AEJMC Presidential Statement on First Amendment Rights of Occupy Movement & of Journalists Covering It
Nov. 21, 2011 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) is committed to freedom of speech and the press in the United States and abroad. AEJMC supports citizens’ and journalists’ First Amendment rights in every city and every state, including in participating in the Occupy movement. AEJMC fully supports the Occupy protesters’ freedom of speech and assembly as a whole, and urges that journalists’ right—and responsibility–to cover these important matters of public concern be respected by all law enforcement officials. This is all the more compelling because other countries are closely watching how city, state, and federal governments handle the Occupy movement across the United States.
While recognizing the need for law enforcement officers to maintain public safety, AEJMC encourages public officials and law enforcement officers to work with Occupy participants and journalists covering their protests to ensure that basic constitutional freedoms are maintained and not encroached. The rights to protest and to criticize government are core values enjoying Constitutional protection. Additionally, the press must be allowed to freely communicate to the public information about these important and powerful demonstrations and the ideas they express. AEJMC reminds public officials at every level of government that as a nation we are and should be exceptionally committed to the often tested proposition that, as the Supreme Court of the United States declared in 1964, debates on matters of public concern remain “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”
For further information: Contact Linda Steiner, President, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, 2011-2012
Available at
973-762-6919 (Nov 21-27). After Nov 28: 301-405-2426
AEJMC Supporting FCC’s Proposed Rule Change for Media Transparency
Jan. 12, 2012 | The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), a nonprofit, academic organization of more than 3,600 journalism and mass communication educators, students, and media professionals, is committed to “defend and maintain freedom of communication in an effort to achieve better professional practice and a better informed public.”
AEJMC would like to respond to the October 27, 2011 Federal Communications Commission Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in connection with “the Matter of Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations.”
AEJMC supports the FCC’s important proposed rule change because this would bring closer to reality broadcasters’ transparency in fulfilling their “public-interest obligations” to communities. The rule change would exponentially expand the public’s access to the broadcasters’ “public-inspection files,” now on paper, by requiring them to make them available online. AEJMC applauds the FCC for its overdue effort to “modernize the way television broadcasters inform the public about how they are serving their communities.”
As Steven Waldman, the lead author of the FCC report titled “Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age,” cogently noted in his Columbia Journalism Review article of December 29, 2011, the proposed FCC rule change mandating online access will impose little additional burden to broadcasters, since broadcasters are already required to assemble these materials.
From journalism and mass communication educators’ perspective, AEJMC believes that putting these political files online would enable educators and researchers to better teach and research how the public-owned airwaves have been used for political advertising. Equally important, investigating the broadcasters’ “pay for play” arrangements would be much easier if these records are included in online public files.
AEJMC disagrees with broadcasters that the proposed FCC disclosure regulations could create problems for them in terms of additional cost and manpower from compliance with the regulations. Their objections seem to be more transparency-averse than cost-motivated. For putting the public inspection data online at the FCC would entail little additional cost for the broadcasters.
Professor Jeremy Harris Lipschultz, director of the University of Nebraska-Omaha School of Communication, who for more than twenty years has been sending students in his Media Regulation and Freedom course to inspect local public files, recently said, “Some operations are downright hostile about the current obligation of public inspection during regular office hours.”
In conclusion, AEJMC urges the FCC to err on the side of more transparency, not less, on the part of broadcasters’ obligations for public-file inspections. This is all the more compelling than ever, given that off-line information about the broadcasters’ records for operating TV and radio stations for the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” is more often a case of “practical obscurity.” This should no longer be allowed in the Internet era. The media transparency proposal of the FCC would be one effective way to tackle the physical inertia inherent in the files in the broadcasters’ file cabinets.
To leave a comment about the proposed rule change on the FCC site, go here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=yx8a4 (Enter proceeding number 00-168)
AEJMC Contact Information: Contact Linda Steiner, President, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, 2011-2012
Email:
Phone: 301-405-2426
Top 10 Ways to Get Your Paper Disqualified
By Pat Curtin, University of Oregon
It’s that time of year. We’re all thinking about filing taxes—not to mention submitting our papers for the AEJMC conference. So with tongue firmly in cheek, if you want to ensure your paper is one of the increasing number of papers disqualified each year, just choose one of these 10 ways to put yourself out of the running.
10. Ignore the instructions in the paper call.
Remember that there is a general paper call and a specific one for each division or interest group. Not reading and following the instructions in one or both is a surefire way to have your paper disqualified.
9. Keep all identifying information on your file.
Each year, I put my cursor over a file to open a paper and review it and get the full details of who you are and where you work. While it’s nice to make your acquaintance, however remotely, if I can’t blind review your paper because of identifying file information, it’s disqualified.
8. Make me put on my readers.
Page limits are based on readable type. We all teach; we all know the tricks. Using 9-point font and single or 1.5 line spacing is a sure sign you’re asking for your paper to be disqualified.
7. Cite yourself—explicitly and frequently.
Good for you if you did a pilot study or published earlier work on which this study is building. But just put (Cite withheld for blind review) unless you really want to be disqualified. The same goes for additional data on a web site; don’t give us the URL until blind review is over.
6. Have questions but don’t ask them.
Research chairs are available to answer questions about what constitutes grounds for disqualification, as are members of the Standing Committee on Research. But if you want to be disqualified, don’t ask, and we won’t answer.
5. Think I’m in communication because I don’t do math.
Page limits are page limits. Having a 25-page paper with four page 16s isn’t a 25-page paper. It’s a 28-page one. And I don’t need my fingers to figure that one out.
4. Double dip.
Not sure which division or interest group to submit to? Submitting the same paper to more than one is a great way to have your paper disqualified and not have to continue agonizing over the decision.
3. Recycle.
Coming up a little short this year for submissions? Dusting off a paper already presented at a different conference will also ensure you meet the disqualification bar (student papers presented at AEJMC regionals are the one exception to the rule for most divisions and interest groups. See guidelines.).
2. Jump the gun.
Already sent the paper off for publication review but want to see the sights of DC? Submitting a paper that’s already out for review at a journal is a great way to ensure you miss the White House tour and Smithsonian. Not to mention some really great food.
1. Forget to submit by deadline.
OK, so technically this isn’t a disqualification, but it is a good way to ensure your paper isn’t part of the conference.
We’d actually rather see you all at the conference then have you become a disqualification statistic. It promises to be a great meeting, and we want you to be a part of it. Remember to read all guidelines and rules carefully, and ask questions if you’re not sure.
Tips from the AEJMC Teaching Committee
The Effective Use of Guest Speakers
By Chris Roush
AEJMC Standing Committee on Teaching
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
(Article courtesy of AEJMC News, March 2013 issue)
I’m a big believer in using guest speakers in my classes. I think that they add a different perspective, and I also think that students appreciate hearing from somebody else a couple of times throughout the semester.
I like using guest speakers to talk about topics in which I believe I’m weak. I’m one of those professors who believes in giving the students the best education possible, even if it doesn’t all come out of my mouth.
That said, I’ve also had my fair share of guest speakers who have made it painful for me, and the students, to listen to them talk. They’ve rambled and gotten off topic, or their personality simply was not suited for the classroom. They often use the guest speaker stint as an opportunity to brag about their careers or their companies.
Here are my dos and don’ts when it comes to how to properly and effectively use guest speakers to enrich the learning experience:
DO a background check on the guest speaker. If a professional PR or advertising person from the local community is asking to speak to your students, find out if they’ve ever done any teaching before. Ask them for an overview of what they plan to talk about, or give them the topic and ask them for an outline based on that topic.
DON’T feel the need to accept guest speakers just because they’re visiting the school or are an alum. If they don’t fit into what you’re doing in your class, take a pass even if the dean wants you to use them. My worst memory of a guest speaker was a foreign journalist who was an alumnus. At the end of his talk, the students were openly mocking him because it was clear he didn’t know how to speak to a group.
DO use guest speakers for specific assignments. If you make the students write a story or a report about what the person spoke about, then they won’t consider the guest speaker a chance to loaf and sleep in the back of the class. I regularly bring a CEO into my “Business Reporting” class to speak about his relationship with the media, but I also require students to ask him questions about his company and then write a story.
DON’T overuse guest speakers. During a semester, you’ll have anywhere between 30 to 40 class periods, depending on your university’s calendar. Use no more than three or four guest speakers during a class. I consider class time valuable, and too many guest speakers disrupts the flow of teaching. I use guest speakers after a particularly difficult exercise or right before a paper is due. That gives students some time to breathe and take in what the class is trying to accomplish.
DO find guest speakers who have personalities, or who provide an interesting perspective to your students. In the “Business Reporting” course, I like to invite a public relations executive from a local company. She’s often the first PR person that the students have encountered, and she brings product samples from her company and gives them to students. I’ll use her sucking up to my students to launch into a discussion about ethics during the next class.
DON’T let the guest speakers take over your class. If they get off track, don’t hesitate to interrupt and ask questions to get them back on topic. If the students aren’t participating by asking questions, it’s your responsibility to jump in and ask the questions you think will elicit answers that students will want to hear. You want to help the guest speaker succeed.
DO shoot for the moon with guest speakers. You never know who is willing to come to your class. When I taught at Washington & Lee University in Lexington, Va., which is not the easiest place to get to, I invited a mutual fund manager from John Hancock Financial Services in Boston to come speak to my class. Surprisingly, he accepted the offer. I’ve also gotten journalists from CNBC and The Wall Street Journal in New York to travel to Chapel Hill, N.C., on their own dime, or their employers have picked up the tab.
DON’T worry about re-using guest speakers. If you find some good ones, then use them each semester. None of the students will have heard them the previous semester, right?
DO return the favor. If you ask a colleague to be a guest speaker, offer to lecture in one of their classes. I’ve been a guest speaker in everything from “Research Methods” to “Ethics” to “Medical Reporting.”
And if you get a guest speaker who is horrible, let them know why you won’t be inviting them back. Many have grand illusions of turning guest speaker roles into an adjunct or professor positions.
As we all know, not everyone is cut out for this business.
Chris Roush is the senior associate dean at UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and founding director of the Carolina Business News Initiative, which provides training for professional journalists and students.
Media Ethics 2005 Abstracts
Media Ethics Division
Can Professionalism Protect the Integrity of Journalism Against the Market? • Sandra L. Borden, Western Michigan University • The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the potential of professionalism to support good work and give journalists some leverage against the power of their employing organizations in the current media market. This essay critically examines the two key functions of professional organization for journalists ethical motivation and occupational power-in terms of both their potential usefulness and their potential problems.
Ideal Journalism. An Analysis of the Idaho Falls Post Register’s Ideologies in Covering the 2002 Gubernatorial Campaign • Kris Boyle, Brigham Young University • Based on the concept of journalism ideology, this study identifies ideologies established by the Idaho Falls Post Register and examines whether these ideologies were reflected in its coverage of the 2002 Idaho gubernatorial race, where one of the candidates was the paper’s publisher/ owner. The author found the paper adapted its guidelines from ideologies generally accepted by many journalists, including objectivity, balance, and facticity, and concludes the paper stuck close to these guidelines in its coverage.
A Failure of Imagination: The 9/11 Commission, Terrorism Coverage, and Media Responsibility • Glen Feighery, University of Utah • Coverage of terrorism provides a compelling context in which to consider whether journalists have ethical duties to be proactive, not just reactive. This paper examines the July 2004 report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission). The report criticized the news media, concluding that journalists shared some of the blame for failing to adequately warn the public of the risk of terrorism before September 11, 2001.
This Little Piggy Went to Press: The Ethics of the American News Media’s Construction of Animals in Agriculture, from 2000-2003 • Carrie Packwood Freeman, University of Oregon • Big corporate operators have taken over the bulk of Iowa’s pork production, with dire results not only for the small farmer but also for those of us who were raised on succulent pork chops and pork roasts. Fat gives pork some of its flavor, but modern hogs are bred to minimize fat; …Raised in close quarters inside enormous metal buildings, the hogs foul the air for miles around, and their meat is bland, dry and tough when cooked.
Murder in our Midst: Expanding Coverage to Include Care and Responsibility • Romayne Smith Fullerton, University of Western Ontario and Maggie Jones Patterson, Duquesne University • Using a U.S. and a Canadian example, this paper argues news reports of murder often employ predetermined formulae that probe intrusively into the lives of those involved in the murder but ultimately come away with only a cheaply sketched, stick-figure portrait.
Black Eye: The Ethics of CBS News and the National Guard Documents • Elizabeth Blanks Hindman, Washington State University • This case study applies ethics theories and codes to the mainstream news media’s response to the CBS News- National Guard forged documents fiasco of 2004. It finds that 177 newspaper editorials applied truth telling, accountability, independence, and stewardship principles in their criticism of CBS, but only in a limited way. While the editorials dealt well with the specific issues of the case, they missed an opportunity to discuss the broader ethical principles involved.
Blood On the Lens ‘Private’ Moments, Public Platforms: Images and Ethics Codes Across Media in an Era of Violence and Tragedy • Susan Keith, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Carol B. Schwalbe, Arizona State University and B. William Silcock, Arizona State University • An analysis of forty-seven journalism ethics codes found that although most consider photography, only ten address a gripping issue: how to treat images of tragedy and violence, such as those produced on the battlefields of Iraq and in the 2004 Madrid bombings. Among codes that consider violent and tragic images, there is agreement on what images are problematic and a move toward “green light” reflection on ethical responsibilities (especially in guidelines produced by RTNDA/RTNDF).
Codes and Codism: SPJ, RTNDA And NPPA Rewrite their Codes of Ethics — Why, How, and to what Effect? • Dan Kozlowski, University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill •Within the past decade, three national journalism organizations – the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), and the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) – have revised their codes of ethics, involving considerable debate and organizational fanfare. This paper examines the code revisions at those three organizations.
Interactivity and Prioritizing the Human: A Code of Blogging Ethics • Martin Kuhn, North Carolina – Chapel Hill• Blogs and blogging continue to gain in popularity. They are being integrated into the mainstream media mix and are attracting advertising dollars. As a new balance between freedom and responsibility is being struck in the blogosphere, the author uses new communication technology ethics scholarship and an exploratory survey of bloggers to propose a new code of blogging ethics to inform blogging decisions.
Succulent Sins, Personalized Politics, and Mainstream Media’s Tabloidization Temptation • Jenn Burleson Mackay, University of Alabama • This paper examines how mainstream journalism’s credibility is threatened by the use of tabloid news techniques. Experiment participants read either four standard news stories or similar stories written in a tabloidized style. Reporter credibility was measured using the Source Credibility Scale. The writers of the tabloid stories were found less competent, trustworthy, and caring than the other reporters. The credibility of tabloidized hard news verses soft news was also studied. Market-orientation and tabloidization are discussed.
Minding The Gap: An Ethical Perspective on the Use of Weblogs in Journalistic Practice • Andrew Morozov, Washington State University • This exploratory study examines the role of online journalism with respect to traditional journalistic practice. The focus of the study is the weblog form of online journalism, and its role in the contemporary media environment, evaluated from the perspective of responsibilities, functions, and practices of the journalistic profession. The analysis surveys the repercussions of the “blogging” phenomenon, and suggests how traditional professional journalistic responsibilities may be reinterpreted in the context of online journalism.
Bloggers Strike a Nerve: Examining the Intersection of Blogging and Journalism • Bryan Murley and Kim Smith • University of South Carolina • Researchers conducted a census after the 2004 presidential election of the authors of the top 100 most-visited, current-events blogs to discover what they thought about politics, their role as bloggers in society, and as citizen journalists. More than 90 % considered blogs an important contributor to democracy; 93 % said fact-checking the traditional news media was an important; and nearly 90 % opposed using an editor to check postings for accuracy.
A “Fool Satisfied?” Journalists and Mill’s Principle of Utility • Lee Anne Peck, University of Northern Colorado • Although J.S. Mill is most often identified in the same breath with utilitarianism in journalism textbooks, a thorough examination of his beliefs about morality is often lacking. Professional journalists and journalism students alike oftentimes read these brief explanations and believe, therefore, that using lies, coercion and manipulation is appropriate behavior in the gathering of information if the consequences will lead to more benefits that harms; they might also believe that breaking the law is allowed.
An Appeal to Newspaper Authority in Television Political Ads: A Case Study • Chris Roberts, University of South Carolina • A textual analysis of two television advertisements, created by a U.S. Senate candidate during the 2004 general election in South Carolina, shows how newspapers are used (and misused) to introduce perceptions of independent authority in partisan political advertising. The functional theory of political discourse is used to examine how the ads use newspapers as a third-party authority to defend against opposing ads, to attack opponents, and to acclaim the candidate’s achievements.
Civic Responsibility: A Casualty of Ethical Principle • John C. Watson, American University • Moral philosophers since Socrates have insisted that citizens have a moral obligation to obey the law. But American journalists since John Peter Zenger have been flouting this civic responsibility even before there was a First Amendment to defend and justify their actions. Like Socrates, journalists often claim an ethical obligation to elucidate the truth that overrides their civic responsibility to comply with the government’s interpretation of the First Amendment.
Communitarian Ethics and the Electronic Village • Alisa White, University of Texas at Arlington • This paper proposes that the broadcast media are eclipsing the local community as the place James Carey’s “looking glass self’ develops. The arguments for the broadcast media arid audience as community are located in Alasdair Maclntyre’s theory of the virtues (1984). Janet Jackson’s breast exposure to a worldwide audience watching the halftime show of the 2004 National Football League Super Bowl and the subsequent outpouring of negativity are discussed.
How to Request Reports
Request Reports
- Click on Reports Menu from the Main Menu.
- Choose the type of report – Submission Reports, People Reports.
- Check the box next to your Division/Interest Group.
- Click Request Report.
- You will see a Requested Report Box with the Title of the report, Request Date, and Status. The initial status will be Awaiting Processing.
- Click the Refresh button at the bottom of the Requested Report Box (the status will change from awaiting processing and awaiting conversion to Ready to Download).
- Click on the Ready to Download link to open the report in Excel (You can request reports from the Main Menu as well as the Status Menu).
*Note: the reports system will generate based on the existing data. If you make any changes in the system you can request a new report and get the most current information.
How to Accept and Reject Proposals
Accept or Reject Proposals
- Click on Completed Reviews Report on the Main Menu page
- Click on Individual to see review data for Papers (You will only see the papers that have a Completed status – all reviewers assigned to that paper have completed their reviews)
Then you’ll see several columns showing the following information:
- First Column – Paper Title & Authors. Click on View Reviews to get a new window with all review data including comments.
- Second Column – Criteria. Click on the Criteria link at the top of the page to view criteria description. Click on the Reviewer link at the top of the page to open a new window with a reviewer key.
- Third Column – Average. Shows a score for each criteria from each reviewer, with total and average
- Fourth Column – Rank. Allows you to sort by Average, rank by Average, or change the rank of papers and save them in a Stored order that you determine.
- Fifth Column* – Action. Make a final decision about a paper by choosing Accept, Reject, or No Action. This section has to be completed (all reviewers/judges must have completed their reviews) before the system will allow you to release the reviews to the paper submitters. We are looking to release the site for paper submitters to read reviews by May 20, 2013.
*Note: this is one of the only places in the system where you and your co- chair can override the other person’s decisions. If possible, try to coordinate who is making the final acceptance and rejection decisions and when to make them. The status of the proposal will determine which emails are sent to the author. Make sure that you have made all Accept/Reject decisions in the Completed Reviews Report before sending Acceptance and Rejection letters through the bulk email system.
How to Send Bulk Emails
Send Emails (Submitters & Reviewers)
- From the main menus, click on Send Bulk Email
- Select Recipient Type: Reviewer or Submitter.
- Select Recipient Status:
Reviewer – Active, Assigned, Pending, Reviewing, Complete
Submitter – Accepted, Rejected, No Action, All (when sending to submitter you will also choose the type of proposal, i.e. Individual Submission – Paper) - Select Form Letter (AEJMC will provide default letters that you can use, or modify, for Acceptance and Rejection. You will also see a Blank Letter that can be used to draft messages.)
- You will see a Potential Recipient List. Choose the recipients you want to send the email to, or click Toggle All to send to everyone in the list. (*Note: the bulk email system will send an email to the person for every record in the system. For example: if a submitter has submitted two papers and you have accepted both, their name will only appear once in the list of potential recipients, but they will receive an acceptance email for each paper.
Additional Features:
Turn off email and display results – will allow you to preview the email before you send. The system will open a new window with a summary of the email. If your browser has a pop-up blocker you will need to disable it to use this feature. Check Box to email co-authors – will send the email to all authors attached to a paper as well as the submitter.
How to Assign Reviewers
Assign Reviewers
- Scroll down and find the paper you want to assign for review.
- Click on the Assign Reviewers link in the Action column.
- You will see a list of your Active Reviewers (excluding authors of the paper).
- Check the Assign box next to one, or multiple reviewers.
- Click the Add button.
How to Login to All Academic, View the Main Menu and Add a Reviewer
Login to All Academic
- Go to the All Academic site — Find the icon on the AEJMC sidebar and click on it (the URL changes each year.)
- Log on using username and password you created earlier or if a username and password was created for you, contact Felicia Brown at the Central Office to obtain your information.
View Main Menu
- Click on Manage Division/Interest Group/Review (This will take you to the Status Menu for your group)
- You can request reports from the Request Link
- You can see how many papers have been submitted to your group by using this link
Tip: This is a short cut link to things that you can also do in the Status Menu Screen
Add a Reviewer
- Click on “Manage Division/Interest Group/Review” under the unit planner menu
- Once on the submission management page, click on the “people” tab below the statistics box
- You will see a search option to find accounts for your reviewers. Once the name you are looking for appears below, you will notice a link to the right in the action column that says, “add reviewer.” Click here to activate this account as a reviewer.
- If you do not see the name you are looking for, you should see a link that says, “add person” to create an account on their behalf.
- Once you’ve finished adding all of your reviewers, click the “reviewers” tab below the statistics box to see your official list.
