27 Responses to “Explaining the process behind retirement of Helen Thomas Award”

1. Christine Tatum Says:
   January 25th, 2011 at 8:53 pm

   Joe, thanks for this explanation. However, it is a highly sanitized version of the events I have observed.

   More than anything else, all of this reflects SPJ’s poor communication with its members. When you work at Ground Zero within the organization — as I have — it’s easy to think our members are fully informed. That they’ve received a phone call. That they’ve read Quill. That surely — surely! — they have noticed the president speak up about his/her plans in wire stories.

   That just isn’t the case.

   And here’s another something else that’s VERY IMPORTANT to remember: SPJ likely didn’t receive member complaints about the executive committee’s decision to handle this matter during Kevin Smith’s presidency because 1. members didn’t even know this matter was being discussed and 2. the committee took no action regarding the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award. (When the committee took no action, the majority of membership was, apparently, satisfied.)

   Fast forward to this year after a torrent of complaints was received from people who are not members of the Society. (As you know, I spoke with two staff members — including you — in separate conversations on Dec. 16. Both of you told me that SPJ had received very, very few complaints from members (one staff member said, “hardly anyone in SPJ has said anything”) about Helen’s remarks. Both of you also said the vast majority of complaints were coming into the Society from angry blogs and websites. One of you even directed me to look at the Anti-Defamation League’s site. I summarized our conversations and copied you on those summaries, which I sent on Dec. 17 to fellow former national presidents who were asked to provide input. You never corrected my account of those conversations.)

   The current president, Hagit Limor, sent ’round one e-mail to board members last fall, mentioning her intention to put the Helen Thomas award discussion on the executive committee’s January agenda. Only a couple of weeks before that meeting was to take place, I spoke with three national directors — national directors! — who failed to understand the president’s intentions. Even THEY did not grasp that this very big decision would be made by such a small number of people — and they didn’t like it one bit. Had those directors not protested, this matter wouldn’t even have made it to the full board for discussion. And even when they did protest, they received challenges and push-back for requesting that this matter be discussed by the larger group.

   What did they get? A conference call that was hurriedly scheduled and even more hurriedly hosted. Directors with alternative ideas and proposals were shut out of discussion through a series of parliamentary procedures. They were not recognized at all (after all, when you can’t see people holding up their hands to speak, it sure is easy for officers to recognize only the directors who they know will track/vote with with their sentiments … I know this from personal experience, too.).

   Couple the parliamentary play with the very strong – and growing – feeling that voting directors didn’t necessarily have the comprehensive, fully informed view you suggest AND that the full board should have, at the very least, debated this controversial issue in person, and, well, this internal eruption should come as no surprise to anyone.

   As you note, much of the criticism now being aimed at the national board is coming from within SPJ’s membership. That, too, is an indictment of incredibly poor communication with our membership. It has been interesting for me to read some directors’ insistence that they consulted with members in their regions far and wide — only to speak with chapter presidents who say they never heard a peep from those same directors.

   So, yes, plenty of SPJ members are now mad, and they’re dissenting. There is nothing “unfortunate” about this – especially if they force a larger debate and discussion that truly reflects the Society’s wishes, no matter what those may be.

2. Peter Sussman Says:
   January 26th, 2011 at 2:50 am

   I am deeply disturbed by the board’s decision to “retire” the Helen Thomas award, and I too am troubled by the process, although I know no more of it than Joe and Christine have posted here. As for extensive national consultation, I cannot recall being asked for an opinion, although I have been invited to “SPJ Leaders” events at national conventions. All I can remember hearing was that the issue had been considered by the Executive Committee, which voted to take no action. I assume that was after the first EC vote. Nor can I recall hearing anything about an EC or board re-vote before the results of that re-vote were announced. I would have wanted to comment if I’d known this issue was under active reconsideration.

   I would like to know more about the process of consultation that preceded the re-vote and the sources and content of the feedback that prompted this decision. Just a few examples of what — given the high profile of the protests you relate — ought to have been a deliberate, fully considered decision: Were chapter presidents informed and asked to solicit membership input? Were there any organized communications from, say, former presidents or chapters? (And, by the way, in keeping with our advocacy of transparency, have there been any such communications since the re-vote that were not mentioned in Joe’s background blog post?) Were national committees consulted, or did they react afterward? I can think of three committees that might assume they had a vital role to play in the decision: First Amendment, Ethics and Diversity.

   Also, in speaking of the consultation that preceded the decision, I see no mention in Joe’s blog post of any consultation with the person name is on the now-retired award. Did no one think of the personal insult to someone whose work we had honored so prominently with one of our highest awards and were now, in effect, disavowing by distancing ourselves from her name? Did no one ask her for her explanation or interpretation of what she said? Did no one inform her that SPJ was under pressure to retire the award because of her words? Did no one ask for her input on the contemplated action and the reasons for it? Isn’t that standard operating procedures in all good journalism, or is it only a standard that we expect of all good journalists but don’t honor in our own organizational governance?

   Even by Joe’s account, this seems to have been a rushed process driven by the organized public outcry. It ought to have been more collaborative and open.

   Whatever spin is put on the hair-splitting semantic issue of “retiring” rather than retracting the award presented to Helen Thomas and to others in her name, clearly, it was her words that led to the pressure to retire the award, and it was her words as well as the increased number and volume of reactions to them that led to the reconsideration of the earlier vote not to take any action. In Joe’s words, after Thomas’s further comments, “the notion that this was a one-time misstep was no longer valid.” The only conclusion I can draw from that is that although we promote free speech as one of our core principles, there will be consequences to the speakers if they repeatedly make comments that many of us don’t like or if there is a loud public outcry against the content of their speech.

   That’s not the interpretation of free speech that led me to join this organization, and I am personally embarrassed to be implicitly associated with this decision, by dint of my active involvement in SPJ.

   In a sense, all of the above issues are beside the point. SPJ honored Helen Thomas by naming a prestigious award for her because of her outstanding and courageous journalism over the course of her long career. At the time the award was named, I assume, we didn’t consider — nor do we with any award — what our honorees had said informally in their personal lives, or might say in the future, that might have made have changed some perceptions of them as people. If that is a factor in awards, then I suppose I should prepare myself for the possibility that SPJ might choose to retract or retire any of the awards I have been honored to receive — including the First Amendment Award and the Wells Key — because of something I might say that was repugnant to some members or outside groups.

   Obviously (I would have thought), my honors — like Thomas’s — were bestowed for my journalism achievements and/or my service to SPJ, not for how I conduct my personal life or what I say in a non-journalistic context.

   Although what seems to me a peremptory national decision is not in keeping with my understanding of what SPJ stands for, it IS in keeping with my perception of the peremptory, opaque decision-making behind the purges of national committees — most egregiously the Ethics Committee of which I had been a member — just before the last convention. In both cases, there was much lip service given to transparency and collective input in response to decisions that were anything but transparent or collaborative. SPJ is beginning to feel much less like an open membership organization to me.

   Accordingly, I ask that national change my membership status from professional journalist to retired. (If you want me to call to confirm the decision, please let me know.) Although the term “retired” more aptly fits my recent, episodic journalism activities, I’ve refrained from changing my membership status because I felt the organization was worthy of my full support. I no longer do.

   List me as “retired” — like the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award.

   P.S. Joe, I’d like my comments reprinted as a letter to Quill, with minor rewording to reflect the different forum. (I’m assuming here that you will be devoting significant space in Quill to a full debate on this issue that is so central to SPJ’s mission, governance and public profile — including your own detailed backgrounder.) If you choose not to publish it for some reason, please point me to a list of email addresses for national and chapter leaders so that I can distribute my comments to a larger segment of the membership than follows this blog. Thanks.

3. Ray Hanania Says:
   January 26th, 2011 at 8:16 am

   The National American Arab Journalists Association has protested repeatedly the proposed termination of the Helen Thomas Award. In the process, the SPJ has acted unprofessionally in what appears to have been an effort to “manage” this issue rather than open it up for discussion.

   The criticism of Helen Thomas’ remarks have been exaggerated and distorted and are inaccurate.

   The bottom line is the SPJ has acted inappropriately to consider an action based on the content of what was said. Helen Thomas’ political views are her views and should never have been subject to any form of censure from a so-called professional journalism board. The award is being terminated because of what she said and that oversteps the SPJ’s mandate which should instead defend the right of journalists free speech.

   We don’t have to agree or disagree with what Helen Thomas said, especially when it falls within the area of acceptable debate — her remarks were not anti-Semitic, but were distorted by her critics to appear that way. I expect journalists to be accurate about their reporting and in this case, they were not. (She never said “Jews” should get out of Israel.”")

   I am concerned that SPJ President Hagit Limor, who NEVER responded to any of my letters including my first letter urging that the SPJ not take action — has a personal agenda in this matter. To say it is ridiculous is absurd. The issue was NEVER transparent.

   The facts of what happened have not been clear.

   Who was it that brought the first complaint about Helen Thomas and urged the termination of the award?

   Why did the SPJ act on this matter?

   No one was permitted to debate what she said but what she was in fact the core of the SPJ’s actions. For someone to targeted Zionism, a political movement that not only includes Jews but also non-Jews, should be within the realm of discussion. Rather, criticizing Zionism became a code phrase for anti-Semitism. Political organizations and lobbys have been accused repeatedly over the years of “owning” Washington DC, etc. In fact, Sen Dick Durbin was quoted on my radio show stating that the Bankers Lobby owns Washington DC.

   The bottom line is that the SPJ cowered under the criticism, failed to their job as journalists and failed even worse in acting as professional journalists.

   This view didn’t just start with the Helen Thomas controversy but it started with the former president who, on his own and without discussion with anyone that we know of, terminated the American Arab Journalism Section of the SPJ and closed the al-Sahafiyeen Blog. We were later told — after it was removed from the SPJ web site — that the reason was some of the comments posted on the blog were political.

   How can you not discuss some politics in a world where the Middle East and American Arabs and Muslims are the center of the political world?

   But, there was NO DISCUSSION about the accusation at all. In fact, the real problem is that the SPJ again acted with what may have been a political motive and that the alleged content was used as an excuse to act.

   I am ashamed of the SPJ’s actions and I join in calling for the resignations of Hagit Limor, not because of her race or religion, but because of her failed actions. And I urge the resignation of former president Kevin Smith. Why resign? Because they have failed to act in a professional manner leaving an impression that other issues may have motivated their actions.

   Finally, I think it is worth noting that the SPJ executive committee did a poor job of publicizing the facts that they planned any such review of the Helen Thomas Award. I never received any notice from the SPJ board. I don’t recall anyone publicly announcing that a review was in process. It was done slipshod and informally and that also is something that failed process of informing SPJ members needs to be publicly reviewed.

   Thanks
   Ray Hanania
   NAAJA Coordinator

4. Paul LaRocque Says:
   January 26th, 2011 at 12:58 pm

   I second the responses of Christine Tatum and Peter Sussman and therefore I won’t repeat the arguments they have stated so well. The following is an updated version of an e-mail note I sent privately to Hagit Limor earlier this month.
   More than 70 years ago, Col. Robert McCormick, owner and publisher of the Chicago Tribune, supported the despicable Jay Near all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court because he believed in the First Amendment.
   Helen Thomas is no Jay Near. And what she said was her opinion, not a damaging personal attack. She expressed personal outrage over a sensitive situation in which she has a personal connection – her forebears are Middle Eastern Semites. Yes, Arabs are Semites. Perhaps she could have chosen her words more carefully. But she was confronted, asked for an opinion, and she gave it. Her right. Does that make her an anti-Semite?
   Her angry comment and her controversial opinion cannot outweigh Helen Thomas’ lifetime of good journalism.
   If someone asked you to comment on how the United States had treated Native Americans or Negroes, you might respond with similar angry and harsh words. But does that make you un-American?
   Punishing a journalist with a distinguished career by abandoning an award given in her honor is failing to uphold a right that the Society of Professional Journalists holds dear – the right of free speech.
   If Col. McCormick could defend the First Amendment rights of such an obvious low-life as Jay Near, certainly SPJ could support Helen Thomas, an honorable person, and her right to criticize. The people – Near and Thomas – are not comparable, but the principle is. SPJ should have boldly defended the very right it so strongly upholds and not bowed to the tedious clamor of political correctness. SPJ is no Col. McCormick, unfortunately. And it has diminished itself in the eyes of many by its lack of courage and capriciousness in this affair.

   Paul R. LaRocque

5. Andy Schotz Says:
   January 26th, 2011 at 11:53 pm

   Thanks, Joe, for this timeline and background of the steps leading up to the “retirement” of the award. As I wrote in an e-mail to the board, SPJ should be open about controversy, which includes telling members how their elected leaders voted on any and every issue.

   I was disappointed that, while countless news organizations and bloggers were publicly dissecting this issue week after week, SPJ was largely silent. Two letters – one for, one against – were posted at the website; no other comments were allowed.

   I appreciate the difficulty of the decision, but anyone elected to a board position shouldn’t be surprised by having to make a tough decision. I would hope that the squeamish wouldn’t seek roles with that level of responsibility and don’t need to be protected. It doesn’t take long before journalists encounter criticism – even angry criticism. They learn to judge comments by their merits and they, hopefully, develop thick skin.

   Most of all, I don’t understand why this is portrayed numerous times as a “lose-lose.” That choice is false – supporting freedom of speech or supporting diversity.

   The Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement was given to her and named after her because of her decades of work. Here’s what the SPJ website used to say about the award before it was removed: “The Award is named after longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas, a living icon of journalism for her dogged pursuit of the truth in a career that has spanned almost 60 years.”

   Has that history changed?

   Why couldn’t SPJ and its leaders say that Helen Thomas might have made some controversial comments, but they don’t reflect her body of work that inspired the award? Why not keep the award and be open about the controversy, such as a point-counterpoint permanently posted on the award web page?

   I don’t like the precedent that a person’s character, comments, behavior post-journalism can negate his or her legacy. Is SPJ planning to investigate the backgrounds of all of our award namesakes? What will it take for the next award to be “retired” – improper remarks? felony convictions? public pressure?

   Who is to say whether future recipients will turn down an award? When Kevin Smith mentioned this possibility after Thomas’s first remark, I asked past recipients. Two said they’d leave the award as it is.

   I couldn’t help but notice that after the first episode – when the Executive Committee talked about removing Thomas’s name from the award but decided not to – SPJ gave out the award several months later and no one thought twice about it.

   I don’t like that we list being “distracted” as a reason and felt the need to do something to make this controversy go away. That’s a bad reason. Either we feel a certain way or we don’t. We should be used to standing up for principles, and this was certainly one of those times.

   The board had to act right away because of the coming awards cycle? I disagree. In a seven-year period, SPJ failed to give an ethics award five of those years, for a variety of reasons. There would have been no harm in deciding that the Thomas award would not be been given out for one year while SPJ’s board and other members discussed its future.

   I, too, encourage members who disagree with the decision to go through the process at the next convention. And I hope we will continue to let members express their views on the issue through this and other channels.

   -Andy Schotz

6. Peter Sussman Says:
   January 27th, 2011 at 12:04 am

   A follow-up question: To help sort out the history, will someone please post here the url for the agenda, minutes and recorded votes of the board’s special telephone meeting on the Helen Thomas award? Thanks.

7. Jodi Cleesattle Says:
   January 27th, 2011 at 4:19 pm

   I am an SPJ national board member who voted against the motion to retire the Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement. For the record, I supported the substitute motion to keep the award and simply issue a statement that SPJ does not endorse or necessarily agree with Ms. Thomas’ recently expressed views.

   I commend our executive director, Joe Skeel, for his attempt to explain the process that led up to the SPJ board’s controversial vote, but I would like to add some additional information about the process and just a bit about the substance.

   I was deeply disappointed in how the January 14 conference call meeting of the board of directors was conducted. I agree that it was conducted according to proper parliamentary procedure – in the sense of motions being made, seconded, and discussed according to proper procedural rules. However, I thought and continue to think that, given the decision to allow only three minutes of discussion per person (which was not announced in advance) and given the added difficulties of dialogue via telephone, it was an inappropriate forum to make such a weighty decision.

   The seven-member executive committee had an opportunity to sit in a room together at their meeting on January 8 and fully discuss all the issues and possible compromises related to the Helen Thomas Award controversy, but the full board never had that opportunity.

   Not only did the full board not have the opportunity to have an in-person meeting, but the board did not have the opportunity to have a full discussion via conference call because of the time limitation set on how long each board member could speak. Several board members chose not to speak at all, with some commenting that their views already had been expressed by others (without necessarily specifying what those views were) and some commenting that they previously had made their views known (presumably in e-mails or phone calls exchanged with others) and had no further comment. I personally had not previously spoken to most of the board members about their views, so I had no idea what their views were or the reasoning behind them. Because of the format of the conference call, I missed the opportunity to be persuaded or inspired by their viewpoints. (Of course, I understand that some might choose not to share their views at an in-person meeting as well, but there would have been, at least, additional time to engage in dialogue.)

   I understand and appreciate that the executive committee probably felt like its seven members had engaged in enough dialogue among themselves and probably were just plain tired of dealing with the issue, but there were 16 other board members who had not had a chance to engage in an interactive dialogue about the issue. It is that interactive dialogue – emphasis on interactive, as in, listening to each other and having the opportunity to brainstorm new ideas – that is critical to good decision-making and creative solutions.

   I also understand that the executive committee thought it important to act quickly, although I believe some part of that need was created by the committee’s own announcement before and after the executive committee meeting that it was planning to take action at certain meetings and within a certain timeframe. I understand that some type of decision had to be made given that the call for awards was imminent. However, other options could have been raised and discussed with the full board – such as suspension of the award this year until the full board or the convention could vote on the issue, or some other option that someone might have been inspired to suggest. In fact, I attempted to make a motion to refrain from giving the Helen Thomas Award this year in order to present the issue to the 2011 national convention for a vote by the convention delegates, but the motion to call the question whether to retire the award was made too quickly. Once the vote to retire the award was taken, no other options were available – although I did make an unsuccessful motion to recommend to future boards not to reinstate the lifetime achievement award under a different name, in an attempt to be consistent with SPJ’s position that we were retiring the award rather than stripping Ms. Thomas’ name from it.

   I fully appreciate that the full SPJ board might have met in person and still voted 14-7 to retire the Helen Thomas Award, and I would accept that outcome. Indeed, I accept the current outcome, although I disagree with it personally. Likewise, if convention delegates vote to take further action regarding the Helen Thomas Award, I will accept their votes.

   But, I do think SPJ as an organization is being disingenuous if we tell ourselves that the full board had a full and thoughtful discussion of this issue – with the opportunity for the full board to engage in an interactive dialogue. We did not.

   I hope that, in the future, our board will use its best efforts to ensure that issues of such controversy and significance as the Helen Thomas issue are allowed and encouraged to be discussed in forums that truly allow interactive dialogue within the full board. I like short, efficient meetings as much as anybody. But I am willing to put in the time, when necessary, to discuss important issues with the full board. I learn from my fellow board members and want to hear their views and the back-and-forth and the ideas that are generated. Together, we are strong and make good decisions. Together, we can inspire each other and come up with creative solutions. That’s the kind of board I have enjoyed serving on and hope to continue to serve on.

   I will add that my own opposition to the effort to strip Helen Thomas’ name from the award or to retire the award is based on the same reasons expressed above by Andy Schotz. Taking such action punishes Ms. Thomas for her speech and is contrary to SPJ’s mission, which includes a commitment “to maintain constant vigilance in protection of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.” (Obviously, the First Amendment itself only protects against government restriction of speech, but I believe SPJ’s mission is broader and is supportive of free speech generally.)

   Moreover, much of the discussion of the Helen Thomas controversy (inside and outside of SPJ) has been based on selective quotes that, taken out of context, have been presented as anti-Semitic, or, to be specific, anti-Jewish. I read Ms. Thomas’ comments not as racist or biased against the Jewish people, but as expressing opposition to Israeli political policy vis-à-vis Palestinians living on land claimed by Israel (her May 2010 comments) and expressing dismay that those supportive of Israeli policy have more control over the channels of power in the United States than those opposed to Israeli policy (her December 2010 comments).

   Mr. Skeel’s blog post above includes Ms. Thomas’ full comments from May 2010 (although the full quotes were not included in SPJ’s prior press releases), but does not include a complete version of the relevant comments from Ms. Thomas’ December 2010 speech to the annual conference on “Images and Perceptions of Arab Americans” in Dearborn, Mich., in which she talked about “the whole question of money involved in politics.”

   During the speech, Ms. Thomas stated that those who support Israeli policy on Palestine dominate the media message and government policy in America. For the record, here is her complete comment on this issue:

   “I can call a president of the United States anything in the book but I can’t touch Israel, which has Jewish-only roads in the West Bank. No American would tolerate that – white-only roads. We are owned by the propagandists against the Arabs. There’s no question about that. Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where their mouth is. … We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.”

   I am not Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Muslim or Arabic. I have no strong opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, other than a very sincere desire that the people living in the region will find peace.

   But I do have strong opinions about SPJ, an organization I love and respect and have dedicated many hours to supporting. SPJ has always been, and I hope it will continue to be, a champion of free speech. I hope that SPJ – and all of us – will learn from our experience with the controversy over the Helen Thomas Award.

   Jodi Cleesattle
   SPJ Region 11 Director

8. george beres Says:
   January 27th, 2011 at 7:24 pm

   Some of Jodi Cleesattle’s response to SPJ has merit. But it loses all credibility when she says, “I have no strong opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Absence of criticism of Israel’s brutality suggests to me a person not in touch with reality, whose views become meaningless in a context that is without perspective. – George Beres

9. Ian Williams Says:
   January 27th, 2011 at 7:25 pm

   When I heard about the decision to retire the Helen Thomas award, it was on Facebook, not from the SPJ. Many members might not even be aware of it even now and I am surprised that more effort was not made to discuss the issue. There was little or no discussion on the SPJ official site, a stark contrast to the dialogue that took place on the OPC website about Wikileaks.

   I wrote to the President, saying that if the decision was confirmed, I would be dropping my membership of an organization that was so cowardly in the face of threats to free speech. I was going to, but others suggested that we stay on and fight to reclaim the organization to defend journalism and free speech.

   It is a shameful, biased and ill considered decision, a lynching of one of our finest and most deserving journalists who, for example stood up for the truth over Iraq when many colleagues went with the party line.

   I will stay on, but being an SPJ member will hardly be a badge of pride until justice is served.

10. Donald W. Meyers Says:
    January 27th, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    In the spirit of transparency and accountability, I will explain my vote against the retirement of the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award.

    I was among the seven directors who voted against retiring the award. In fact, I was the one who made the substitute motion to retain the award and offer an explanation that the award was to honor Helen’s decades of journalistic integrity as a White House correspondent and that SPJ does not endorse her opinions.

    I was also the one who attempted to make a motion at the beginning but was passed over. I won’t judge whether that was intentional or just one of the difficulties of conducting a board meeting via telephone.

    As I told the board in explaining my vote, I believe we violated one of our society’s most important tenets: Act Independently. While I do not doubt that those on the prevailing side were sincere in their belief that this was for the “good of the Society,” I believe the board voted to endorse a “heckler’s veto” by succumbing to outside pressure to retire the award. From my conversations with various people, most of the opposition to having the award was coming from outside SPJ, specifically from the Anti-Defamation League. Most of the members I talked to in my region did not indicate any support for this measure. In fact, a couple even questioned why we were punishing Helen for exercising her right to free speech. And conversations with some of my fellow board members has borne out the view that the opposition was from outside special-interest groups.

    By acquiescing to the ADL’s demands, SPJ has shown that all people have to do to get our organization to do something is to make enough phone calls and send enough e-mails to inconvenience our headquarters staff or our leaders. I’m not unsympathetic to those who had to field the calls; I’ve been there. But if we cave in and retire a prestigious award to shut up well-organized critics, what’s going to happen the next time someone decides to protest an SPJ action? Will we back down on fighting for a federal shield law if right-wing talk-show hosts tell their audience to call headquarters to tell us to stop protecting terrorists? Would we back away from supporting the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket soldiers’ funerals if the Veterans of Foreign Wars or ACT-UP tells its members to crash our servers with nasty e-mail? Where will we draw the line?

    After the board’s vote was announced, I, like other board members, received an e-mail from a man in Israel commending us for our bravery. Retiring the award was not bravery. It was appeasing bullies, a strategy that only guarantees short-term relief. Bravery would have been to keep the award and offer the world an explanation that while we disagree with Helen’s comments, we are not going to throw away an award honoring her work as a professional journalist for an off-the-cuff remark made in an ambush interview or in a political speech she made after she retired as a professional journalist. Bravery would have been to say that we would let our delegates, the highest authority in SPJ, debate this issue openly at our next national convention and decide there whether to continue the honor.

    While I appreciate that the full national board had an opportunity weigh in on the matter, the phone meeting was likely not the best way to do it. The time for discussion was limited, and without seeing each other face to face, it was more difficult to have an open and honest debate. The executive committee had the luxury of a face-to-face meeting and hours to debate and compromise. Also, I’ve heard from at least one member who is not happy that this meeting was not publicly announced. We would condemn a government entity for making a major decision in a hastily called phone conference that was not publicly advertised. We should hold ourselves to the same standard of transparency. Waiting until April’s board meeting may not have changed the final outcome, but it would have ensured a more rigorous debate, and have allowed board members to get a better feel for how their constituents thought on the issue.

    Like the majority of the board, I want to concentrate on SPJ’s core missions, which includes the rigorous defense of free speech. The national board has spoken, but the process by which the decision was made was deeply flawed, and I would not blame the delegates for revisiting this matter in New Orleans.

    Donald W. Meyers,
    Region 9 Director

11. Robert Leger Says:
    January 28th, 2011 at 2:04 am

    I commend the SPJ board for the difficult decision it made. I am just as impressed that the leadership and those in the two-thirds majority have refrained from engaging with critics who questioned their integrity and courage. (Thanks to those in this string who have remained civil.)

    Perhaps I should be as wise and not wade in here. But I have never been accused of possessing wisdom.

    I share the admiration of what Thomas did in her career. I was more than willing to give her a pass after the ambush interview in which she suggested that Israelis go back where they came from. But her prepared speech in Detroit set off echoes that led me to change my opinion.

    I spent more than two decades in the Missouri Ozarks, including a time when it was a hotbed of white supremacist activity. A member of the Aryan Brotherhood gunned down a highway patrolman. The FBI laid siege to a warfare-training compound deep in the woods, achieving the peaceful outcome that eluded it in Waco. A former KKK leader regularly called me.

    Running through all this was a common theme. These people believed they were at war with ZOG – the Zionist Occupation Government. My caller was certain I was Jewish (I’m not) because, of course, Zionists control the news media and Hollywood. He mailed me regular “proof” of this.

    Helen Thomas says she is not anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish, and I have no reason to doubt her word. She is an honorable woman.

    Whether she realized it, though, the words she delivered in Detroit matched the words I heard from my caller and all those white supremacist groups. When I read the accounts of Thomas’ appearance, it sent a shiver down my spine. I felt a great sadness that a woman I so respect could echo the words of men I do not.

    The former KKK leader who called me regularly published a a few editions of a newspaper promoting his vile beliefs. He tossed it on people’s lawns. You can imagine the reaction. I editorialized in support of his First Amendment rights.

    Helen Thomas has the same right to say whatever she wants, and I will support that right vigorously. I wish she had straightforwardly criticized U.S. policy regarding Israel, which is warranted and would not have sparked our current conversation, rather than alleging Zionist conspiracy and giving comfort to those I once had to cover.

    I see no contradiction between defending Thomas’ right to express her opinion, and retiring the award. Nothing obligates SPJ to give any award with anyone’s name on it. If this award didn’t exist, we wouldn’t create it now. Why should we continue it?

    I’m proud of a board with the courage to retire an award established to honor journalistic achievement but which now, sadly, is burdened with less noble connotations. I could not have remained in the room when this award was presented. There are some echoes I do not wish to hear.

    Robert Leger
    SPJ President, 2002-03

12. Christine Tatum Says:
    January 28th, 2011 at 3:53 am

    Robert, I am glad to know about your opinions of Helen’s opinions. But they are also nothing more than your opinions about her opinions. And my opinions of her opinions differ from your opinions of her opinions – and they’re no more or less valuable than your opinions.

    And let’s not forget the people who have known Helen personally and very well for a very long time. They have opinions, too. I have yet to encounter one that would even remotely liken Helen to KKK leaders. But in the grand scheme of things, even these people who actually know this woman far better than you and I do have opinions that are no more or less valuable than yours and mine.

    Thus, we wind up in a mess that SPJ’s leaders should never have allowed this Society to be dragged into. We’ve essentially watched a relatively small group within SPJ determine whether they first like/dislike, approve/disapprove of Helen’s opinions (i.e. speech) before weighing them against her undeniable lifetime of professional achievement — which is why she was honored in the first place. This sort of balancing test is highly problematic for SPJ for many reasons already noted here.

    And to unequivocally claim that if the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award didn’t exist now, we wouldn’t create it is assuming a lot – even too much – about what our Society would actually wish. I hear echoes of the over-reaching assumption and insular decision-making that many SPJ leaders and members are speaking out against now.

    Regardless of anyone’s opinions about Helen Thomas’ opinions, I hope everyone can agree that this issue ultimately needs to be settled by the Society’s voting delegates later this year.

13. Peter Sussman Says:
    January 28th, 2011 at 5:02 am

    I appreciate the inside glimpses posted here by board members. Thanks. It was an eye-opener to me that the special board meeting was not announced in advance. My questions remain: Where are the agenda, the minutes and the recorded votes posted? Anyone???

    I also ask again whether SPJ contacted Thomas for her side of the story before insulting her by “retiring” this award and implicitly sullying her career of courageous journalism.

    We give lip service to transparency as one of our core values. I’m having trouble seeing any transparency whatsoever in this decision-making process.

    Thanks, Robert, for giving us a little more of the “other side,” but I am not convinced by your defense of the board action. For one thing, it never helps to analogize a dispute by demonizing one side or the other, and your references to the KKK and white supremacists have no place in this discussion. Until now, I have refrained from commenting on the substance of Thomas’s remarks because it’s not central to my grievance, but I’m afraid I must comment on them now before the discussion careens beyond any rationality, adding Hitler and Stalin to the KKK and white supremacists.

    Are Thomas’s remarks, as posted above by Jodi, not accurate? That’s debatable, of course, but they sound to me like fully defensible opinions — and I speak as one who was raised Jewish. It would be foolhardy to deny, for example, that supporters of the most right-wing elements in Israel have spent enormous sums of money lobbying in Washington, with great success. They have drowned out even the pro-peace Israelis, whom they characterize — as they do other opponents of their own policies — as both anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. If they persist in characterizing everyone who opposes Israel’s recent policies as anti-Semitic, they will create anti-Semites where they have not existed previously. People like me, who disagree with their positions are tarred as “self-hating Jews.”

    Because those lobbies — including ADL, which has put the full-court press on SPJ — equate anti-Israel-policy with anti-Semitism, and because of the wealth of these groups and their high-volume, uncompromising pressure on anyone who disagrees with any position they take, it IS nearly impossible, as Thomas says, for an American politician to openly criticize Israel or discuss in a neutral fashion any Israeli-Palestinian disputes. It’s certainly not the equivalent of white supremacy in this country to call attention to the outsize influence of these groups and the money they’ve poured into lobbying. SPJ itself is now proof of their power; we abandoned our central principles and crumpled when they began to focus their attention on one0 of our awards.

    But again, this is all beside the point. We have argued for years that the right to free speech should not be conditioned on saying “the right things.” Sometimes those who push the limits on “correct” political views are the ones we should be most grateful to, for they keep a more robust debate alive and clarify that our support for their right to speak their views is not dependent on the content or political safety of their comments.

    In a secret vote, after a secret discussion, SPJ has capitulated to a rich, organized and unrelenting pressure lobby — the same one Thomas was warning about — by retiring the award named for her, and that’s shameful. Robert, you say you disagree with her conclusions, but in this instance, you and the SPJ board are providing evidence to support them.

14. Ray Hanania Says:
    January 28th, 2011 at 6:57 am

    Well Robert, as professional journalists, I think we should recognize the difference between someone who is “Zionist” and someone who is anti-Semitic. Most of the people I know who are Zionist are NOT Jewish. And regardless of the person who called you, all kinds of freaks make similar calls about everyone.

    But the bigger point is this. The SPJ had NO RIGHT to violate its professional standards and engage in the debate about WHAT Helen Thomas said.

    This discussion should NOT be about what she said.

    The discussion should be about whether or not a journalist with 50 years experience has a right to express her views on a topic that is contentious.

    Instead of standing by her right and arguing that the debate of the content can continue elsewhere, the SPJ embrace the debate and embrace those who accuse of Helen Thomas of anti-Semitism.

    That’s tragic.

    Clearly, your post suggests that the issue is not free speech but what she said. That is tragic.

    EVEN MORE TRAGIC is the FACT that this blog post is the FIRST TIME that the SPJ has even engaged its members and others on this topic. And I am not surprised that it comes AFTER THE FACT. Another example of a lack of professionalism by some of the SPJ leadership.

    Ray Hanania
    rayhanania@comcast.net

15. Lloyd H Weston Says:
    January 28th, 2011 at 9:14 am

    Ray Hanania is absolutely correct.

    And Robert Leger’s reputation remains intact. He is still in no danger of being “accused of possessing wisdom.”

    lhw

16. Sue Ellen White Says:
    January 28th, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Freedom of speech is just that—whether or not the listener agrees. Of course, as journalists, we are all trained to keep our personal opinions to ourselves (or not to have any) to maintain appearance of fairness. Most of us have had times when these apparently conflicting principles have challenged us.
    What has been Thomas’s lifetime record, her airing of other controversial personal opinions, her contribution to journalism (especially for women)?
    Rather than bowing to the perhaps imagined pressure of time, SPJ would have been much better served, in my opinion, to have had a considered discussion at the regional spring and national summer conferences. It could have been an educational process—for student journalists and the public and a refresher course for working reporters.
    The knee-jerk reaction of the executive board appears typical of American society in general: The controversy becomes more important than the issue, a fast-track solution is the way to get it out of the way or under the rug and the next donnybrook will wipe it off the radar.
    Many SPJ members are hard-pressed to do their jobs because of shrinking news staffs and changing media demands, currently have no job at all or are freelancers who must write and run a business in a very challenging climate. That does not mean they are not interested in this question or too distracted to care about ethics. In fact, most of us care very much and would have welcomed the opportunity to join the discussion and be part of the decision. Most of us support SPJ because we believe in its principles. As members we subscribe to those principles in each piece we write or edit.
    Why not feature a session at each regional spring conference, in Quill, via e-mail notice, at student chapters and at the general conference on this question? J-school professors can be encouraged to address the question with their students.
    Yes, publicity would ensue, but if the process is conducted in a considered way, it would be enlightening rather than inflammatory.
    Why not give every journalist every opportunity to think about the “Thomas question.” In so doing SPJ would be responsive to membership, be inclusive, and be an example to the larger society about the ways in which journalists are different from “the media.” This last is a distinction that is sorely needed—ethical working journalists are constantly being cast by many in the public as unreliable minions of the much-maligned “media” and seen as untrustworthy. It makes our jobs damn hard.
    It’s not too late to see this as an opportunity.

17. john Lawn Says:
    January 28th, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    A journalist with Helen’s historical public stature has the right to her own opinions, thinking and perspective. However, her public statements (just like those of the many “public” figures she has questioned and reported on in her career) take on weight when issued in public forums. That weight can have a significant effect on her reputation, stature, and most importantly, the perceived sense of her professional impartiality, judgement and behavior in controversial contextual matters. These are hallmarks of professional journalism. There are many other ways she could have professed a personal point of view on the Israeli-Palestinian issue in this an other contexts that would not have compromised her standing.

    In my humble opinion, despite my longstanding admiration for Thomas’ work and role, she openly disregarded any sense of professional judgment in her public remarks. Without suggesting possible explanations for this kind of behavior, in my view it is entirely appropriate for SPJ to retire the award that has been named after her. Her public behavior in the situations in question is not an appropriate for the organization to hold up as a model for aspiring journalists.

18. J.Lee Bailey Says:
    January 29th, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    I have been a member of SPJ since 1964; I joined as an undergraduate at The Ohio State University. I have attended a number of regional and national conventions and was active in the Cleveland Pro Chapter for many years, including a term as chapter president.

    I am as proud as I have ever been to be a member. Wrestling with this issue seems to be, for the executive committee, our board and for Joe Skeel, like wrestling with an octopus–opinions and pressure coming from all sides.

    We elect our board and they hire our staff. They deserve our thanks, not our condemnation.
    –Lee Bailey

19. Rich Strong Says:
    January 30th, 2011 at 7:31 am

    Speech is free. Helen, while she said something not nice, is entitled to it. Too bad you’re censoring.

    And that IS what you are doing — censoring. BACK OFF. Stop killing free speech.

    Who are you? Glenn Beck? Hitler? Rommel? You strike me as equally unintelligent…

    Quit squashing my free speech. Maintain the Thomas award; lest I think I am in Egypt. Oh — am I?

20. Rich Strong Says:
    January 30th, 2011 at 7:34 am

    I guess the SPJ is Egyptian. I’ll have to go elsewhere to get speech that is free.

21. Christine Tatum Says:
    February 2nd, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Here is still more explanation – this time from former national board member Michael Koretzky – of some of the “process” that figured into this decision:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-koretzky/breaking-news-journalists_b_814992.html

22. Pierce Says:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    There is so much wrong here, and I’m afraid it’s SPJ that is mostly in the wrong.
    I think that SPJ bowed to outside pressure and the presumption of controversy, and threw aside one of its guiding tenets to do so. Calling such an action “cowardice” is an attack, but one that seems to fit the situation (as seen from the attacker’s point of view). I wouldn’t use the word myself, because I think there’s much more at work—not that the words for those things are complimentary, either.
    If our prospective leaders are of such weak constitutions that the possibility of passionate questioning of their actions is enough to frighten them away, perhaps we’d do better without. The board has made questionable decisions and taken questionable actions. Its actions ought to be by definition questionable, especially by members.
    It has also done so in a manner where the membership’s opinions—outside of those few motivated to call headquarters—were ignored. Not over-ridden, which would at least mean the opinion was plumbed, but ignored, not sought out, considered to be contained within the noisy few and the projections of the board members.
    These discussions and decisions occurred in an umbra from which there would occasionally issue some message about what had been decided, much like the award’s “retirement”. And now we have a multi-thousand-word explainer about what really happened out of the membership’s sight.
    Helen Thomas’s opinions are immaterial, as are people’s reaction to them (except I think that the quote above is out of context, and that the word “owned” is being misconstrued). That the society’s board muffed this particular punt that was taken in obscurity is material. The issue wasn’t publicly addressed, the membership wasn’t consulted, the decision was rushed and badly handled, and the announcement was nearly buried.
    I’m truly sorry that the board and the staff had to deal with lobbying efforts and criticism, which will certainly be ongoing, but they are part of the job. I hope that they don’t enjoy peace and quiet as the result of this decision, because it is a poor and a weak one, and they should be subject to feedback about their performance in any case. I hope that someone stands up at the convention and that the membership puts this right—that is to say, in accordance with the consensus.

23. Ray Hanania Says:
    February 12th, 2011 at 7:08 am

    The SPJ’s problems go beyond just the Helen Thomas scandal. Here’s my letter asking the SPJ National Board to initiate a full investigation into the actions of the current president and the past president. Although my focus addressed the Helen Thomas issue AND their apparent aggressive opposition to any American Arab presence in SPJ above the category of “membership,” there are other issues involving politicizing the organization, gutting independence and diversity, and more. Peter Sussman has written about some additional challenges regarding the ethics committee, which was gutted and reorganized to silence opposition to their Mubarak-like regime.
    Ray Hanania
    Here’s the link explaining my request for the SPJ investigation
    http://arabjournalists.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-spj-board-to-conduct.html

24. Steven Kalb Says:
    February 13th, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Wow.

    It is pretty shameful when the organization that champions transparency is anything but transparent.

    Chapter leaders and membership should have known about the issue MONTHS before the executive committee made its decision. It would have led to a full, fair, airing of issues and an ultimately transparent decision.

    Instead we have a lot of the same stuff we rail against when government does it. Decisions made behind closed doors.In secret. That is not the way this organization has been run for the last 30 years and should not be the way it is run in the future.

    Who knows, this may be just what the membership needs to take back the organization from the people who are allegedly running it.

25. Christine Tatum Says:
    February 18th, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Many SPJ members may know that I’m leading a discussion with Helen Thomas at 11 a.m, March 15, 2011 at the Marriott Marquis in New York City during the Spring College Media Conference. My company, Media Salad, Inc., is a proud sponsor of this conference. Ms. Thomas is appearing at my invitation and agreed to sit down with me. This specific keynote event was never intended to focus specifically on SPJ and/or its “retirement” of the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award. Helen, the event’s organizers and I agree that there are simply far more interesting things to discuss.

    As of this writing, I am in the throes of preparing for my talk with Ms. Thomas. I simply want to be well informed so that I can help address, moderate and otherwise put into a fair and accurate context any remarks or questions specifically related to SPJ that may come from the audience. I understand that national board member Bill McCloskey is scheduled to attend the event, and he’s certainly welcome to speak up to represent this organization and to ask questions just like anyone else who will be in the room. Again, SPJ is NOT — and never has been — the focus of my conversation with Ms. Thomas. It may receive a passing mention, but that’ll be about it.

    As I have researched SPJ’s specific dealings with Ms. Thomas and the “process” that led to this organization’s decision-making, I do have some questions about how, precisely, SPJ communicated with Ms. Thomas before, during and after its deliberations. I’m on the record here – and will send an e-mail specifically to Executive Director Joe Skeel and current National President Hagit Limor today – asking that the Society send me a complete record of its correspondence with Ms. Thomas.

    I hope SPJ leaders will post those records for your review, too.

26. Christine Tatum Says:
    February 21st, 2011 at 11:05 am

    The “process behind the retirement of the Helen Thomas award” failed to include appropriate, professional communication with Ms. Thomas herself.

    After speaking with Ms. Thomas, current SPJ leaders and staff – and after reviewing a whole lot of e-mail traded among those parties, I believe SPJ owes Ms. Thomas an apology for its abysmal communication with her before, during and after its deliberations.

    But you also be the judge:
    http://www.facebook.com/notes/christine-tatum/how-spj-lost-the-p-in-its-name-when-communicating-with-helen-thomas/10150109540678369

27. Peter Sussman Says:
    May 10th, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    A group of disaffected SPJ members from across the country has been meeting online and drafting a resolution to overturn the board’s Helen Thomas Award “retirement.” The resolution will be presented to the delegates at the annual convention. If any SPJ member or chapter wishes to add their name to the resolution or ask for further details, they may contact me at peter@psussman.com. (I’m traveling now and may not respond immediately.)

    Here’s the text of the resolution we are asking the delegates to approve:

    A resolution reinstating the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award

    WHEREAS the Society of Professional Journalists has been awarding the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement award since 2000, with the inaugural award presented to Thomas in recognition of her long and distinguished journalism career, and

    WHEREAS the SPJ national board voted in January to retire that award in a special telephone meeting with three-minute time limits on board-member comments and no advance consultation with chapters or national mission committees, and

    WHEREAS the national board retired the award without undertaking any substantive discussions with Thomas to clarify her remarks, and

    WHEREAS the board’s vote to retire the award followed discussion within the national leadership occasioned by Thomas’s exercise of free expression as a private individual, specifically — as reported by SPJ’s president — because she “made comments some find objectionable in a prepared speech,” and

    WHEREAS SPJ, in a press release before the board vote, said the Executive Committee “condemn[s] [Thomas's] statements in December as offensive and inappropriate,? and

    WHEREAS the Society has for many years encouraged the vigorous exercise of freedom of expression and repeatedly warned against the dangers of content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on free speech, regardless of whether some might deem the speech offensive, objectionable or inappropriate, and

    WHEREAS SPJ presents other highly coveted awards named for individuals, living and dead, that have not been similarly subjected to heightened scrutiny and reconsideration based on the personal views of the people in whose honor they were named, and

    WHEREAS some SPJ national leaders have argued that future potential recipients of the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award might misinterpret the Society’s intent in naming the award in honor of Thomas’s career achievements in journalism,

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the delegates of the Society direct national officers and staff to:

    * Restore the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award, effective December 1, 2011, and

    * Accompany all promotional materials for the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award with the following language:

    “The Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award is presented to an individual or individuals for a career of extraordinary service to journalism and the journalism profession. The award is named after longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas for her tenacious and illuminating reporting over a period of more than 55 years. The award is the highest the Society bestows for distinguished journalism careers and, in keeping with its guiding principles, is presented without regard for the personal views held or expressed by any past or future recipient.”

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code

Authenticate this comment using OpenID.