If you’ve belonged to NASW for any time at all, you know that its oldest and hottest policy issue, even older and hotter than Mac vs. PC, is how to classify members.
Legend has it that NASW was begun largely by newspapermen many decades ago, and they wanted to keep that emphasis. So to the extent that this often-anarchic group possesses organizational machinery, said machinery has remained largely in the hands of science journalists with full-time staff jobs, almost always as reporters and almost always on newspapers. Science writers who do public relations are welcome as “associate” rather than “active” members, as are science-writing teachers, but at present they can vote only for the few slots on the board reserved for associates and may not hold office.
Here is the definition of active membership from the present NASW constitution (find it at http://nasw.org/const.htm, or link to it from the top of NASW’s main public page at http://nasw.org/): “Active membership shall be restricted to those persons principally engaged in the preparation and interpretation of science news... through all media normally devoted to informing the public; and shall foster the interpretation of science and its meaning to society, in keeping with the highest standards of journalism... provided that no person shall be admitted to active membership whose efforts are primarily directed to the promotion of a product or an organization.”
That’s where the trouble begins, and where it has always begun. The trigger this time was a debate over a new constitution for NASW. The issue was described in Richard Harris’s president’s letter and in Howard Lewis’s ensuing summary of an e-mail discussion among board members, both published in the last issue of SW (Spring 1997, pp. 17-18).
Richard’s letter and the summary were exceptionally low-key documents that did not reflect the tone of what I am told was a fairly fiery board discussion. (I am not on the board, so this is from reliable sources, guys. Well, pretty reliable.) Which is probably why they provoked no response until Mary Knudson, an officer and a freelance, drew people’s attention to the issue on the freelance mailing list over the summer.
One of those who jumped in was Earle Holland, director of science communications at Ohio State, a long-time member. Nobody has ever posed the ancient associate-vs.-active issue better. But he added a twist that made the debate of compelling interest to freelances:
“PIOs have historically been labeled as something approaching prostitutes in that they — we — are paid by an institution, a university, or whatever. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter how good the science writing is that’s done by these folks since they’re all in the pay of some plotting entity out to deceive the public (excuse the emphasis, please). That meant that writers at universities who do no PR work, no hawking stories, or spinning the news, were still tainted ‘cause they worked for XYZ University.
“I initially made the comparison that if the determinant is who signs the paycheck, then we ought to look at our freelance membership since by the very nature of the beast, freelancers are trying to earn a living and often do science writing for non-traditional outlets. If that is true — which we all admit it is — then freelancers who accept pay from those same or similar institutions should be viewed in the same way those PIOs are seen.
“That’s the logic, folks, and I think it remains simple and clear: If we’re gonna classify one group of members based on who pays their checks, then we ethically have to judge all our members that way. How can an organization built on journalistic standards which most of us, anyway, work like hell to uphold, operate under a double standard?”
In his SW letter, Richard laid out a couple of possibilities for dealing with this double standard. One is to retain the present two broad classifications, but add a bunch of subcategories (he suggested author, instructor, PIO, corporate publicist) as a way of “sharpening the distinction between actives and associates.” He then added a sentence that rankled many: “One result may be that freelancers might have to submit more detailed information each year to assure that they are being placed in the correct categories.”
One dilemma is that there seems to be no rational way to sort out the potential categories. Suppose we do impose a periodic requirement that freelances can qualify for active membership (and for holding office) only by producing evidence that they write for “media normally devoted to informing the public.” This will require a number of additional decisions, each preceded (and probably followed) by acrimony.
For example:
And then there’s the biggie: Why should freelances alone be required to demonstrate whatever credentials we eventually can agree upon, assuming we can? Why not everybody who wants to be an active member?
To illustrate that conundrum, here are some actual examples, drawn not from among freelances but full-time staffers:
The arguments against choosing Richard’s first alternative of several categories are many. Not sufficiently discouraged by the thought of trying to come to agreement on issues such as those above? Then you may want to consider the ensuing NASW civil war, or the prospect of plummeting membership and its lost revenue, or the horrendous administrative burden it would impose on Diane McGurgan and the unlucky committee members saddled with the job of evaluation.
Richard’s second suggestion is on its face fairer-sounding: do away with categories and make us all simply “members.” But it comes with a corollary that robs it of whatever democratizing virtue it appears at first to possess: “In order to maintain NASW’s identity as an organization dedicated to science journalism, all officers would be required to be working journalists [staff or freelance]. And journalists would remain a guaranteed majority on the board.”
As far as I can see, there are only two potential advantages to this second plan, and on examination both are illusory. First, it might reduce the feelings of second-class citizenship among many PIOs and others who do PR. But it wouldn’t truly affect their status. Former associate members who yearned to run for office would continue to be barred by the same old two-tier system. Some of us pigs would still be more equal than others. What a surprise.
A second advantage is that it would ease somewhat the administrative sweat of classifying members. But eliminate it? No, indeed. The classification requirement would simply be moved to a different venue, becoming the hot potato for the nominating committee rather than the membership committee. We would still need to hash out beforehand all those impossible decisions about what credentials make someone a “real” journalist because the requirements would have to appear in the new constitution or its bylaws. And can you imagine the pandemonium if the scrutiny wasn’t applied equally to every candidate for NASW office, not just freelances?
For me, those are the main issues. But we will probably have to vote on this stuff some day, and you may feel you need more. Cybrarian (and freelance) Bob Finn has kindly archived the summer’s e-mail discussion on its own special page (very long, he warns) at the NASW web site: http://nasw.org/NASW/constish.htm. It is available only to NASW members with nasw.org usernames and passwords. Those fortunates will be privy to a complete array of clarifications, permutations, modifications, suggestions, opinions, recommendations, and heartfelt declarations.
But here’s some brief good sense from this lengthy discussion, via freelance Jeff Hecht: “We freelancers should identify our business as primarily journalism/writing or primarily PR. Yes, that depends on individual responsibility and honesty — but I don’t think the stakes are so high that people would have much incentive to fudge. Trying to make too many distinctions invites endless debate over membership qualifications, which is useful only in frittering away otherwise productive time.”
In short, we should make no changes in the present membership classifications. We have been around this track many times over the decades, but have always come out in the same place. There’s a reason why: For all its absurdities, the present system is serviceable—and the alternatives are much worse. Freelance committee chairman Joel Shurkin put the point pithily: “It’s not broke. Leave it the hell alone.”
So you wangled this assignment, and now you have to unearth tame experts to quote. But you don’t know the topic well and aren’t sure where to begin. Or you know some of the experts but want to find more. You need a free expert-finding service.
I test-drove three of them earlier this year while researching a moderately arcane topic: New World archaeological sites more than 10,000 years old. It was a trick question of sorts because there aren’t many, which I knew going in. I expected few responses, but I wanted to be sure I wasn’t ignoring an important site.
I got the only results—three hits, two of them on target—from the newest service, which is at NewsWise. One response, a particularly useful one, came in less than a day and the other two within a week. This site for reporters is run by NASW member Roger Johnson, http://www.newswise.com, and I’ll describe some of its other features in a later column. NewsWise’s expert-finding services include business experts as well as experts in science and medicine.
ProfNet’s elaborate and well-organized service has been around for some years and is probably known to many of you. I have used it in the past with some success, so I was a little surprised to get no responses at all this time. I assume that was because my request was exceptionally peculiar. Submit your query by e-mail (profnet@profnet.com), phone (1-800-PROFNET or, if you are numerate, 1-800-776-3638), or fax (1-516-689-1425). There is also a web site, http://www.profnet.com, that provides details about the service and a searchable database of experts.
The Media Resource Service is not new either. Formerly part of the Scientists Institute for Public Information, it now can be reached from EurekAlert, http://www.eurekalert.org/restricted/experts/experts.html. Finding U.S. experts is sponsored by Sigma Xi, and in the U.K. and western Europe by the Ciba Foundation. I posted my request on the web site, but heard nothing for more than a week. Then came an apologetic phone call from a Sigma Xite, affable but not quite sure where to start. We both floundered a bit, and I ended up asking him to try to locate phone numbers for a couple of specialists whose names had turned up in my reading. I got an e-mail a few days later saying he couldn’t find them. Is this perhaps the beta version?
The services are similar in some respects. First, they are free. Their experts come chiefly from academe, but also medical centers, national labs, associations, and just about any other place where experts dwell. For NewsWise and MRS, I filled out a form with my specs at the web site; for ProfNet, I sent e-mail. Making the request was easy to do in all three cases. If you’re on a tight deadline, you can say so and hurry things up.
NewsWise and ProfNet acknowledged my request within a few hours via e-mail, a reassuring touch. You can usually specify that your responses from PIOs come by e-mail too, leaving the decision to make contact or not entirely in your hands. (I send a thank-you note even when I’m not interested, but that’s my mother’s doing. And who knows, some day I might be interested.)
There doesn’t seem to be much risk with these requests that you’ll have to fend off rabid self-promoters. I’ve certainly been directed to experts who weren’t right for a story, but I have yet to be lobbied, and I’ve never heard such a tale from anyone else either.
You will have already observed that there was nothing at all scientific about my minisurvey. Not only may your mileage vary, it almost certainly will, depending on your query. The lesson, if any, is that when setting off into science-writing seas unknown, it probably makes sense to fling your message-in-a-bottle at more than one service. It’s very little work, and those of us who’ve used them can report occasions when one of them unearthed just the right expert at just the right moment.
Just after I turned in my last column, which described features of this AAAS web site, we all got a mailing announcing the new, improved version 2.0 So while we’re talking about finding experts, in addition to MRS (described equivocally above) and “Science Sources” (commended last issue), the site now contains additional links to various lists of experts.
There’s also a new Reference Desk with links to authorities ranging from “Pharmacy Tradenames” to “Solar Physics Glossary.” Also three medical dictionaries, and I certainly plan to snack on the “Carnivorous Plant Dictionary.”
But the biggest improvement is that you can now get periodic digests of new press releases posted to the site sent to you by e-mail, as many other sites and journals and PIOs have been doing for ages. EurekAlert Express provides separate e-mailings of embargoed and non-embargoed release summaries. Oddly, they contain no information about where and when the research is to be published.
Although you are supposed to be able to custom-tailor what release digests you get, you’re limited to three subject keywords from a canned list. That’s not nearly enough for most of us. The only other choice is “all,” which is, believe me, a surfeit. True customization would be delightful. I await v. 2.1 with the traditional bated breath.
Freelance Tabitha M. Powledge can be reached by email: tam@nasw.org.