As you might have heard by now, SPJ's board voted 14-7 to "retire" a lifetime achievement award named after Helen Thomas, a longtime D.C. Pro member and a member of our chapter Hall of Fame. (Read about the decision at the national SPJ website.)
I recently asked D.C. Pro members what they thought of the decision. Six people responded. Their comments are below.
On a related note: On March 15, Thomas is scheduled to speak at the 2011 College Media Advisers conference in New York City. She will be interviewed by former SPJ President Christine Tatum, who has criticized SPJ's retirement of the Thomas award.
Former SPJ board member Michael Koretzky, an organizer of the conference, has invited any SPJ member who wants to hear Thomas speak to attend that session for free. More information is available at http://nyc.collegemedia.org.
Andy Schotz, President, Washington, D.C., Pro chapter, SPJ
Members of D.C. Pro had opinions about the decision to retire the Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement because of comments she made about Israel. Here are a few:
"Not a fan of the decision to retire the Helen Thomas award. I think it's tantamount to censorship. Had she made similar remarks about Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Kashmir, or a number of other places in the world where there is some form of territorial dispute, no one would have raised an eyebrow. But, when a columnist is thrown under the bus for making controversial comments, what message does that send to other journalists?
"I don't necessarily agree with what she said or how she said it, but I think this circling of the wagons against her is a disservice to the profession of journalism and I frankly think it was a somewhat cowardly decision on the part of SPJ."
Sean D. Carberry, Senior Correspondent, America Abroad, Washington, DC
"The retirement of the Helen Thomas award, in my opinion, smacks of censorship and caving in to the 'bullying' for which the Israel Lobby is infamous. There is also no indication that SPJ's national president, as an Israeli native, recused herself from the decision-making process, which should have happened considering her own obvious conflicts-of-interest.
"This was a very bad decision that will have dire consequences for press freedom, especially since nations around the world happen to agree with Helen and are lining up to recognize Palestine within those 1967 borders to which Helen was referring when she said the occupiers of which should return from whence they came.
Wayne Madsen, Editor, www.WayneMadsenReport, Arlington, Va.
"I was disturbed to read about the Board action regarding Helen Thomas.
"Yes, the remarks were definitely intemperate, but to throw out her entire body of work — on which the award was based — seems over the top.
"Many male journalists in top ranks have said some very offensive things — and continue to do so — and they are not lambasted in this way.
"I also think that no one in America can make ANY comment on Israel, without being suspect, and that is wrong. As I said, her remarks were inappropriate. But the American media in general is not neutral in our Middle Eastern debates, nor is either political party. And that is not good for national discourse.
"It is interesting to see Middle Eastern newspapers and columnists criticize the USA because of our hamstrung talk and writing about the many controversies that embroil the Middle East, including Israel and Palestine. It has been this way since 1948, and I do not think in my lifetime we will see this change."
Kathy Burns, former D.C. Pro president
"I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision, but it was the right one. While Helen certainly has a right to her views, the controversy over her ill-considered comments tarnishes the award and the SPJ. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."
Tom Pfeifer, TJP Writing Services
"To respond to your question on the Helen Thomas matter, I strongly agree with your excellent column in the most recent Quill. On a related front, I would hope for two things:
- That who supported and opposed the decision is made clear. I see no reason why something like that should be secret.
- That one of the opponents of continuing the award is willing to step forward to discuss the matter at a convenient time here in Washington. I know that an effort is being undertaken by some at the National Press Club in Washington to organize an event on this with Helen Thomas to analyze the kind of message the decision sends. I’m sure SPJ’s national president would be invited but perhaps there’s someone of similar stature closer to this area. "
Andrew Kreig, Executive Director, Justice Integrity Project, Washington, DC
"The Dixiechicking of people has gotten ridiculous. Every week, someone's career is ruined or he's fired because of a politically incorrect remark. Whatever happened to free speech?"
Charles Pekow, Freelance writer
