Journal’s decision on reporting Council meetings to be re-examined
The Council is to re-examine The Pharmaceutical Journal’s decision to report Council proceedings as separate news items rather than as pages of “wallpapered” text.
Opening discussion on The Journal’s Council reports at the August
Council meeting, Gerald Alexander said that it might be advantageous for the Society “to
improve the way it conveys the message of what goes on in this Council, with
the PJ returning to the practice of reporting Council business rather than treating
the meetings as news stories”.
Olivia Timbs, editor of The Journal, replied: “The information that we
have been putting in The Journal is no different. We have called it a news story
to differentiate it from what I would describe as a ‘wallpapered’ report,
which was continuous prose over many pages. We have divided it into different
items, to make it more accessible and readable. The Council may wish the report
to go back to the long, continuous presentation as before, but that will make
no material difference to what we get in. We have always had to be selective,
because we have always been pressured by space.”
Douglas Simpson said that he was reassured by what the editor had said. The PJis more accessible to members than the website. It is a valuable historical record
and the Council meeting should be adequately reported in it as a matter of course,
both for current members of the Society and also for historical purposes. He
was sure that the editor was correct in saying that the PJ still devotes as much
space to the Council as it did before, and he hoped that was how it would continue.
Sultan Dajani, supporting Mr Alexander, said that he understood what the editor
had said, but begged to differ. Suggesting that the PJ reports up to about one
or two years ago had been more comprehensive, he said: “What now appear
are more like news reports, whereas previously it was reported as summarised
minutes. So it is either simple or complex. It would be nice to go back to something
which was somewhere in the middle. It is a communication issue.”
Mr Dajani said that Mr Alexander had raised an action point that needed to be
voted on. It was a matter for the PJ, but Council members could still express
a wish.
Another action he would like to see was in terms of reporting business to other
publications at a suitable time, because the transcripts were on the website
about a month later.
Mrs Stone said that the Council should not make a decision on the hoof without
feedback from The Journal or any reflection on how The Journal believed it fitted
in with its policy.
Mr Dajani said that he did not suggest compromising editorial freedom or questioning
what the editor did. All he wanted was more comprehensive reports, with editorial
freedom.
The President said that what was being suggested was that additional information
be obtained on how the new procedures have been working. The Council could not
make a decision on Journal policy on the hoof. He would like to throw Mr Alexander’s
proposal into the editor’s court, and ask for it to be brought back for
the Council’s consideration.
The President said that Mr Dajani’s issue about other publications getting
earlier access has already been addressed in the office.
Mr Phillips said that it was not clear to him how The Journal decided which news
items to report and which not. That was why he would like a move back towards
the “transcript style”. For example, he would have thought that the
membership would see as significant the idea of having a membership committee,
which had not been reported. “How the Society communicates with its membership
is an important issue and needs to be taken forward.”
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal