One of the proudest moments of my professional career was the day I was elected president of ASNE. The day I would follow in the footsteps of some of the editors I had so long admired and studied and hoped that I could, in some small way, emulate.
Listen to the names of some who had served in that role: William Allen White, Jack Knight, Turner Catledge, Lee Hills, Vermont Royster, Norman Issacs, Warren Phillips, Gene Patterson, John Quinn, Kay Fanning, Ed Cony, John Seigenthaler, Dave Lawrence, Seymour Topping. And many others since 1922.
It also was a frightening moment. There was and is no organization for editors in the world better than ASNE.
And now my friend and colleague, Roy Peter Clark, a man of charm and wit, wants to change that which our heroes who came before us, and those who came after us, have built.
Can ASNE be improved? Absolutely. I don’t think there is an officer or a member who would disagree.
Should we expand our membership? There is no age limit, young or old, for membership, only that you be a directing editor. And that includes those at the department head level. In l988, ASNE reached its all-time high of 1,010 members. This spring, there were 850 members. Dues in 1996 were $500. Dues in 2001 are $550, hardly a huge increase. ASNE has lowered the barriers of entry through the years. When it was created, I am sure there weren’t any assistant managing editors or Washington Bureau Chiefs, or syndicate editors in the mix.
And if attendance at the 2001 convention is the criterion by which we are going to be judged, then NAA, APME, the minority journalism associations, the advertising, marketing, circulation, production and financial directors, the ombudsmen, sports editors, editorial writers, and any others I missed, are in jeopardy of being found guilty as charged.
Should ASNE and APME merge? I have long advocated that position and I know many leaders in both organizations agree. A serious effort was made last year to start the process with a proposal of a national ASNE convention and regional APME conventions, plus some joint committee work. But the APME board nixed the idea. I am sure the board acted for what it believed to be good reasons. My fear is that if they don’t merge someday, the publishers will tire of paying for both and attempt to package them as one federation under the NAA umbrella. That would be a tragic mistake.
Can ASNE expand its power and its influence? I first became a member in 1970 and I can’t remember a year when any leader or any board stopped fighting on behalf of our values. That’s what we have done and, I believe, still do better than anyone. But ASNE is not and should not be the only lobby for journalism excellence. Its main power is persuasion. It has a bully pulpit, not a Billy club, and because of that the more voices, the better. And I don’t know under whose banner this lobby for profit is consolidating.
Can ASNE blow down the walls of Wall Street? No. But it can continue to make the case that quality journalism is good business. That the current business rules are alien to those that have been our guides in the past. That we have to maintain our focus on the value of news and not be mesmerized by bottom line numbers. That those in the newsroom and those on the business side have to find a way to communicate better across their differences.
I also would argue that much of the progress made in areas such as journalism values, credibility, diversity, change, ethics, readership, local news, journalism education, FOI (freedom of information), leadership and several others are the result of ASNE’s committee work. There is much more to be done in all of these areas, especially diversity, and ASNE must continue to preach loud and long until the bells ring in every newspaper corporate office in the land.
ASNE needs to seek alliances, as it has many times. It needs to be involved with citizens as it was during its multi-year credibility study. It needs to strengthen its financial underpinnings so we are not always asking for money come convention time. It needs to have more distinguished service members such as Roy, who are thoughtful and bright and share the kind of experience that will enrich the organization’s public service work. There are 17 distinguished service members now. And I am truly pleased that Roy was elected at the convention when I was president. It also needs to engage its retired members in more activities. These are men and women with wisdom and experience that would benefit us all.
But at its core, I believe ASNE should remain exactly what it is: a society for directing editors.
As for that new leadership structure. I am a great admirer of Sandy Rowe, as well as some others I think could fill the presidential role Roy suggested, but I also am aware of the budget limitations and what it would take to attract such enormous talent. And would it automatically make a huge difference?
Every president I have known, including Sandy, has worked extremely hard and long to advance the cause of excellence in journalism. Some more than others, but none less than Herculean. I traveled 130,000 miles evangelizing when I was president. Check the travel records of most presidents and they will produce the same evidence. I believe we all tried as hard as any full-time president would or could.
No one clapped louder when Jay Harris spoke than I did. One of the messages he mentioned in his speech came from me. I, like so many others, am proud of him and what he stands for. But I disagree that his was the only convention note to cheer.
I heard Tim McGuire’s call for action on readership and his later eloquent acceptance of the presidency in which he announced the creation of a special committee to assist editors dealing with the tough times in real time. I heard him say that it’s time for us to create our own futures, that we cannot continue to let things be done to us.
I heard Rich Oppel speak of leadership. I listened to the minutes on courage, those from the past and the ones from the present. I took notes on the readership study. I heard the good words at the writing workshop. And there were a number of others.
No, many editors may not have the same power some editors once had, but does that make them any less capable, any less ethical, any less committed, any less dedicated? I think not.
I grow weary of those on the outside, not Roy, who assign monetary motives to editors for allegedly not fighting harder or for not walking away from their jobs, as an act of defiance against the pressures applied by too many CEOs in partnership with Wall Street. Sure, there are MBOs and other bonuses, some based on earnings. But as one editor I know told his publisher, “So we all lose our bonuses. I don’t care. That’s a hell of a lot better than any alternative.” The critics need to listen and they will hear more of those conversations.
I see no evidence from Roy, or from some of our other friends who suggest we change, to support the statement that ASNE’s values are at risk. Are we in the middle of tough times? Yes. Is ASNE slinking away in the face of adversity? No.
Maybe we do need to gather around the campfire again and feel its wonderful warmth and gain a sense of renewal. But unlike the “good old days” of 1922, there would be women editors and editors of color present.
And for that, I say, “Hallelujah. Hallelujah.”
