(ASS)OCIATION — It’s Right There in the Title-- THE 2026 NABJ CONVENTION

What happens when a nonprofit association decides to publicly call out one of its own?

In this episode of Philanthropy N The Black, Celly Cel takes a hard look at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) and its controversial Thumbs Down Award — an honor nobody wants to receive.

This episode isn't about deciding whether Stephen A. Smith or NABJ is right.

It's about something every membership organization needs to understand:

Your members don't have to agree with you. Your sponsors shouldn't own you. Your critics don't define your mission. But if you're going to publicly hold somebody accountable, you better be able to prove that the mission — not personalities or politics — put that thumb down.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Welcome, welcome. This is another episode of Philanthropy and the Black, the podcast. And listen, I got the bow tie on the red cup with the adult beverage, because uh, nobody wins when the family feuds. And if you don't know what we're about to talk about, you've been under a lump for the last week or two. We're talking about the thumbs up. A more accurate thumbs down. We're gonna get into this whole National Association of Black Journalists, Stephen A situation. But of course, there's always from a nonprofit perspective. We're not gonna get into the weeds, people. Stay away from the weeds. If you know, you know. We're not getting into that, but we're gonna talk about this today. Again, I always appreciate anyone who watches, downloads. This is just information, entertainment, education. Listen, with a little southern swing on that thing, okay? So here it is, people. Here it is. The 2026 National Association of Black Journalists Convention, right? I hear it's a big shin diggit do dot bop. Um the the this year's convention was interesting because at this year's convention uh they handed out not one, not two, but five thumbs down awards. Listen, that from what I understand is the most in the organization's history. Among the recipients, you know, people like uh corporations, I guess, media corporations, like CBS News, all right, they received the thumbs down award. The Washington Post, they received uh the thumbs down award. The chairman of uh the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, received the thumbs down award. And media executive Dewan McCoy, I'm assuming. But you know, you know the one. You know the one that got everybody up in the tizzy, man, everybody talking about it, is that they handed out one to your boy, Stephen A. Smithy. And listen, when I tell you Stephen A was not amused in the slightest about this award, he called it a hit job, people. He accused the NABJ of following politics and personal disagreements to influence the decision regarding him receiving this award. But the leadership at the NABJ said the opposite. They said this wasn't about whether we like Stephen A. Smith, it was about accountability and conduct, they believe conflicts with their mission, right? So here's what the the questions I'm going to try to tackle. One, when an association publicly condemns one of the people it was created to represent, is that mission, or to Stephen's point, is it politics? More importantly, when does a decision like that, what does a decision like that do to membership, fundraising, corporate relations, reputation, and trust? Because nonprofit organizations don't get to make controversial decisions in a vacuum. There's always receipts, people. Sometimes the receipts come in dollars, sometimes in membership, reputation, creditability, credibility, but we're gonna get into it. So, what exactly is the NABJ? That's what we're gonna start with first, right? Uh it's it isn't a social club, folks. It isn't a social club like we have here in New Orleans, social aid and pleasure, to be specific. The NABJ describes itself as a 501 nonprofit organization providing programs and services to black journalists and media professionals while advocating on their behalf in the United States and around the world. It reports that it has like uh more than 4,000 journalists, students, education, educators, and media professionals. Its work includes professional development, career advancement, advocacy, school, scholarships, fellowships, networking, training, so on and so forth. And one of the biggest gatherings of black media professionals in the country, i.e., this convention we're talking about, and that last part matters because the NABJ isn't just a nonprofit, it's an association. And let's talk about the difference of what an association is when it comes to being a nonprofit. Can I take a sip? Let me take a sip. All right. But we can get to the heart, we're gonna get to the heart of this thing, people. We're gonna get to the heart of this thing. Here it is, here it is, here it is. Associations are different, they're a different kind of nonprofit, right? The distinction matters in this particular episode because a traditional charitable nonprofit can essentially say this is the community we serve. An association has another constituency at the table, people. You know what that constituency who it is? It's members. That's one of the biggest differences in the whole nonprofit thing with the associations. It has members. Those members pay dues, they attend conferences, they vote for leadership, they volunteer, they participate in chapters around the country, they recruit other members, and they expect the organization to represent their professional interests. They expect the organization to represent their professional interests. And there's all kinds of associations, engineering associations, law associations. Hell, there's nonprofit associations, federal for um philanthropic uh associations for nonprofit professionals as well. All right. NABJ's professional membership, I think it starts around $100, but there's all kinds of different categories. You could join that wherever you are uh professionally or in one of those other constituent constituent groups I name. So an association constantly has to answer a difficult question. Are we speaking for our members or are we speaking to our members? And that is huge. Because those are two different things. And when your membership includes thousands of black journalists working across television, newspapers, digital, ready, independent media, corporate newsroom, there ain't gonna be one black opinion, okay? Which bring which brings us to the thumbs aboard. Listen, I haven't heard about a thumbs aboard up and down since Siskel and Ewit. And if you know, you know. Some of y'all kind of young. And here is the thing: the the thumbs down award wasn't created for Stephen A. Smith, people. Uh, according to the NABJ, the thumbs down award goes to an individual or organization responsible for especially insensitive, racist, or stereotypical reporting, commentary, photography, or cartooning involving the black community. And or practices at odds with the NABJ's goals. That's important because those last few words give the award a much broader mandate, right? Practices at odds with the NABJ. The award dates back, uh, let's see, 1988, 89. Uh, they've given it to about 44, uh handed it out at least 44 times according to the Los Angeles Times. So this isn't some new woke Twitter era bull crap. Uh X for the new folks. It's not new. NABJ has been publicly calling folks out for almost four decades. Keep that in mind. The bigger question isn't should this organ, this association, have a thumbs down award. The bigger question is what qualifies somebody to receive one? And who makes that decision? So again, at the 2026 convention in ATL, they named five applicants, right? Or recipients, I'm sorry. We had Stephen A, of course, CBS News, the Washington Post, FCC Chairman, Brandon Carr, Media Executive, Duan McCoy, and I'm sure they all have some uh interesting reasons why they were selected. But the president, Aaron Haynes, I believe I said her name correctly, explained that uh the position of the organization clearly. The award is intended to hold institutions and public figures accountable when their actions harm black journalists. And regarding Stephen A. Smith, specifically, NABJ cited what it described as his recurring pattern of disparaging commentary toward prominent black women across politics, sports, and media. NBA NABJ's argument is essentially your words matter, your platform matters, representation matters. How powerful black media personalities discuss black women matters. And if NABJ exists partly to advocate for fair and responsible representation of black people in media, then challenging these harmful narratives is not mission drift at all. They are exactly where they need to be. It's mission fulfillment. That's the case for the award, okay? But then Stephen A. Smith raised uncomfortable questions in his reply, which I thought he did remarkably well. Um, he made some great points. He was calm. It wasn't what everybody expected him to blow up and go nuts. He sat there, and you can see that to me, he was a little, I feel like it he was hurt by it. You know, he showed his vulnerable side and also his intelligence and strategy by not being typically rant and raving Stephen A. Smith. So, what did my man Stephen A say about this? Here we go. Stephen A. Smith's response was basically y'all not evaluating my journalism and my accomplishments. Y'all are evaluating my politics. Ooh. He accused the org the association of conducting a personal and political hit job and argued that disagreement with his political commentary influenced the decision. That's what he said. I mean, you pull it up. I thought it was a masterful response. But the NABJ rejects that. The organization said the award isn't based on the um recipient's identity or political affiliation. They emphasize that recipients historically have included black and non-black people and institutions. But here's where it gets a little interesting from a nonprofit perspective. Perception doesn't have to be accurate to have consequences. Again, from my nonprofit management perspective, my folks in nonprofit, perception doesn't have to be accurate to have consequences. If members begin believing an association is choosing ideological sides, leadership will have a problem, y'all. If donors believe it, leadership has a problem. If your sponsors believe it, your leadership will have a problem. And if the public believes it, y'all better have a damn good communication strategy off the peasy. Like you better be ready when you take this stance. And again, this is not about whether this is wrong or right. I'm just laying out the work, and then we will talk about the nonprofit perspective of this. So when an association or a nonprofit takes a stance, whether it's political or otherwise, the first test is this does it connect to the mission? Period. Before you open your damn mouth, is what you're about to say connect to the mission, the mission? Before asking whether something is controversial, ask, can leadership draw a straight line from the action back to the organization's mission? If not, shut up. In the NABJ's case, they can't. They absolutely can't. They advocate for black journalists and fair representation of black communities. Its own description of the thumbs down award basically addresses insensitive racist or stereotypical media coverage that uh and practices conflicting with their goals, right? So the existence of the award is clearly mission connected. I will give them that. But here's the harder question for the NABJ. Is every application of the award equally mission connected? This is where governance enters the room, right? Your board, i.e., your board. Because once the organization moves from CBS News made this institutional decision to we don't approve of this black journalist commentary, the distinction between professional accountability and ideology, policing, can become much harder for the public and your donors or members to see. Here's the question every membership association should ask before taking a major public position. And I think this was one. Here's what they should ask. How does this affect the people paying to belong here? Because they are absolutely paying dues. Some of the association members probably applauded the decision to give it to Stephen A. You heard the video, right? There was like 50-50. There was some clapping, there was applauding. Some probably hated it, some some didn't care. And some probably thought, wait a minute, wait a minute. If Stephen A can get thumbs down because leadership doesn't like his commentary, what happens when my commentary conflicts with the leadership? That's where an association has to be careful, folks. Because membership organizations depend on something deeper than agreement. They depend on this sense of belonging. Members have to believe there is room for me inside this organization, even when I disagree with this leadership things. Otherwise, you don't have an association. You have an ideological club. And those are two different things. Did I say that word right? Now, again, this is this is about nonprofits. This is what we do here on Philanthropy and the Black. So let's get to the fundraising part of this. Because this is where we we land on when we are in nonprofits, okay? The non the National Association of Black Journalists is financially significant. Here's what I mean. Their 2024 Form 990, and if you're a nonprofit, you know what that is. And if you're not, it's something that nonprofits have to file with the IRS. Uh in the 20 fiscal year 2024 Form 990, they reported $5.9 million in revenue, about $5.7 million in expenses, and roughly $7.1 million in net assets. In its convention, which is central to its programming, the same filing reported roughly $3.5 million in convention-related program expenses. Big, big numbers. The organization operates in an ecosystem where corporate partnerships matter. So some of their sponsors in 2026, peep this ABC News, CNN, TNT Sports, ESPN itself, Fox Corporation, JP Morgan Chase, so on and so forth. And here's what really uh gets more interesting for me. ESPN was a platinum partner. And my boy Steven works for ESPN. Meanwhile, CBS News, one of the organizations receiving the thumbs down, uh, also appeared as a 2026 um Career Fair exhibitor, and so on and so forth. Now that kind of, for me, in a way, for you, and what you should be thinking about is nonprofit tension. And actually, there's something potentially for me admirable about this ability to shit on somebody, get money from them, and still not be influenced by them. Because if the non National Association National Association of Black Journalists is willing to criticize organizations or personalities connected to organizations financially supporting its work, that can demonstrate independence, but it can also create a fundraising risk. And so my grandma used to say, don't bite the hands that that feeds you. I mean, we've all heard that that sentiment, right? That's one of the oldest nonprofit dilemmas there is. A corporation writes you a check. Does that corporation now get immunity from criticism? Hell to the nizzle. And it shouldn't, at least it shouldn't, right? So the NABJ, their own partnership language anticipates the problem. And here's what they say their 2026 materials explicitly state that accepting corporate or foundation support does not constitute endorsement of the funders' policies, products, or services, and that partners should expect no special treatment regarding news or media. NABJ also retains editorial control over convention programming. That's a strong policy. Absolutely has some lawyers in the room with some good lawyers in the room with that and prof nonprofit professional minds to come up with that policy. Because the minute sponsorship buys silence, you aren't fundraising anymore. You're selling influence, and you never want to be as a nonprofit in that space. Because somewhere in the country, a development director still has to pick up the damn phone after the controversy. Your leadership still has to sit across from the sponsor, and somebody has to explain: yes, we dumped on your company. But we'd still like to discuss you renewing your $100,000 sponsorship. Welcome to fundraising, Mofo. Welcome to fundraising. And listen, the NABJ still has a bigger fundraising question right now. This controversy, controversy, doesn't happen in isolation. NABJ has announced its Jubilee endowment. Check this out. Their goal is to raise $15 million over four years. A lofty goal. The campaign, y'all, is intended to create a permanent endowment supporting the organization's long-term sustainability. Kudos to you for that. Its ability to recruit, train, support, so on and so forth. Now the thumbs down controversy becomes uh interesting because when you when you're trying to raise 15 mil, reputation matters. And controversial advocacy can work in two ways. It can make your supporters say, This is why I rock with NABJ, yo. They're willing to speak truth even when it's uncomfortable. That can inspire you giving, yo. Like that makes people want to give. But somebody else might say, this organization has become too political for me, and stop giving. That's why fundraising strategy can't just measure applause. It has to measure trust. So that that's fundraising issue, right? But then there's image, right? There's image. Five organizations and individuals received this thumbs down award. But which one dominated the headlines? Stephen A. Smith. It's clear that the the Stephen A. Smith part of the five that dominated the the news headlines, right? And it's kind of a communications lesson because you don't always have the ability to control which part of your announcements becomes the story. Because, you know, with these awards, the uh NABJ could have been trying to uh address things like um have a conversation at least about free press, um, I'm sorry, press freedom, media ownership, black women, so on and so forth. Instead, a huge part of the public conversation has become the NABJ versus Stephen A. Smith. And that's a whole different story. And nonprofits need to understand this celebrity eats mission for breakfast, yo, every time. Put a famous person's name in your announcement, and there is a damn good chance the celebrity becomes a story instead of the issue. So be careful. And and and and here's what I found interesting about um Stephen A. Smith's response. Honestly, like I said earlier, I felt like it was a masterclass in how to reply with dignity, vulnerability, um, and humility, right? After dragging the decision, after calling it a hit job, after basically declaring war in one of his posts before he did his show, Stephen A. Smith still told people continue supporting in ABJ. Facts. That matters because he separated the disagreement with the leadership from the value of the institution itself. And we don't do that enough in the nonprofit sector. You can criticize an organization without wanting to burn the whole damn thing down. You can challenge leadership without attacking the mission of the place. You can disagree without saying the entire institution is worthless. That might actually be the healthiest part of this whole controversy. The fact that his response, he didn't take his millions and millions of followers and dollars and say, screw it. He still was an advocate for the organization. And I think that's very impressive. So was it mission or politics? My answer, potentially both. That's it. And nonprofits need to stop pretending that these categories never overlap, right? Advocacy is political sometimes. Representation, political. Civil rights, political, government regulation, political, journalism, political, funding, political. The question isn't whether politics ever touches your mission. The question is, can you prove that mission rather than partisan preference drove the decision? For the people in the back? Oh, for the people in the back, let me say it again. Can you prove that mission rather than partisan preference drove the decision? Because that's the difference. If this association can consistently demonstrate that it applies the same standards regardless of whether the person is conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, LGBT, whatever, then the thumbs down award remains an accountability tool. If those standards become selective, then it becomes something else. All right. So let's get loose with it. Let's bring it home. For these types of nonprofit associations, understand that your members are not your employees. Membership does not mean ideological obedience. Associations should create enough room for members to disagree without questioning whether they still belong. Create the standard before the controversy, though. Awards like the thumbs down need clear criteria, and I'm sure they have them. Who nominates, who reviews, who decides, what evidence is considered, which Stephen made a point of. Can the recipient respond? Which Stephen made a point of. Repeat it year after year after year. Your mission has to be your defense. That's big. When controversy comes, leadership should be able to pull out the mission statement and say, here is exactly why we acted. Not personality, not ex, not party. Mission. Pull it out, put it in their face, draw a straight line to mission, right? Corporate money cannot purchase immunity. If a sponsor can write a check large enough that your organization becomes afraid to criticize them, you have created a mission problem. NABJ's published partnership policy explicitly preserves its independence from funders. Every advocacy nonprofit with corporate sponsor should have similar guardrails. Hey, bro, we'll take the money, but we ain't about to be quiet when you do something stupid. You in our lane, so we gotta speak to it. We ain't gonna disrespect you, but we will say something. All right. You know, I'm trying not to cuss people. Another thing, don't be naive about fundraising consequences, people. Mission courage doesn't eliminate financial consequences. I've seen it. Over 30 years in this nonprofit sector, I have seen controversy that was taken lightly kill fundraising. Oh, you'll bounce back after a few years, but it will hit you. Before taking controversial action, leadership, development, and communication should understand who could leave, who could give more, who needs conversation, what relationships require stewardship immediately after we drop the bomb. That's not selling out, that's management. Strategic freaking management. Celebrity can hijack your mission or your message, I should say. This association gave out five awards. You know what the world heard? Stephen A. Smith. When you introduce celebrity into an advocacy campaign, prepare for your celebrity to become the headline. And do you shoot yourself in the foot or do you help your mission? Back to mission. The NABJ president Aaron Haines said the objective isn't permanent condemnation, but progress, quote. NABJ has also said it remains open to meaningful engagement with recipients. That's good. That's good. Because if your accountability mechanism, that's good. Because if your accountability mechanism only punishes, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? A good accountability process should answer what does restoration look like? And this is for my nonprofit people, not the NABJ. What does restoration look like? Otherwise, you're not changing behavior. You're just handing out ass whoopings, public ass whoopings at that. And so here's what I want to leave my nonprofit brothers and sisters with. The NABJ isn't wrong simply because somebody got mad. Oh, you big mad. I can't argue with you. Y'all don't know that reference, but that's okay. And Stephen A isn't wrong simply because he questioned the organization's decision. The part, the tension is who owns the values of a membership organization? Who owns it? Is it the president? The board? Staff? Members, the loudest uh crackpot on social media? The answer has to be the mission. The mission isn't self-executing, though. People interpret it, your board will govern it, staff will implement it, donors will finance it, and the public judges it. That's why governance matters. That's why transparency matters. And that's why controversial decisions require more than saying we're on the right side. They're not. The real test is whether you can explain why this action advances your mission, how the decision was made, what standard was applied, and whether you'd apply the same standard to somebody you actually agree with. Talk to them, Sal. So as I close, M NABJ's thumbs down award, is it mission? Is it politics? Maybe that's the wrong question. Maybe the better question is can your mission survive your politics? Can you criticize Stephen A today? Then your biggest corporate sponsor tomorrow, and somebody whose politics you love next week using the same damn standard. Because that's integrity. And for every association listening, your members don't need to agree with you all the time. Your donors don't need to be silent. Your corporate people sponsors, they should not own you. And critics don't get to define your mission. But when you decide to publicly put somebody's name underneath a giant ass thumbs down, you better have the governance, evidence, communication to explain exactly why that thumb went down. Because when the nonprofit points one finger at somebody else, the public starts looking back at the organization holding the hand. Mission, members, money, reputation. They're all connected. And if you don't understand that, your organization might be the one getting the thumbs down. Peace.