By Richard Harris
Nearly two years ago, a member on NASW's CompuServe discussion
line spoke out in frustration. He was a freelance writer with
a wide mix of jobs. Where, he asked, did he fit into the membership
categories as outlined in the NASW constitution. It was written
back in the days when most members could easily be pigeon-holed
as journalists (active members) or public
information officers (associates). Was he supposed to change his
membership status every time he accepted a new assignment?
I dusted off the constitution and discovered that it didn't
represent the NASW of today. In addition to sexist language and
other anachronisms, it simply didn't acknowledge that science
writing has changed a great deal since NASW was founded in 1934.
To be sure, NASW is thriving today as never before, with nearly
two thousand members. Our secret? We had simply ignored
the constitution and adopted practices that made sense for modern
times. I had promised that puzzled member that, as president,
I would straighten out the constitution. At first I assembled
a small committee, expecting the work to be a fairly simple task.
But, as I've mentioned in previous columns, the discussion turned
out to be an exercise in honest soul-searching. Who are science
writers these days? And what is the purpose of NASW?
I am very pleased to report that, after much toil, your elected board has answered those questions. I've codified that long, sometimes difficult, discussion in the form of a new constitution. And I'm pleased to say this document comes remarkably close to a consensus. So who are we? Well, NASW is no longer primarily composed of staff journalists. According to one count, the staff science reporters are now about one-fifth of the membership. More than a third of the members are freelancers. Many of them produce material for mainstream media outlets such as magazines, newspapers. Others employ the standards of journalism to write and produce books. And, apparently, most of them also do science writing that's not outright promotional, but that isn't exactly journalism, either: technical reports, brochures, museum exhibits, ghostwriting and so on. Even the members who are primarily employed at university news offices and companies to write press releases and represent those institutions to the public aren't just doing that, either. Many of those folks are also doing some journalism on the side (surely they are not writing about the institutions that pay their salaries).
Yet the members of the NASW board agreed that the roots of
journalism still run deep in the organization. We felt strongly
that our purpose should continue to be to inform the public "in
keeping with the highest standards of journalism." We all
know that newspapers and networks are no longer the public's sole
source of news and information. And many of our members are
pioneering those new information trade routes. Yet even out in
the Wild West of the World Wide Web, though, there is still a
strong argument to be made for journalistic principles. Members
of this organization, regardless of their employer, should still
be dedicated to providing information with an even hand, and with
clear disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest, so readers,
surfers, listeners or viewers can judge for themselves the source
of their information.
Translating this vision into a new constitution means making some significant changes in our organizational structure. We ultimately decided that, since our members represent a continuous spectrum of jobs, there was no point in continuing to have an "A" list and a "B" list. (Many an argument over where to draw that magic line spiraled into the vortex of Charybdis.) Instead, the new constitution recognizes that we are all simply Members. Gone are Active and Associate.
To recognize our journalistic roots -- and our continued journalistic standards -- we have instituted special requirements for the four officers. A substantial majority of their science writing activities must be journalism. In addition, at least four of the 11 other board members must also meet this definition. This assures a strong journalistic voice on the board, and assures a steady pool of board members who can be promoted to officer. In addition, members whose work is primarily journalism also have, in essence, veto power over future constitutional amendments.
An essential part of NASW's character is our volunteerism.
In order to preserve that spirit, we decided that it would be
incompatible to have officers who, as part of their jobs, are
paid to develop and nurture professional relationships with other
members of NASW (i.e., journalists).To avoid this, officers may
not write press releases or otherwise be paid
to affect the professional work of other members of NASW.
There are many smaller changes in the constitution, as well. Most all of them simply codify what has become familiar and common practice. Please look over this document and reflect on the shape of your profession today. This fall, all Active members of NASW will get a ballot to vote on these changes. Consensus-seeking can be an excruciating task. Just ask anybody on the board. But it's exhilarating to reach a decision that suits so many divergent needs in NASW. I'm proud of the leadership that you have elected. Your board has developed a constitution for modern times. It's an honest representation of who we are. And, considering what it says about us, I am pleased to be a part of NASW.
Richard Harris
Return to ScienceWriters table of contents.