A national journalism organization displayed its hypocrisy last week when it retired an award named after Helen Thomas.
The Society of Professional Journalists’ board of directors voted Friday to retire the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award. Thomas, a White House Press Corp veteran, was the first to receive the honor, which began in 1990.
The award was retired because of comments the 90-year-old Thomas made that were thought anti-Semitic. The organization’s officials first considered renaming the award, but later decided to retire it.
I do not condone racism. I also do not share many of Thomas’s views. Journalists (and citizens in general) say and do many things with which I do not agree. I do, however, support their rights to express their views freely. I thought SPJ supported that same First Amendment. Perhaps I was mistaken. Maybe SPJ only supports views with which they (or at least the board) agree.
According to a statement on SPJ.org:
“A prominent objection to taking any action was that of Helen Thomas’ free speech rights. SPJ staunchly believes Helen Thomas and all people in the United States have a right to free speech. The Society defends that fundamental legal right as a core organizational mission, even when the speech is unpopular, vile or considered offensive.
However, the controversy surrounding this award has overshadowed the reason it exists. To continue offering the award would reignite the controversy each year and take away from its purpose: honoring a lifetime of work in journalism. No individual worthy of such honor should have to face this controversy. No honoree should have to decide if the possible backlash is worth being recognized for his or her contribution to journalism.”
This seems like a “cop out.” Thomas’s comments, however ill considered, do not negate her achievements in journalism. Thomas was the first woman in the White House Press Corp. She has aggressively covered every president since Eisenhower. Thomas’s willingness to ask the tough questions, however unpopular in government circles, is one of the reasons she is lauded as an exceptional journalist. Her outspokenness has made Thomas worthy of honor. Now, at the end of her life, the same character trait is being used to negate years of exceptional journalism.
Winning an award with Thomas’s name attached still is an honor to the recipient. Any recipient who isn’t willing to be associated with the award doesn’t deserve it, not vice versa.
I think many of us, myself included, now must consider our association with an organization that claims one thing and then does another.
How should current SPJ members and regional officers (myself included) respond to the board’s decision?
For those of you in Oklahoma, how would you like me, as a member of our board, to respond (or not)?
