SPJ Withdraws Name from National Geographic Brief

In a blog entry yesterday, SPJ president Christine Tatum made the following announcement: "This afternoon, I decided that SPJ shouldn't add its name to an amicus brief that supports clarifying contract law that affects freelancers and publishers." Btu the way she did it continued, I think, her belittling of freelance writers as immature children who don't realize when their betters are giving them wise words of guidance. (More on this shortly.)

She also backed down while essentially saying that her view was completely right and not understanding the objections of freelance journalists who economically live and die by their understanding of and negotiation of publishing contracts. The first sentence that I quoted says quite a lot - "I decided that ..." Notice it wasn't that the board reconsidered, but that it was her sole decision.

Legal Defense Fund Committee Chairman Dave Aeikens and I still very much believe the brief has tremendous merit. Though SPJ's national board is divided on the matter, Dave and I aren't alone.

Was it even a majority of the board? Or was this decision, to put the organization's name behind a given legal effort, the sole choice of these two people? I don't know - and, to be fair, I have no skin in the game, as I've never been an SPJ member.

As I have previously stated, I was fully prepared for some people to disagree with my stance. I knew they'd insult my intelligence and hurl silly and unfounded insults. That, unfortunately, is how many people choose to handle disagreements (even better are those who throw barbs without having the guts to attach their names to them). So be it.

For the most part, I think it was Ms. Tatum who was insulting people's intelligence, saying that they were lashing out, that they didn't understand her clear logic. Of course, when people asked her to present the logic of her assertions - even when she invited questions - she never provided responses, clear or muddy, to address the queries. She also never addressed the issue that SPJ was following the lead of its legal counsel, which also happens to have National Geographic as a current client.

A highly respected freelancer with whom I have consulted (but gracious, why post the name here and sick the ill-informed and/or angry flash mob on him/her, too?) while evaluating this matter wrote today:

Another example of name-calling on her part. Ill-informed? Most pro freelancers I know are at least aware of many of the intricacies and issues in publishing contracts, and also understand that there issues arise when the courts essentially expand the definitions of types of rights. It's not clear to me that Ms. Tatum does.

"Of course I can see why those freelancers are pissed. It's like when your mom used to say, 'I'm grounding you for your own good. You'll thank me later.' Mom was right, but it was hard to believe that at the time.

"SPJ didn't involve itself in this case to benefit publishers or injure journalists. SPJ raised its voice because it is the job of journalists to create clarity in the face of constangly mutating, endlessly confusing language and smokescreens. The lower court merely underscored the bedrock principle of good writing: Words have meanings. Contracts, like well-written stories, must say what they mean and mean what they say. To disagree would be to dishonor our profession."

My sentiments exactly. Thanks for capturing them so beautifully, my freelancing friend.

This is why I made the statement about her belittling freelancers as immature children, whether doing it through the voice of someone else or through her own. I've yet to see a single cogent argument from SPJ that this brief provided any benefit to freelancers or even to journalism. All I've seen have been unsupported assertions. Certainly contracts must say what they mean and mean what they say, but the issue was not contract language, but how certain commonly understood legal definitions and concepts adapt to radically different circumstances. People don't start including wording into contracts to address issues until they know that the issues could come up. I don't think the conflict that was the fault of either freelancers or of publishers. However, as it wasn't overtly addressed, I think that it was the fault of the publishers that they tried to claim rights without wanting to negotiate with the other parties or pay them.

Despite all of this rancor, one big problem remains: contracts concerning payment for freelance work should be much clearer. Far too many freelancers are not in a position to negotiate their own terms, and they are, frankly, continuing to sign bad contracts because they have no other choice if they want to pay the bills.

And all this is completely aside from the stand that SPJ took. Nothing in its backing of National Geographic would do anything to help freelancers negotiate contracts. Let me inform the SPJ board, since it doesn't seem to understand: the terms are completely clear in most publishing contract. The publishers get everything they want while paying chicken feed at best to the writers. I say this after being the head of ASJA's Contracts Committee for over five years and having personally helped many hundreds of writers and having read many hundreds of publishing contracts.

The statement also shows ignorance of the market. If most freelancers did negotiate and walk away from bad deals, the publishers would quickly realize that they could't hire enough people and they would change their contracts. I've seen it happen wtih major publishers because a large enough group of regulars simply said no. You can do other types of work to pay the bills if you have to. Until you are ready to push back and not take whatever someone decides to give you, you remain an economic and emotional slave.

As these matters are hashed out, SPJ will continue to work to help freelancers understand what they need to do to protect their income.

I'd be interested in hearing what SPJ has done as an organization, outside of the work of the former freelance committee chair, to address this issue. Perhaps they have done something, but I'm pretty well plugged into the freelance community, and I've never once heard a single freelance writer refer to SPJ as a resource for those who want to better understand and negotiate contracts. These are people who spend considerable time looking for resources that could be helpful.

And contrary to Ms. Tatum's apparent view in this post, the issues extend far beyond pay, into legal liability, indemnification, and control of your work and reputation. If you don't really understand the nuances of contractual issues for freelance writers, you are likely going to cause more damage than good by your efforts. So were I looking for help, I think SPJ would not be at the top of my list as a potential resource.