This is SPJ President John Ensslin’s explanation of why Region 3 Director Michael Koretzky was asked to remove a blog post about a University of Georgia student press issue. And this is the letter Ensslin wrote to the student newspaper board expressing SPJ’s concerns.
As I suspected, there was a misunderstanding between Ensslin and Koretzky about the purpose of a fact-finding trip Koretzky arranged to gather information about the University of Georgia dispute. Koretzky said he told Ensslin about the trip as a courtesy. Ensslin said he was counting on Koretzky to report back to him so SPJ could formulate an official statement and didn’t like that Koretzky posted something on his own first.
Both approaches in this case have merit (quick and punchy; deliberate and thorough), but Koretzky is right that it’s strange for SPJ to be silent on a controversy as it’s unfolding, then issue a statement a few days after it was resolved.
I don’t think reaction and commentary needed to be either/or.
I go back to a central point in the dispute: whether Koretzky’s post could be interpreted as representing SPJ as a whole. I didn’t read it that way. But, by all means, add a “This is one person’s opinion” disclaimer, if it would help.