|
|
| Volume 46, Number 2, Fall 1998 |
I fear that the proposed new constitution—equalizing the
present “active” and “associate” members,
certainly a friendly gesture toward a respectable class—would
open us up to a serious problem.
I am prompted to write by the fact that on Washington’s WTOP
radio in early October, I heard a commercial for a health or medical
product—I was not able to catch its name or use—delivered
by “Lou Adler, medical correspondent.” I confirmed in
a phone call to him that he— per the NASW directory—is
“Louis C. Adler (91,A), President, Eagle Media Productions,
Ltd., PO Box 580, Northford CT.”
In the late ’40s or ’50s, I believe, NASW members were disturbed by two situations. An active NASW member had signed his name to a magazine ad for a product. And some magazine article writers were accepting payments not only from a magazine, but also from the makers of some product (typically a pharmaceutical). Often the company or its PR or ad agency contacted a writer, offering a payment “so you can work on an article” or “covering your expenses,” with the understanding that the writer would try to get the article published for whatever fee.
When I was with the Minneapolis Tribune before moving to the Washington Post, I was approached through my agent for such a deal, with a handsome sum to be mine if I wrote the article and tried to get it printed. The late Al Blakeslee of the AP told me of a similar offer. We both understood that there were magazine editors willing to connive at such deals.
As a result, NASW passed either a by-law or a resolution—I don’t remember which—saying something like:
Active NASW members may neither lend their names nor identify themselves as “science writers” or “medical writers” or words to that effect on any advertising or promotional material. They may ethically be paid for their work only by the editors or publishers of media for whom they write.
I think virtually all present NASW members, active or associate, would agree that it is wrong for a journalist—in contrast to a publicist or ad copy writer—to lend his or her name to promotional material, or promotion disguised as an article. At the same time, of course, it is perfectly appropriate and ethical for a present associate member to do so, as many do on commercial or academic press releases.
Under the proposed constitutional change, however, all members would be in the same class, and I see no way to prevent any member from using his or her name in any fashion, journalistic or otherwise. And there could still be handsome financial rewards for doing so.
Joe Palca, in a commentary in the last ScienceWriters, says “it’s a little hard to imagine an avowed PR-person trying to pass him or herself off as a true journalist…But should that happen, it would still be a violation of ‘the highest standards of journalism,’ language in the proposed Article I, “and therefore…subject to sanction.” I don’t find it hard to imagine, and the only further language refers to “conduct…prejudicial to the best interests of the Association.” Both phrases are so vague that anyone could easily dispute them.
Would it be feasible to add a clause saying that members who predominantly engage in journalism may not do such-and-such? Would that work, given one class of member, and many members, as you have pointed out, who engage in mixed activities? How can we write a rule that would apply to one type of member and not others, when there would now be only one type?
I feel that I would have to vote against the new constitution unless this problem can be satisfactorily solved, and I have grave doubts as to whether it can be solved. No matter the fact that, as you point out, times have changed, there is still a difference between journalism and promotion, however respectable both roles.
Victor Cohn, retired science editor and writer for the Washington Post, now freelances in Washington, DC.