Good Work Wednesdays

Journalists are a cynical bunch and as such, we tend to focus on the negative. Well, here at “First Draft,” the Generation J committee members will be doing our part to encourage young journalists who excel in their craft. For the first Good Work Wednesdays post, we check in with writer Jaclyn Trop, who recently had a feature on the hunt for an eccentric identity thief published in The Boston Phoenix. Good work, Jaclyn!

(If you’d like to submit an item for Good Work Wednesdays, email it to aiesha_little(at)yahoo(dot)com)

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

Tags: , , ,

Defending the First Amendment and promoting open government are more crucial now than ever. Join SPJ's fight for the public’s right to know — either as an SPJ Supporter or a professional, student or retired journalist.

  • BenUriel

    Mr. Skeel, having read your comments I think you have come to a wise conclusion. I have seen that some professions (I am thinking here of some legal jurisdictions. My profession is that of attorney) take the approach of a broad ethical code and then provide another tier of detailed guidance which is less binding or not binding as the case may be, I understand that you are dealing with a voluntary code in an unregulated profession (and a profession that I think all agree is best unregulated by people it may have to investigate or report on). A broad code that lays the ground rules out and makes sure that everyone who reads them can quickly understand what they are is a very positive thing under the circumstances. Out in the field here I have seen situations where journalists need a lodestone, any lodestone. They are good people but for many there is no organized conception of journalistic ethic. I have taken the liberty on many occasions of providing them links to your old code (not in the dispensation of legal advice, but just when working with journalist friends from the FCCJ in Tokyo who have a question). All concerned know it is not mandatory but it is appreciated.

    I would not abandon the more detailed study and work that has doubtless been done but present it in a different vehicle. Sometimes people are confronted with a situation where they are worried not how much they will be allowed to do but rather how to make a choice when all the options appear to have downsides. It is times like that when detailed, even if less compulsory, guidance is invaluable. Good luck with your revision.


    Grady E, Loy


Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn

© 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