It has begun! Tour hits Midwest, Southwest

The Access Across America Part II has begun!

Joey Senat from Oklahoma has talked to groups in Kansas City, Iowa, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, and I talked to folks in Phoenix and Los Angeles. We have more stops coming up this week in San Francisco, Bellingham, Wash., and trainers in other regions are finalizing their schedules.

Check out a one-minute video Joey put together about the tour, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I05ol53N8DY&list=HL1340470367&feature=mh_lolz

I’ve been thoroughly impressed with the questions and comments from people. Citizens and journalists care about government transparency and improving their document skills!

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit
  • Tootrue4you

    What about your award to Leland Yee?

  • Carla Kimbrough

    The ethics code forgot the ethical responsibility of telling the story of diversity, even when it’s unpopular. Given the changing demographics of this country, media professionals – still a largely white profession – must address diversity. By 2050, whites won’t be the majority anymore in the U.S., so it would behoove the media to address issues that affect the broader society. Look around the table of those drafting these revisions, does this committee, which is tasked with an enormous job, have any diversity? I hope so. If not, understand that diverse viewpoints make things better.

  • Jillayne Schlicke

    Instead of “should,” which allows for subjective interpretation, why not use the word “shall,” which speaks to choices and action–that’s what ethics is really all about, right?

  • Mike Brown

    I think Seeking Truth touches on this somewhat: “Seek sources whose views are seldom used. Official and unofficial sources can be equally valid.”

    I also agree with you that there is a need for telling the story of diversity. I think you support your idea with why diversity is newsworthy, as well as ethical to do so. I was hoping that the ethics code would also address/recognize citizen journalism for the same reasons.

  • Dan Gainor

    I think it’s a bad idea to remove:

    Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

  • Kathryn Foxhall

    Over the last 20 years there has been a surge in policies in agencies and
    others prohibiting staff from speaking to reporters without going through
    public affairs or press offices. This March SPJ joined others in presenting the
    latest two surveys showing that the restrictions are pervasive and journalists
    overwhelming believe they keep information from the public.

    SPJ president David Cuillier, indicating these restrictions are clearly
    getting worse, said, “We as journalists and citizens, we cannot stand for this.
    Simply, we have to push back. It’s time.”

    The profession must address questions including whether it’s ethical to
    do reporting under such intense censorship without fighting it as hard as we
    can and routinely warning the public when news is gathered under these dubious
    conditions.

    If we turn a blind eye to the questionable reliability of sources under
    these controls, we may not recognize when we publish information that is
    skewed, tragically limited or harmful.

    But we bear responsibility for that negligence.

    I’m sending suggested changes to the committee.

  • charper51

    I think it is a good first step, but I believe the following need more attention:
    –The use of fairly, fair and balance as standards. If you use these words, you need to define them. My definition of fair and balance may be completely different from someone else’s definition.
    –You need to define a nontraditional provider of news.
    –You need far more about transparency by reporters, editors and publications. I want to know far more about the background, biases and other information about journalists when they write a story.
    –I wish you had not removed: “Give voice to the voiceless.”

  • Guest

    I think you have a good start, but here are some thoughts:
    –Balance and fairness are used in three places. One person’s definition of these words can be completely different from another person. I think you should eliminate these words because they no longer provide value.
    –Please define nontraditional provider of news.
    –Please emphasize transparency for reporters, editors and publications. I think this area is critical. I would like to see bios, biases and other information, including links to other stories. I am tired of parsing political bias in stories from all sides.
    –I would reinsert give voice to the voiceless.

  • Guest

    Yes there are other views:

    “Journalists
    and marketers have a symbiotic relationship – at some point, they need
    each others’ cooperation to succeed. They, along with their readers,
    listeners and viewers, are part of a communication triad that fails if
    any part of the triad is weak or out of balance.”

    http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e91m84uk0632a76b&llr=it6slgdab

  • SPJ Region 5

    SPJ Code of Ethics: Chicago Report

    The
    following suggestions and comments regarding the 2014 overhaul of the 1996 SPJ
    Ethics Code come from the April 12 SPJ Region 5 conference in Chicago.

    OVERVIEW:

    Questions posed of the proposed code improvements:

    1. Does this suggested revision of the code cover the essential guiding pinciples
    of our profession in concise and efficient language?

    2. Is this suggested revision of the code helpful to journalists to improve
    and maintain their professional standards?

    3. Will these proposed changes maintain and improve the public’s trust of
    journalists and their work?

    Generally, the proposed code changes are an improvement over the 1996 document, but they are still riddled with redundancies and must be further simplied and distilled. For example, the preamble could be boiled down to this: Justice and
    good government require an informed public.

    Journalists should serve the public with fair, accurate and comprehensive
    information reported with integrity. This code sets forth our Society’s
    principles and standards in the practice of professional journalism.

    One suggestion: The preamble must include as one of the code’s raison d’etres
    “to protect the public’s right to know.”

    Items of concern NOT addressed in the proposed changes:

    1. Is it ethical for reporters covering events, issues and people to – in
    print or on broadcasts – to analyze, comment and critique those events,
    issues and people and still maintain a fair and objective journalistic
    status?

    2. Is the use of music and other forms of emotional manipulation an ethical use of journalistic tools when used in video reports?

    3. Is a role for dramatic re-enactments — in essence “faked footage” — in serious journalism?

    4. What mechanism(s) exist(s) to enforce the revised code once it becomes
    adopted? Should there be an appeals process for those journalists who
    believe they are innocent of charges of ethics code breeches?

    Other suggestions and ideas

    The code should be a call for journalists everywhere to unite as a single
    community and watch each other’s backs, rather than always viewing each
    other as “the competition” and setting up barriers between
    journalists.

    Seasoned professionals understand the broad concepts of an ethics code, but
    student journalists need specific and concrete rules to fully understand
    what constitutes an ethical breach, e.g. Do not pick information and
    photos off the Internet and put them in your reports even in they appear
    to be public domain and real information. Verify the facts and be certain
    of copyright infringements before publication.

    Respectfully submitted,

    DANN GIRE Chicago Daily Herald

    Region 5 of SPJ

  • AndySchotz

    Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to comment.

    I posted my thoughts on the first draft on the Region 2 blog:
    http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/region2/?p=48

    Andy Schotz
    Region 2 director, SPJ

  • lynjensen

    In the “Avoid stereotyping” part I suggest you return to the listing of protected groups (beginning with “race” and ending with “social status.”). The revision is too vague. If your intention is to expand the kinds of stereotyping that are to be avoided, then simply add, “and any other categorizations likely to result in stereotypes” or something similar.

  • Donald_W_Meyers

    I would have left “Never plagiarize.” the way it was in the code. It was eloquent and to the point. That second sentence is superfluous commentary.

  • TucsonTerpFan

    One of the possible problems with seeking diversity is somewhat revealed in your post. “Look around the table of (sic) those drafting these revisions, does the committee…have any diversity.”

    To too many “diversity” is only seen. However, at the end of your post, you’re right on target! “[D]iverse viewpoints make things better.” There’s more to diversity than people just looking different when simply seen with the naked eye.

  • Opinaripeople

    Still too PC. Is not role of journalism to report as accurately as possible without personal, political, religious, for example, agenda and to rely on editors to warn of bias that slips in or tends to warp reporting? If these basics were present in a person or organization of “good public character and commitment,” there would be many needed adjustments in ethics. In my view, ethic do not require group-think on issues of any era.


Newest Posts

Highlights through Oct. 22 October 23, 2014, 3:39 pm
Why Twitter should be a non-negotiable for journalists October 22, 2014, 9:31 pm
Dealing with rejection October 21, 2014, 3:42 am
Region 7 Career Connection, 10.20.14 October 21, 2014, 1:25 am
Three alt weeklies bow out in one week October 21, 2014, 1:05 am
Ebola in America October 20, 2014, 2:20 pm
#ILoveMyJob, Even if ‘Journalist’ Isn’t In the Title October 20, 2014, 1:00 pm

Copyright © 2007-2014 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ