Recent postings on NASW On-line triggered a lengthy, active discussion among more than a dozen NASW members concerning freelance access to scientific and science writers meetings. A typical meeting announcement might require that freelancers present a letter from an editor to prove they are legitimately covering the meeting on assignment.
Spin-off discussions touched on related topics such as PIO access to newsrooms and press conferences, differences between active and associate NASW membership, and meetings entirely closed to journalists.
I started the ball rolling by noting that AAAS in this year's meeting announcement changed the requirements for freelance access to the newsroom to fully recognize NASW membership, no longer requiring a letter of assignment. A few days later, Carolyn Strange posted the news that the American Cancer Society was requiring a letter of assignment for its science writers seminar. W. A. Thomasson added, "I got to thinking about the extremely restrictive approach being taken by the radiological societies I am now beginning to cover. They even exclude people with a signed book contract who don't also have a periodical assignment; that could be a significant problem for book writers." And Robert H. Carlson said he's seen even more demands: "Right now I've got a request from a meeting manager for a sample copy of the magazine I claim to be working for, as well as a letter from the editor!" Responses to these postings ranged widely, from agreement with the more restrictive policies to indignation on the part of freelancers.
Robert Lee Hotz, science reporter for The Los Angeles Times who freelances on the side, weighed in with: "I see nothing wrong with the idea that a working journalist be required to produce a letter from a publishing or broadcast outlet saying that the reporter is actually covering the event for which he or she is seeking special access. I don't think membership in NASW or the National Press Club or the Authors Guild or any other group should by itself legitimize a journalist. If we are asking for free admittance and special privileges at conferences other people must pay to attend, it seems only reasonable we produce some evidence that we are actually covering the meeting as a news event and not just taking a freebie."
Dodi Schultz, on the other hand, sees the policies as representing a basic misunderstanding of how freelancers work: "Most freelancers work mainly on (lay) magazine stories and books, only occasionally for daily or weekly papers and then usually on features, not on breaking news or meeting reportage. The fact that the meeting is taking place, per se, is of secondary interest. The fact that there may be an interesting (= salable) story AT the meeting is the prime attraction, and you do not know that until you attend the event and encounter said story."
Strange called the requirement for a letter an "extra burden put upon freelances to get a 'Mother-may-I?' permission slip." Janice Hopkins Tanne added: "Don't we all, staff or freelance, go into a meeting knowing that we may find a story or we may not? Why are freelances looking for a story less worthy than staffers?"
Public-information officers who run meetings said they want to avoid faux freelancers, either academic scientists scamming a free lunch and free reprints or antagonistic industry representatives arguing with presenters. Joel Shurkin responded to these concerns bluntly. "I don't think you can use credentials to protect yourself from boors." Most PIO's who contributed to the discussion however, espoused no hard and fast rules, accepting a variety of credentials.
While meeting organizers' credential requirements irritated many, no freelancers said they'd lost income because of the policies. It's likely, though, that beginners may suffer more than the predominantly experienced NASW On-line crowd.
#