We need to be as aggressive in promoting and preserving the First Amendment as the NRA is in promoting and preserving the Second Amendment.

While the First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly, in America’s system of “ordered liberties,” that right is subject to reasonable time, place and manner regulations. See the following recent court decisions: Occupy Sacramento v. City of Sacramento, In re Waller (Occupy Wall Street case in New York). The legal precedent that has been generally applied to the so-called “Occupy” cases is: Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984)(Holding that prohibitions against overnight camping in a national park is a reasonable time, place and manner restriction).

This quote is rather troubling: “This is all the more compelling because other countries are closely watching how city, state, and federal governments handle the Occupy movement across the United States.”

The AEJMC must not give the impression that if the United States enforces the reasonable limitations on speech and assembly set forth in its First Amendment jurisprudence, the country would automatically sink to the level of Egypt, Syria or Libya. Actually, if the AEJMC is concerned about the image of the United States with respect to the Occupy movement, it should perhaps explain how the system works to non-Americans.

The AP’s guidance is generally sound. Adding wording to precede an RT such as “Interesting contrarian opinion” or “not all will agree but worth thinking about” don’t make you less human but more so and still make clear why you are retweeting while making clearer you are not endorsing.

I tweet, retweet, paraphrase, etc. It’s all valuable. Yes, AP probably got the syntax a little garbled. But some of the Twitterati’s responses seem to smack of “this is our playground and we already know the rules so that’s that.” News flash: Not everyone does.

There have been institutions issuing laptops of years and that would also be considered an endorsement. It would be reasonable to assume that if a school issues it as part of tuition paid, it is a tested and selected device based on several options considered. Requiring large technology purchases from students can be a big turn off for a program because it takes away the ability to choose what you go out and buy.

Thanks for catching the error and for posting your comments!

Having said that, I would like to argue that AOL is merely jumping on the bandwagon of corporate expropriation of the creative labors of the army of “citizen” laborers that populate the Web– who have been suckered into believing that visibility on the Web, even if this merely profits corporations, is its own reward. The voluntary cultural labor that this mindset creates is then exploited by corporations for profit. Andrew Ross has perceptively characterized this phenomenon as the principle of “cultural discount” whereby “artists and other arts workers accept non-monetary rewards – the gratification of producing art – as a compensation for their work, thereby discounting the cash price of their labor.” This freely donated labor, he points out, has found its way in “the funky milieu of the Webshops, where work looks almost exactly like play.” In an article I recently published in New Media & Society ( see “Cooperation with the Corporation? CNN and the Hegemonic Cooptation of Citizen Journalism through iReport.com,” vol. 13, issue 2 (2011): 314-329), I pointed out CNN–and other members of the corporate media formation–are exploiting the free labor that citizen journalism produces for profit.

http://blog.nnnlp.com/

http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/02/jason-e-klein-print-newspapers-have-a-place-in-a-tablet-heavy-future/

Will Tablets Kill the Newspaper Star?

From an educator’s standpoint, a key question is this: How do we weave the fundamentals and the technology together in a curriculum that not only teaches students to compete in today’s media job market but also how to think and reflect and write? The follow-up questions come thick and fast. Do we start by teaching students how to shoot and edit video? Do we have them produce stories in multiple platforms from the beginning? Or do we start with a focus on the fundamentals, the writing, research, interviewing, revising and numeracy skills? Is it possible to do everything at once?

I welcome comments and criticisms — I’d like to reflect on others’ reactions.

These days, every blogger, twitter-er or member of a social media community is a journalist. Every business, every social organization, non-profit organization, and every religious congregation has a website. All of these people are acting in the public arena, sharing information on public forums and essentially engaging in journalism.

Most of them have little or no journalism background, and this leads to many problems concerning issues of law and ethics, the limits of free speech and other areas. Furthermore the lack of background of the new journalists drives standards of technical quality and the economic incentives to do quality work. Indeed, if everyone wants free content, and can get it, why engage paid professionals?

The economic situation affects our students deeply. And it will certainly affect us.

I worry that rather than embrace and engage the new world, the new opportunity and the new duty of journalists, journalism educators persist in working within the same old paradigm. Essentially, we’re talking to ourselves, preaching to the proverbial choir. And our congregation is getting smaller, while there is a huge group out there we can help.

I don;t know what a knew paradigm might look like, but lord knows we need to develop one.

John B. (Jack) Zibluk, Ph.D.
Professor
Arkansas State University
Department of Journalism
P.O. Box 1930
State University, AR 72467
(H) 870-931-1284
(W) 870-972-3255
(cell) 870-219-3328

“We fashion our tools, and thereafter, our tools fashion us.”

I would never not buy a newspaper because it was free online, but I might avoid a newspaper that I knew was paywalling.

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

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

# # #

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

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

# # #