Editor's note: The following exchange of correspondence took place as part of NASW's continuing efforts to protect the contractual rights of its membership:
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.,
The New York Times
229 W. 43 St.
New York, N.Y 1003
13 November, 1995
Dear Mr. Sulzberger:
The National Association of Science Writers, representing 3,000 science and medical journalists in North America, is both appalled and surprised at the Times' policy of requiring work-for-hire contracts of its freelance writers.
We are appalled that the Times of all publications, which values and esteems writers (and is esteemed by them), would put together a policy that threatens the traditional relationships between writers and publishers. Essentially the Times is insisting on publishing articles at will without having the decency of paying for it.
We are surprised because the reasons given for the change in policy, the advent of new publishing technologies, shows a complete misunderstanding of the technology. You clearly didn't talk to your own reporters. There is no reason why the Times needs work-for-hire contracts in order to compete with the new technology; there is no reason why the Times cannot publish stories when and where it wishes and pay its writers fairly. With the creation of the national Author's Registry, the reason given for this new policy is even more specious. The music industry has been faced with the same kinds of innovations and has had no problems paying artists fairly. Why can't you?
We expected better things of the New York Times. We urge you to reconsider a policy that is as unfair as it is unnecessary.
Sincerely,
LAURIE GARRETT
President, National Association of Science Writers
(reply)
January 19, 1996
Ms. Laurie Garrett, President
National Association of Science Writers, Inc.
PO Box 294
Greenlawn, NY 11740
Dear Ms. Garrett,
Thank you for writing to The New York Times to share your thoughts with us about our decision concerning electronic rights for freelance writers.
We appreciate hearing your point of view and have recently met to consider our policy again. We feel comfortable with it. We believe that as we explore our role in these still uncharted waters, this is the right approach for us to take.
I do want to point out that the new contract for Times writers does not reflect a change in policy in terms of syndication rights. We will continue to share syndication payments with writers. Similarly, aside from the section on electronic rights, this contract contains the "boiler plate" we have used for years.
Sincerely,
Dennis Stern
Associate Managing Editor
Monday, January 29, 1996
Given how much griping we have done in Sec 14 about (1) publishers and (2) the e-rights tangle, I would just like to report the following FABULOUS AND NOVEL EVENT, and nominate as EDITORIAL SAINT OF THE YEAR: ***BIOSCIENCE MAGAZINE, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES*** which *!!!!!called me and ASKED me to send an invoice!!!!!* for two-year e-rights to a piece of mine on the infamous crime-and-genes meeting, which appeared in the Jan 1996 issue. They want to post it on their web site, but I was so touched and moved (to say nothing of startled and astounded) that I am throwing in DB rights too.
Way to go, guys!
--Tammy [Tabitha Powledge]
They also did the same for a couple of research updates that I wrote for BioScience. So I'd like to jump on Tammy's bandwagon, and second the motion.
--Harvey Black
January 5, 1996
What a wonderful idea: a manual on science writing written by the workers in the field. Mary Knudson and Deborah Blum deserve a chapter of kudos for their inspiration to organize this work.
Imagine my disappointment, then, when I examined the chapter headings. Out of 32 topics, three concern themselves with broadcast journalism; out of 37 writers, three come from broadcast journalism. That layout ignores three facts:
1. Survey after survey reveals that 65 percent of the population gets most of its news from television.
2. Most big journalism schools have all the technical equipment needed to teach the craft and most of their students want to go into broadcast journalism.
3. We have a distinguished cadre of television science journalists whose expertise and experience have not been tapped by this seminal work. Leaving aside my fifty years in print journalism and broadcasting, we have Bob Bazell, Ph.D. biochemistry, NBC; Frank Field, trained in meteorology and optometry, a science reporter for almost 40 years, formerly NBC, CBS and now Channel 5, New York; Storm Field, Frank's son, 15 years in the broadcast medium, also trained in meteorology and optometry, formerly Channel 7, now Channel 2, New York; Michael Guillen, Ph.D. physics, now at ABC out of Boston; Max Gomez, Ph.D. in biochemistry, 15 years in broadcasting, now Channel 2, New York; Peter Salgo, M.D., 12 years, now Channel 2, New York, practicing anesthesiologist; and let's not leave out the men and women at NOVA, the premiere science television in the United States. And something new: medical doctors invading the broadcast territory: Art Ulene, M.D.; Tim Johnson, M.D.; plus many more I haven't listed.
Now if you dip into the NASW membership directory you will find few people from the television business. Roger Field, formerly of WBBM-TV, Chicago, now at the Daily News, New York, and Bob Bazell and I seem to be the only ones. Perhaps there are others.
NASW doesn't mean anything to my broadcast colleagues. You will find few of them writing for ScienceWriters. We don't attend meetings very much; we cannot do our work unless we have a camera and the other paraphernalia we need. Somebody called it our one-ton pencil. Certainly there is little about the programs sponsored by CASW and NASW that could capture broadcasters. For example, although we at CASW have talked much about sponsoring programs for television reporters, we never had one. That was left to SIPI (Scientists Institute for Public Information), which assembled a classy consortium of scientists to brief broadcast news directors on the road ahead. Now SIPI is all but out of business--they could not raise money to continue.
I think it's all of a piece. We--NASW and CASW --don't attract television broadcasters because we don't have programs for them. And because we do not have the pheromones to attract them, they don't join us. And finally since there are so few on our rolls, NASW and CASW don't work up programs for them am.
So I think that this latest effort merely reflects the facts of life for a science broadcaster and what is important to us.
There are vast differences between print and broadcast, although we all strive for accuracy, strong news content, and stylish presentations. Broadcasting is multi-modal, about as rich in method and attack as print journalism.
There's the daily reporter, investigations, commentary reporting, the exhaustive documentary, the emotional content of picture, the magazine program (probably the best invention of the 1960's by 60 Minutes--putting it in the most popular top ten for two decades), science discussion shows (didn't last long) although economics, week-end science chat can be seen in some markets. Radio still lives. There is much more.
If the proposed were intended for print journalists alone, then I have no argument. But this is a text that will be used in academic environments. It could present a warped picture.
I hope the selected authors will do it justice.
Earl Ubell, New York NY