected.
If he spent his time preparing for press conferences he would be criticized for doing too much talking and not enough doing. This President does not talk off the top of his head. He gets his facts before he makes a decision. He calls a press conference when it is necessary for the public to know where he stands on an issue. But most of the time he lets his cabinet members and other specialists keep the public informed about what his administration is doing. His administration is quite transparent but does not shoot from the hip. Unlike many past administrations, they try to get as much information as possible before they talk about their plans. Obama has had to change his plans at times because the situation has changed, and the public jumps on him, as do the politicians who say, “You said (or promised) X and now you are doing Y.” Staying the course may not be the right thing to do, regardless of what Bush used to say.
What I am trying to say is that those of us who make our living by teaching future leaders, using our brains and our education, ought not to act like a bunch of sheep who are led by politicians who make their living by pandering to lobbyists who serve special interests.
COMMENT BY L. JOHN MARTIN ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 8:44 PM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I can’t pretend to have an authoritative opinion on the various evidence that is pertinent to whether President Obama is granting the press enough access, but I am excited to see AEJMC members so excited about an important issue.
In the relatively short time I have been involved with the AEJMC (since 2001), I have learned that there are a lot of talented and dedicated people in the organization’s membership. I look forward to seeing these members channel their passion about this issue into efforts that help our chosen AEJMC leaders continue to develop and refine the ways they can give the AEJMC a meaningful public voice on key matters affecting the field and society.
COMMENT BY JAMES D. IVORY ON JUNE 11, 2010, AT 11:59 PM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I applaud the civic engagement of AEJMC members in debating the merits of organizational statements, and I might add my own little merchandise, equivalent to a pack of gum at the checkout register, to this marketplace of ideas.
As Freedom of Information Committee chairman for the Society of Professional Journalists (and research chair for the AEJMC Law & Policy Division), I continue to hear from journalists who say the administration is secretive and controlling of information, in many different ways. Journalists are confronting efforts to impose tighter restrictions on information dissemination through public information officers (ongoing discussions by SPJ with federal agencies). The administration is cracking down on leaks (see story today regarding leaker Thomas A. Drake). Denials and backlogs for FOIA requests continue to be a problem (see http://openthegovernment.org/ for variety of reports). Journalists have basically given up on using FOIA because of the delays and redactions (I talked with more than 1,000 journalists in the past 45 days regarding these issues during a national access road tour research and training project). While the administration has talked a good talk on transparency, journalists have yet to see results.
Now, it’s not all bad. The start up last fall of the Office of Government Information Services, basically a federal FOIA ombudsman office, is a good sign. Obama’s open government directives are promising. But access scholars and advocates are still waiting for real change. Not there yet, and it seems to me that AEJMC’s statement was a reasoned and appropriate expression of concern about a continuing problem in our field.
COMMENT BY DAVID CUILLIER ON JUNE 12, 2010, AT 10:55 AM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I think the observations about the openness of the Obama administration or the lack thereof were reasonable, but I’m not sure there have ever been in modern times “open-ended, full-length press conferences by the president that allow unfettered questions on a variety of issues.” Presidential news conferences are carefully choreographed minuets between presidents and media. They are never open-ended and questions are rarely unfettered. Not eve the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan, allowed much “day-to-day access by reporters to the president.” Of more concern to me is the Obama administration’s tepid support of a federal shield law.
COMMENT BY JANET KEEFER ON JUNE 13, 2010, AT 8:23 PM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I agree with Professor Pardun, the headline to the AEJMC PAC press release is definitely a big problem. It oversells the criticism that the AEJMC PAC is trying to make in the release, and thus opens up the whole argument to variety of attacks.
But the release itself is also an overreach. For example, the release text states Obama has a “general lack of transparency and accessibility to journalists.” But the rest of the release doesn’t support that statement (see Jay Rosen’s reaction to the original AEJMC PAC release for a in-depth discussion of this). Even if Obama had no press conferences, he could still have a transparent and accessible administration. As I commented on the original AEJMC PAC statement, a common criticism I have heard about Obama is that he is on television speaking to journalists and media folks too much. How does that sort of general perception of Obama (of over-exposure) fit with the current AEJMC PAC criticism (of inaccessibility)?
Finally, AEJMC might want to reconsider using the acronym PAC for the entity that produces political statements such as this one. While at the beginning of the press release it clearly states that the AEJMC PAC is the Presidential Advisory Council, the PAC acronym is probably most commonly used as abbreviation for Political Action Committee. I would hate for a cursory reader of this release to come away thinking that the AEJMC Political Action Committee is making a political criticism of the Obama administration (since that is not the business AEJMC is in). As journalists and communication educators, we should be precise in the language we choose. And choosing something that commonly means one thing and using it another way probably isn’t the most effective way to communicate.
On the bright side, this release got plenty of attention for the association. At least among its members. Better some discussion and activity than none.
COMMENT BY J. BRIAN HOUSTON ON JUNE 14, 2010, AT 10:07 AM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I agree with L. John Martin and J. Brian Houston above. The press release title and content were an over reach and not supported in the document. The critique of the president does appear to be inappropriately political vs. academic or journalism industry. It disfavorably compares Pres. Obama to Pres. G.W. Bush. All these things are problematic. How many people of color are in the PAC? CSM? CSW? Is there straight as well as GLBT representation? With all respect to those who are on the PAC, perhaps a better diversity or representation would be important in deciding how to prioritize the issues the PAC addresses in the name of us all. Some may be regretting voting yes, or failing to make the meeting where the PAC was given permisison to speak for us all without giving the membership time to weigh in before hand.
COMMENT BY E-K. DAUFIN ON JUNE 22, 2010, AT 2:23 PM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Thanks for this clarification and response. Much appreciated. I would like to make three points.
1.) So if I understand this new statement, what the PAC really meant when it said “AEJMC: Obama’s Promised ‘Change’ Lacks Transparency” and then compared his record unfavorably to Bush’s is…ready for it?… “not enough press conferences!” Fair point. I agree with it. He should have more of those. And If the PAC scholars had decided instead that “unscripted interviews with leading news organizations” was the right measure of transparency–an equally simplistic and arbitrary metric as the one chosen–then the headline would have been “AEJMC: Obama Three Times More Transparent than Bush.” For the figures are for the first year of his term: Obama 161 interviews, compared with 50 by George W. Bush. But let’s get real: WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BE SCHOLARS. We’re the people who don’t pick one measure and call that “transparency.” We try to be sophisticated about it.
2.) I reiterate what I said in my first criticism. I don’t have any problem with the AEJMC making statements about important and controversial issues. That’s good! I don’t have any problem with the president’s council deciding what those statements should be. That’s practical. Nor do I expect such statements to necessarily cohere with my own views. If they don’t, that is not, in my opinion, good grounds for squawking about the statement. What I do expect is that when there is such a statement YOU CAN TELL THAT REAL LIVE SCHOLARS OF JOURNALISM RESEARCHED IT, and thought it through. This statement on Obama and transparency did not meet that bar, and nothing Professor Pardun says here even addresses that point. I wish she had. Sorry, but saying, “we should have put a more cautious headline on it like, ‘Not enough press conferences, President Obama…’” does not do it for me.
3.) A very minor point. State of the art in comment systems is to permit individual URL’s to be generated for each comment, so each comment can be linked to. This would enable me to link to a very excellent one Bob Stepno left on the bottom of the original thread:
http://aejmc.org/topics/2010/06/aejmc-obamas-promised-change-lacks-transparency/
[ EDIT BY AEJMC STAFF MEMBER, MICH SINEATH: ORIGINAL THREAD MAY BE FOUND AT THE NEW URL http://www.aejmc.com/topics/archives/760 ]
Perhaps the webmaster at AEJMC could do something about that. Installing a system like Disqus would do the trick. http://disqus.com/overview/
COMMENT BY JAY ROSEN ON JULY 8, 2010, AT 4:48 PM
# # #