This is my last issue as Editor. Running the Newsletter during the past three years has been interesting, educational, and often enjoyable in unexpected ways. The work and occasional frustrations were more than offset by the many satisfactions. Some of these were related to technical aspects of the writing, editing, and publishing process. Others were related to working for and with a large organization. Additionally, I had the opportunity to develop working relationships and friendships with many colleagues whom I would not have ordinarily met in the course of this period of my professional life.
I am proud of what the Newsletter accomplished over these years, and grateful to the people who worked with me. We are proud of the look of the Newsletter. We aimed to be both attractive and dignified, and tried to introduce sufficient variety for the eye in each issue to avoid a monochromatic and monotonous appearance.
Two people contributed especially to our visual success. Naomi Blumenfeld, as design editor, did the original design, subsequent modifications, and layout of each issue. We worked closely together selecting graphic material, but most of the creative visual decisions were hers. She has a wonderful eye, is scrupulously attentive to detail, and always performed a highly professional job for us. Ellen Spitz also made a significant contribution to our look. She has an unusual combination of artistic gifts and psychoanalytic expertise. Her drawings were always interesting and pleasing aesthetically, but also frequently witty and wise to the psychoanalytic insider.
We also tried to make the Newsletter interesting, informative, and readable. The editorial staff made many fine contributions—useful counsel and suggestions, as well as the necessary articles. They helped bring a lively and more readable prose style even to the more routine and obligatory organizational stories, and to strive wherever possible for a perspective that was personal, but unprejudiced, even when covering events or issues that were complex and potentially divisive.
The members of the staff were Dan Papernik, Morris Peltz, George Pollock, Ellen Rowntree, Estelle Shane, and Elise Snyder. Elise's interviews were good examples of how a potentially tired format can receive new life when the right person adapts it according to her unique gifts and style. Ellen's Report from Hamburg and Estelle's on the Gaskill Proposal are other good examples that come to mind where a strong personal voice made an article more compelling without sacrificing reportorial objectivity.
Thanks also to the many other members who contributed articles, points of view, or letters to the editor. I discovered that there are many people in our organization who are thoughtful, concerned, and willing to go to a good deal of time and trouble for the Association and for the ideas and issues that mean something to them.
Thanks to Arnie Cooper, who originally appointed me to the Newsletter staff, and to Mort Reiser, who later invited me to become Editor. Thanks also to Ed Joseph and to Helen Fischer and the Central Office staff. Ellen Fertig was especially helpful to me in countless ways. I often called upon her, and her competence, common sense, tact, and good taste were unfailing.
Most of the comment I received about the Newsletter was favorable—a source of much pleasure to me. The occasional reproach was always the same. It was thought by some that at times bias or editorializing had crept into a story—that either by selection, placement, or emphasis we were choosing political sides. I do not believe that this was ever true, however. The great majority of people who spoke or wrote to me generally praised us for our ability to be incisive, but responsible and fair.
Naturally, we could not expect to please everybody all of the time. The period of my editorship has been a time when important controversial and divisive issues were debated. But I believe that no responsible opinion was denied access to the Newsletter, and that we were largely successful in our attempts to present all sides of important issues in a clear, respectful manner.
I do not think that overt bias, editorializing, or censorship are immediate dangers to the Newsletter. When those sorts of things occur, someone usually objects. By and large we are an organization of well-meaning, liberal-minded people who ordinarily refrain from such things or respond quickly and concernedly if our peers believe we are acting unfairly or abusing powers.
The dangers are more subtle. One danger lies in the dual role of the Newsletter. On the one hand, it is supposed to be a free press, on the model of a newspaper. On the other hand, it is the legitimate house organ for the organization and the current administration. Members should be able to assume that a story or report that is presented as news has the thoroughness, objectivity, and necessary slightly adversarial relationship to authority to make it a worthy example of freedom of the press.
The news should not be tampered with because of what is perceived to be a worthy cause by the powers that be, the Editor, or any others. Any of these powers, however, is entitled to freely use the Newsletter, even one-sidedly, to influence the members or for any other purpose they believe to be in the best interests of the organization. These other legitimate stories should not have the appearance of a news story, nor should these other legitimate aims be allowed to selectively or invisibly shape a news story.
The even more subtle danger is organizational inertia. The Newsletter can only serve a decorative function if it is not given a high priority by the Association. I found that a too frequent impediment
to doing the best job possible was the simple unawareness of some people of what was needed and when, to do the job right. Articles and issues must be planned far in advance. Few understand deadlines and the need for fitting things into fixed spaces. Getting the news while it is current is a real problem.
Lines of communication must be forged and in place between the organization and the Newsletter for it to function adequately in keeping the membership informed and up to date. These lines of communication should function smoothly and regularly all through the year. The Editor must be informed. If not, although it may not be intended as such, the result can be de facto editorializing—by “benign neglect.”
Delegating work and responsibility is a related problem. A good newsletter requires the integrative presence of a single person who is competent in a number of areas. As things are currently structured, only the editor can become sufficiently familiar, skilled, and knowledgeable enough about all parts of the whole to play this role. Many organizations our size hire a professional as an editorial assistant or managing editor on a freelance basis. This is a person skilled at all components of the job. The in-house editor continues to determine the content and oversee the whole operation, but is relieved of some important, but time-consuming details that are necessary to perform if the goal is editorial and graphic excellence. I have argued for such a course, or as an alternative, to train a member of the Central Office staff to assume this role. I hope this idea is given some consideration in the future.
I wish the incoming Editor, Estelle Shane, good luck. I was impressed by Estelle during the years we worked together on the Public Information Committee, and asked her to join the Newsletter late in 1984. She is talented, competent, and extremely responsible. I hope she will soon learn to shape the Newsletter according to her own personality and style. I am sure she will find, as I did, that she has taken on a job in which her efforts can bring many satisfactions and rewards.
Gerald I. Fogel