OH THANK YOU, MASTERS.  THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, FOR THROWING US A CRUMB – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  What is it about "professional journalists," that they can't complete a forward pass.

Indeed, if some of these worthies were football players, they'd be reluctant to try a forward pass because its completition might offend the other team.

Mark Hemingway, in the Washington Examiner, has the latest example of spinelessness on parade by the keepers of the flame: 

I guess the Society for Professional Journalists finally decided that handing out awards named for a senile anti-Semite probably isn't the best P.R. move.

And then the grand statement from SPJ:

INDIANAPOLIS – The board of directors of the Society of Professional Journalists voted Friday to retire the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award.

The vote means the Society will not give out an award for lifetime achievement. The action does not rename the award or remove Thomas’ name.

Real guts.  Just eliminate the award completely rather than rename it for an outstanding journalist.  We must kowtow to Helen's fanatical fans.

Both the board of directors and the executive committee heard from many people inside and outside of SPJ’s membership and journalism. SPJ fully understands the concerns expressed by both sides regarding whether renaming or retiring the award is necessary or improper.

A prominent objection to taking any action was that of Helen Thomas’ free speech rights. SPJ staunchly believes Helen Thomas and all people in the United States have a right to free speech. The Society defends that fundamental legal right as a core organizational mission, even when the speech is unpopular, vile or considered offensive.

Oh please, oh please.  What, precisely, do Helen Thomas's free-speech rights have to do with naming an award for her?  Is there some Constitutional right to have an award named for you?  No, I didn't think so.

This is the garbage put out by the old left.  They claim that they not only have a right to free speech, they have a right not to be criticized.  You get this on college campuses all the time, which is possibly where these "professional journalists" learned it.

As Americans, we have a right to free speech, but not cost-free speech.  Say what you want, but your words have consequences, and people have a right, and a duty, to judge you by those words.  They have a right to withdraw any honors they may have given you.

This is a weak decision, designed apparently to satisfy both sides.  It satisfies neither.  It shows what modern journalism has become.

January 17, 2011