A presentation on presidential press policies graduated into angry accusations of racism today during an annual convention of media scholars being held in Denver.
In June, the 98-year-old Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) issued a resolution calling on President Barack Obama to demand greater access and transparency between government officials and the media.
However, many in the AEJMC community felt the organization neglected to adequately research the opinions of its members, particularly those from minority groups before voting on the resolution. During the Presidents and the Press panel, moderated by AEJMC President Carol J. Pardun of the University of South Carolina, some of the 2,100 people gathered in Denver for the conference rose to scold the association.
“The damage has been done. And unfortunately the damage has been done to members of the AEJMC,” said Sandra Combs of Arkansas State University in Jonesboro.
Combs was one of a half dozen audience members in the audience of about 40 who voiced similar opinion at the panel discussion, designed to discuss journalists’ roles in covering the Oval Office.
Some said they felt the AEJMC’s resolution had less to do with the demand for access and more to do with the country’s struggle with accepting a black president.
Phil Jeter, a panelist and chairman of the mass communication department at Winston Salem State University, said it was important for journalists to consider history when critiquing an administration’s relationship with the media.
“(Obama is) just continuing the way that other presidents have operated,” Jeter said.
Among Obama’s campaign promises were pledges for greater transparency of government activity and improved access for news media. According to a May 27 report from Fox News, Obama held four press conferences during his first 485 days as president. However, the report noted, “That is equal to the total number that his last three predecessors combined had held by the same point in their first terms.”
Pardun, who did not attempt to curb the debate, said afterwards, “We were naïve in forging ahead.” AEJMC leadership approved the resolution, she said, “because Obama had specifically said he would be the most transparent president. The statement was made to call for stronger access for journalists. Hindsight is everything.”
During the debate, other AEJMC members were less apologetic.
“(There was) discussion a year ago, two years ago about what role AEJMC should play. And that was for a representative of all of us and all of our journalism that we teach,” said panelist Charles Bierbauer, dean of the College of Mass Communication at the University of South Carolina and former CNN senior White House correspondent. “Should we be silent and docile or should we have a voice on the issues that matter to the things that we teach about? It wasn’t about whether we should criticize the Obama Administration.”
“President Bush was probably the low point of access to information,” said Sandra Chance, a panelist and journalism professor at the University of Florida. “President Obama promised a change and made a commitment to that. We’re still hopeful that that promise will be kept.
“The statistics about the level of information that is coming from his office and federal agencies has not showed a marked improvement over what was happening under President Bush and that’s a disappointment for all of us.”
