Deborah Blum BLUM PHOTO: PHOTO BY KRISTEN JALOVIAR, EXPRESS PORTRAITS

PRESIDENT’S LETTER

by Deborah Blum

NASW recently joined 75 organizations (24 of them representing journalists) in signing a letter to Tom Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security. The letter and comments from OMB Watch are reprinted here.

I want to emphasize both how important it is that we join in such efforts and that the need to do should serve as a reminder that science journalists need to be part of the fight to protect public access to information.

With that in mind, NASW has a new and active FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) committee, chaired by Glennda Chui of the San Jose Mercury News. Other members include Kelli Whitlock, The Whitehead Institute; Carol Ezzell, Scientific American; Earle Holland, Ohio State University; Geoff Harvey, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; and Russ Clemings, the Fresno Bee. I also sit on this committee in an advisory capacity.

I’m including here a report from Glennda Chui about the committee’s activities:

The FOIA committee has been consulting with various groups with an eye to working together on other projects. The Society of Environmental Journalists has one of the most advanced efforts. The group’s Web site, www.sej.org/foia/index.htm, has a tip sheet reporting developments on the freedom-of-information front, and allows members to report instances of stonewalling by government agencies.

SEJ president Dan Fagin says they’d be happy to let NASW link to this portion of their Web site. We’re planning to meet with the SEJ folks at the AAAS meeting in Seattle to talk about possible joint projects. They’ve also offered to help with a panel Mitch Waldrop is organizing for the NASW workshops: "Science, Security, Privacy: How Increased Security Concerns Affect Science Journalism.’’

SEJ is also planning to survey its members to see if they’ve been having trouble getting the information they need. We’ll take a look at their survey and see if it can be adapted to the needs of our membership. We’ve also been in touch with Suzanne Havala Hobbs, who will be heading an FOIA committee for the Association of Health Care Journalists and is eager to work with us.

Finally, we’re considering expanding the committee and making each member responsible for keeping in touch with one other group that is active on this issue—for instance, the Association of Health Care Journalists, SPJ, The Association of Newspaper Editors, or the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The Reporters Committee released a white paper in March on how the war on terrorism affects access to information; it’s at www.rcfp.org/homefrontconfidential/.

I’d like to note that the committee recently sent out a request on NASW-announce asking members to contact them if they’ve had any problems in accessing previously public documents of information. So far they’ve received only a few responses—notably concerning NIH management of news. I hope that all of you will let us know if you have encountered difficulties and if we can help.

At the 2003 AAAS meeting, rumors circulated that new, restrictive press registration standards would be put in place starting with the 2004 meeting. While assured by Ginger Pinholster, director of AAAS Public Programs, that it would be business as usual in Seattle, questions have continued. I’ve now heard from several freelancers who had, in fact, been rejected on first application to the 2004 newsroom.

I raised the issue with Ginger via e-mail and phone. But as more members contacted me and the board, it became clear that a face-to-face meeting was needed to make sure we had accurate information before the Seattle meeting.

The board discussed the issues and on Sept. 5, NASW Executive Director Diane McGurgan and I traveled to Washington D.C. We met that evening with board members Nancy Shute, Beryl Benderley, and Kathryn Brown, former NASW President Joe Palca, and Steve Maran, press officer for the American Astronomical Society. The purpose of that meeting was to review our questions and options. Steve provided context on the way other science organizations handle press operations.

The following morning, Diane, Kathryn, Nancy, and I met with AAAS representatives. Ginger was very accommodating in setting up the meeting and responding to our questions. She said her concern is to make sure that the registration process accommodates “bona fide journalists” in order to “maintain journalistic integrity in the pressroom.”

In pursuit of this, AAAS has altered its registration requirements for freelancers. An NASW membership card and/or a letter from an assigning editor are considered supporting evidence, but in order to obtain registration, freelancers need to submit two clips—in publications deemed acceptable by AAAS—published within the previous six months.

When informed that this is a hard-and-fast rule, we pointed out that it might penalize new science writers, who have yet to build up a clip portfolio and writers who are submerged in a book deadline. Ginger allowed that the process is open to common sense appeal. Her advice to freelancers is to apply early (I would say “now” is the operative word). If you are turned down, make your appeal directly to Ginger by e-mail (not phone) at gpinhols@aaas.org.

Staff writers at magazines, newspapers, news services, etc. will have no problems with press registration. Neither will PIOs. Contrary to an earlier rumor, PIOs are not required to accompany a presenting scientist in order to get credentials. Ginger said the “unspoken” limit is three public information officers per institution, although that limit is loosely enforced.

Finally, book editors are not considered by AAAS as part of the journalistic process but rather “professional development” people. Ginger said this has been a long-standing written policy, although earlier newsroom directors used their own judgment in allowing press credentials for editors of popular science books. She intends, however, to enforce the policy from now on. To be fair, most science societies do not offer book editors press registration.

Discussion between the NASW board and AAAS continued for several more weeks and finally a compromise was reached. All NASW members who are registered attendees, panelists, or organizers at the NASW workshops will be automatically given AAAS press credentials. This includes book editors but not non-members who are speakers or attendees.

This is a one-time fix for the Seattle meeting.

Following the Seattle meeting, we will form a working group of NASW and AAAS representatives to address the bigger issues involved and—we trust—come up with some intelligent guidelines before the 2005 meeting.

I want to emphasize several points in closing:

During the years that we have met concurrent with AAAS, the association has maintained a first-class press operation and been a gracious host to NASW. AAAS has the right to set its own press registration standards—it’s their meeting. And in many ways, they are aligning it with the approach of other societies. Nevertheless, this does raise some issues for our own annual meeting, and the board will be studying those questions in the months ahead. I am happy to hear opinions from the rest of you on this subject.

#

Deborah Blum is a freelance writer and professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin. She can be reached at dblum@wisc.edu.