This is my last issue as Editor of the Newsletter. My successor will be Dr. Gerald Fogel, who brings to the Newsletter his experience and expertise gained as the Editor of The Bulletin of the Association for Psychoanalytic Medicine. I fully expect him to perform with the same flair and distinction he displayed in his previous editorial position.
I leave the job with a vastly increased appreciation of what an editor's work is all about, with a great deal of satisfaction at having achieved some of the goals I set, and, of course, with some regrets over unfinished tasks. I wholeheartedly thank every one of the Newsletter Committee and Staff for their work and their support. I also thank those members whose contributions have made these past issues possible.
Early in my tenure as Editor, when I received my first complaint (about printing a letter to the Editor that was thought to oversimplify a complex issue, best left unpublished), a kindly colleague attempted to reassure me. He said that editors, instead of being upset about such complaints, generally take them as a measure of their success. By that dubious criterion, I have been moderately successful.
If the Newsletter is to be more than a collection of kudos and announcements, interspersed with periodic bland summaries of official minutes, yet less than a magazine with space for extensive analysis and comment, then it is necessary to select, organize, and compress material into a lively and readable presentation. These required activities occasionally give rise to the perception of editorial bias. Unless there is gross distortion, it may be difficult to determine to what extent this bias is inherent in the text or is in the eye of the beholder. I have, on two separate occasions, been bemused by criticisms of an article from separate sources, each charging bias in a diametrically opposed direction. Nor have I yet to be chided by anyone for bias toward the views he or she supports.
The most important remedy for such imponderable, and perhaps unavoidable, phenomena is that members feel free to respond with corrections, emendations, and elaborations — and that members feel assured of a forum in the Newsletter wherein cogent views can be exchanged. I believe a crucial function of the Newsletter is to provide such a channel of communication from administration to members, from members to administration, and from members to members.
There has been concern expressed that this communication risks “washing our dirty linen in public” (since the Newsletter is read by other than members). Therefore reports, articles, and letters that might tarnish our image should not be printed. Although I can understand a wish to improve our public image, which is currently somewhat less than ideal, I believe that such a view is short-sighted in several respects.
First, since the Newsletter is, for most members, the only source of information about the workings of our Association, to withhold useful information from them often amounts to not only not washing the dirty linen in public, but not washing it at all. The criterion to be followed for publication should not be what is good for our image, but what is useful information for our members (that can be communicated without harm to individuals).
Second, our image is not helped by pretending that conflict or problems do not exist. It is better served by honestly portraying the ferment generated by our efforts to adapt to the changing world without sacrificing our commitment to excellence in training and practice. Recognizing and learning from mistakes past is part of this picture, as well—an image of vitality and growth. Overconcern with preservation of image at the expense of useful communication and action may well contribute to our preservation—but we may end up preserved in amber.