ALA Midwinter 2007: No Blogging Allowed?

Not Allowed
Originally uploaded by annethelibrarian.

So there are rumors running rampant about blogging and ALA, specifically about ALSC (one of the two divisions closest to my heart).

Earlier this year, children's literature blogger and librarian extraordinaire Fuse #8 noted that she was a member of the Newbery Committee and would be removing all her posts about books that were eligible for the award. She noted that this decision was not made easily, and from her post, I (and, I believe, others) had the sense that it was not entirely hers.

Many folks shared their opinions, including folks who were and will be on some of the big award committees. One of these people, the inimitable Roger Sutton brilliantly summed it up:

Speaking as an incoming member of the Caldecott committee, I have no intention of holding my tongue on next year's picture books. Reviewers have long been members of the ALA award committees and there is no rule--and no reason--that forbids any member from comment, published or otherwise, on new books. You just can't share committee deliberations. Your opinions remain your own, to do with what you will.

My understanding of these committees (I was on the Caldecott in 2005, so I've read the manual and had things explained to me in detail, so I would hope that my understanding is accurate) is that committee members are encouraged to talk, review, and, in general, find out and think about eligible titles as much as possible. Communicating about books allows us to understand them, to think about them in as many ways as possible. I know that for me, talking about the books was a huge part of the process of getting to know them.

If a committee member were to share details about the inner workings of the committee (in a blog post or anywhere else, for that matter), that would be unacceptable, but certainly that is not the issue here.

I have to wonder about this rumor (and it is, as far as I know, still purely that. The ALSC Board has been and will be meeting throughout Midwinter, and to my knowledge this issue has not yet been addressed). To my knowledge, committee members have always reviewed titles for major publications, and this has always been fine. Allowing journal reviews but not allowing blogging is splitting hairs and smacks of technophobia (or plain ol' ignorance).

Part of this mean, mean rumor is that some incoming members of award committees are going to be asked to either agree not to blog/review/etc. or to resign their position on the committee. Some versions of the rumor have it that it will only apply to blogging, and others that the embargo will cover reviewing of any nature including academic writing, teaching, presentations, and any other sort of information/opinion sharing. The way I see it, it's a slippery slope and that if you can't write about any of the books you're considering, you probably won't be allowed to talk about them, either (talking can be recorded and recordings can be transcribed, so what's the difference?).

I sincerely hope that this rumor is a big fat fake. I probably would've dismissed it immediately as crap but for Fuse #8's experience. I truly hope that this is a radical notion that someone overheard being discussed and it got blown out of proportion in the retelling. It makes me sad to think of the committee members having to censor what they say and not being able to communicate about the books. It would do a major disservice to the award, the process, and the books.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that this is nothing.