Sometimes, as a member of the Society of Professional Journalists, you might get questions about our organization from fellow journalists who are non-members. The questions are usually ones wondering why they should join and what does SPJ really do?

If you have received that kind of question lately chances are you point to our stellar work for a free press, our outstanding ethical contributions, our work on behalf of diversity and our far-reaching and helpful professional development.

But, let me provide you with a few real-time examples of why SPJ is important and what we do invaluable in the grand scheme of protecting and improving journalism.

Here’s what SPJ has done in the last month:

We took NBC News to task for providing a very generous gift of a private jet ride from Brazil to the U.S. for a father and his son in exchange for an exclusive interview. NBC has taken exception with our characterization of this event. They said it was a simple act of kindness shown to Mr. David Goldberg and his son following a long and expensive custody battle over several years, which NBC covered extensively. The fact that NBC admitted to having done nearly 18 interviews with Mr. Goldman and that their viewers had developed a relationship with the family and viewers had come to expect this relationship via NBC means nothing when they offered him the private ride in exchange for an exclusive, an NBC spokesperson said.

We said otherwise and called it “checkbook journalism” and we contend it’s wrong. Just like it was for CNN to buy photos and an exclusive interview with Dutch passenger Jasper Schuringa who helped subdue the would-be Christmas Day plane bomber in Detroit.

The NBC story got a lot of traction and more than three dozen outlets by my last count reported SPJ’s condemnation of NBC’s exclusive buy.

This week, in a trifecta defense of the First Amendment, we threw our support behind a reporter in St. Louis who was arrested for standing on a sidewalk interviewing people and videotaping police break up a protest outside a local high school.

Steve Wagman, a veteran of the Post-Dispatch, as far as we can tell from the video and reports, did nothing more than stand his ground and defend his right to be there reporting the story. He wasn’t belligerent or in any way interfered with the police doing their job. They said differently and arrested him. SPJ backed Wagman and sent a letter to officials asking for charges to be dropped.

The next day we stood behind a group of Northwestern students who are being subpoenaed by a Cook County prosecutor who wants everything from their reporting notes to their course grades. Students in a class for the Medill Innocence Project helped gather enough evidence through reporting to show a convicted man was wrongfully charged with a crime. In return for their work, some of the same prosecutors who convicted the man are now trying to bully and discredit the students and are using strong-arm tactics to get their information and make them talk in court.

SPJ, along with a number of other media organization and outlets, took a firm stand and filed an amicus brief in the Chicago judicial system this week, asking that all charges and prosecution stop.

As if that wasn’t enough, SPJ sent a letter to Congress Tuesday calling on leaders to exercise an open-door policy when it comes to debating the health care reform bill. C-SPAN has been locked out of government proceedings and the largest financial commitment by the U.S. government in our history is being shaped behind closed doors. We adamantly protested this and called on Congress and the Administration to open the doors to the behind-the-scenes discussion and let the American public really see and learn what is taking place on this landmark legislation.

So, in a matter of two weeks, we slapped a journalism organization for an ethical transgression, stood behind a falsely accused reporter trying to cover a story, filed legal papers in support of journalism students whose work has brought them vindication from authorities and demanded more transparency in our government.

Not a bad couple of weeks. Defending the free press and the public’s right to know isn’t just noble talk. It really takes place within SPJ and it’s what makes us a proud and effective group that has lasted 100 years and earned us more than 8,000 members.

The next time someone asks what SPJ does for journalism, start your response with “Where would you like me to begin?”

If you haven’t seen the Sigma Delta Chi web presentation in which the noble history of our beloved organization is outlined and longtime member Helen Thomas makes a passion plea to keep our mission alive, well, you are missing out on a great story as well as an excellent appeal for donations.

The message showed up in my email basket with a rather innocuous email label – SDX message. When you are accustomed to getting about 70 SPJ emails a day as the president, everything starts to blend together. I didn’t know this was coming. I wasn’t expecting what would open on my computer screen when I clicked on it. But, there before my eyes unfolded a marvelous animated tale.

As I sat there looking at photos of our founding fathers and watched as 100 years of Sigma Delta Chi/Society of Professional Journalist unfolded before me, I got goose bumps. I felt an enormous sense of pride and a greater sense of responsibility as your leader. A lot has been entrusted to your current leadership. And, yes, when Thomas started telling her audience of how wonderful and valuable SPJ has been these last 100 years in the battles for press freedoms and in setting the highest ethics standards, I got a bit misty eyed.

We are 100 years old. There are not many journalism organizations that can make that claim. The principles we’ve coveted and have made us strong these past 100 years, will be the ones which continue to make us a force over the next century. It’s been my distinct privilege to be a member of SPJ the last 30 years. It’s my greatest honor to be your current president.

I hope you take a few minutes out of your busy day and watch this wonderful tale. I hope you get goose bumps as well and I hope you take Thomas’ advice to make a financial pledge to SDX so we can continue our missions. Thanks to Amy Posavac for coordinating this marvelous presentation.

We have so much to be proud of. We have so much to be thankful for and we have so much to protect and improve upon. Won’t you please do your part and keep our grand story alive?

If U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions proved anything this week it’s that he can’t be relied on to be a reliable source of information to the press and his public, anonymous or not.

Sessions, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has worked tirelessly the last 19 weeks with other Republicans to hold the Free Flow of Information Bill, S-448, hostage. Thursday, after weeks of stall tactics were exhausted and the barrage of amendments (nearly 30 total ) were defeated, the bill was moved to the full senate for consideration.

Not long after the vote, Sessions dug into his bag of political tricks and resorted to mischaracterizations, misinformation and fear mongering. His attempt is clear – unable to claim victory after nearly five months of debate, he wants to scare the people of Alabama into hating the press and stem the flow of information from the government to its people.

To characterize this bill as Sessions has done as a mechanism by which terrorists, rapists and child predators will be protected from investigators because of the press is patently wrong as is a dishonest attempt to create fear and gain support in Alabama when he couldn’t in senate chambers.

The Free Flow of Information bill provides journalists a shield from having to reveal their anonymous sources when stories of public interest are disseminated. This is not an absolute privilege and never has been. Many states provide protection for anonymous sources but there has never been such protection on a national level. 

Sessions isn’t truthful when he says that between 1994-2006 only 19 journalists were subpoenaed for their sources. A study by a Brigham Young University law professor shows that in 2006 alone, there were more than 3,000 nationwide. And the Department of Justice, which Sessions says rarely uses this legal reach, accounted for 335 in that single year.

When Sessions says that this is an imminent danger to national security and writes “the rejections of these and other amendments recklessly imperils the security of our citizens and our soldiers and leaves in place a bill that is deeply and fundamentally flawed,” he is mischaracterizing the bill’s language and its function.  National security measures have been carefully written into this bill. They’ve been there since the beginning and no journalist, compelled to come before a judge, can invoke the shield law when the information is militarily or criminally sensitive. A judge gets to apply a balancing test to determine what the public gets to know. Sessions would prefer that you get to know nothing.

When the senator contends that this doesn’t have the support of the intelligence and defense community, he is exaggerating to continue this fear mongering. Initial objects were voiced, amendments were added and this bill has the blessing of the Obama administration and letters of support exist from key prosecuting and intelligence leaders. He knows this, yet he clings to a secret covey of informants from the last administration, to tell him differently.

If information is the key to power, Sessions would have you believe that the real power in this country can never lie within its informed electorate, but must be tightly gripped by the government. Sessions has made it clear that he wants to safeguard as much government information as he can and news stories that unveil government corruption and misdeed have to remain secret.

As Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said to Sessions when the Alabama senator complained about the title of the bill, “I rather like the idea of a flow of information from the government to the public in a democracy.”

I admit that my first reaction to news that the Federal Trade Commission was holding workshops in Washington, D.C. the first part of December to look into the Internet’s impact on legacy media — more specifically, newspapers — had me a little miffed.

Like most independent-minded journalists the idea of the government intervening in our professional crisis seemed inappropriate at the least and an attempt at grabbing power at its worse.

The announcement was followed by a flurry of internal SPJ e-mails from members and other leaders raising the same questions and expressing the same concerns.

So, I determined that this intervention wouldn’t happen under my watch as SPJ president without putting up a fight. So I solicited comments from our committee chairs and chapters and I booked my trip to DC to defend SPJ and journalism’s interests. (Click here for all the public comments submitted to the FTC.)

But two weeks ago, while attending the Future of Journalism conference at Yale Law School, I realized I committed the cardinal sin of journalism – I decided the outcome of this story before I got all the facts.

It was during this conference that I had the opportunity to hear FTC Director Susan DeSanti explain her organization’s motives. Afterwards, I spoke to her and she promised that she would give special review to SPJ’s comments and invited us to take a more active role in future FTC workshops. Of course, I agreed we would.

Here is what she promised an auditorium full of journalists and scholars during her Yale speech:

First, this is a non-invasive action. The FTC is a non-regulatory body, meaning it can’t create laws affecting our industry. Its job is more fact-finding. The FTC’s mission is, in part, to analyze market failures and try to prevent them and protect people within those failing markets.

Second, the FTC believes there is enormous value in journalism as a component in sustaining a vibrant democracy. Therefore, the FTC has interest in such a vital market when papers are closing and people are losing their jobs.

“We have jurisdictional responsibility to research the U.S. economy and report on issues that may affect a market or economic overall,” DeSantis said, noting that her agency has been reading about all of the problems taking place in journalism and the ‘creative destruction’ of the industry and there is concern over the market equilibrium.

“I promise you that the FTC is platform neutral,” she emphasized. “This is not [a] way to save newspapers as it’s been characterized. This is about journalism and its future and its role in a market that is needed to sustain our democracy.”

She further said the FTC is coming to this with no intentions of proposing regulations for other agencies to consider. If anything the FTC just wants to hear from people, analyze data and get access to research.

Okay, so that said, where exactly does that leave SPJ? In all my years on the board we have touted SPJ as the largest and most broad-based organization in the nation. We are, therefore, platform neutral. We have fought to keep the definition of journalist an open one so that we don’t restrict ourselves in terms of our institutional thinking and our membership. In short, we fight for all journalists and represent everyone equally.

In a time when newspapers are tanking and Twitter is soaring it’s a hard sell, sometimes. As a legacy journalist who spent more than 20 years in newspapers it hurts when I travel to Ft. Worth and Denver and points in between and shake the hands of displaced journalists who tell me how they are struggling after their paper closed or forced buyouts and layoffs.

It’s difficult to see jobless reporters and editors struggling and then read about hyper-local Web sites that depend on citizen reporters who work for no money.

I can’t sit here at this moment and tell you with certainty where our profession is headed and what direction we need to advocate. But, I’m getting closer to understanding it all. Two days at Yale and two days in DC will help me better understand the landscape. And, as I promised the night I took office, SPJ will not be without a voice and we will help shape our destiny.

I’m looking forward to the FTC hearings as another step in the education process. Soon, though, we will be developing our own views on this subject and submitting our own report. In the meantime, thanks to everyone who contributed to this coming event and keeps speaking out and defending journalism. Regardless of the future, one thing will never change – a democracy fails without a viable free press.

Many of you are aware that SPJ has been working tirelessly for years to promote a federal shield law that will protect journalists and their sources from improper interference by federal prosecutors.

Personally, I’ve been to Capitol Hill the last two years making SPJ’s position on this important legislation known to a variety of senators and Congressional representatives. But, many well-intentioned officers of the Society preceded me. This has been a long and arduous process. First, let me say thank you to all who have toiled for this legislation over the years.

Next week the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on Senate Bill 448, the Free Flow of Information Act, a bill that is coming very close to becoming law.  This is the closest we’ve been to having a shield bill make it to the president’s desk. With support now from the White House and the majority leadership of this Congress we have high hopes this will be the year we can report to our membership that we are protected against federal prosecution when it comes to revealing confidential sources.

This can be a reality but SPJ and the media coalition need your help.  The time now is crucial. We are on the one-yard line and this is the winning score.

 In the days leading up to the Nov. 19 Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote, we want members of SPJ to take a few minutes and call or email members of the committee, or your senators or representatives and express your wish to have SB 448 passed.  Call them and email them.

One thing I’ve learned from my trips to the Hill is you might not get to talk to a lawmaker but they do get status reports every day from staff telling them who called and for what bill. They will pay attention when they get hundreds of calls and emails for SB 448.

That’s why we need as many members as possible to make those calls and send those emails supporting this legislation. SPJ needs your voice. With more than 8,000 members to be heard, we can make a difference. We can make a unified sound that will resonate with all members and we can nudge this bill from the committee, one step closer to law.

Please call or send an email.  Stand behind the shield law and ask our lawmakers to do the same.

It didn’t take me all of two and a half hours sitting at Walter Cronkite’s memorial service Wednesday to learn that my career is somewhat muted  by the fact I never met the journalistic icon.

I, like so many of my generation, were drawn to journalism by the likes of Cronkite, John Chancellor, David Brinkley and Chet Huntley.  When I was pretty sure I wouldn’t be an astronaut and walk the moon like Cmdr. Buzz Aldrin, who, by the way, was on hand to eulogize Mr. Cronkite, I wanted to be a journalist.

The service may be one of the great moments of my 30 years as a newsman.  When I wasn’t laughing at stories like the time Mr. Cronkite refused to have his picture taken with the Big Three’s anchors — Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw — because that meant leaving his seat at the bar and walking away from his drink, I was shedding a tear for our loss. The service was a euphoric blend of happy memories and poignant testimonies to “the Most Trusted Man in America.”

Make no mistake about it, those who knew Walter Cronkite, loved him. They respected him and they followed his example of pure, driven journalism that put a premium on accuracy, fairness and brevity.

“Just give the people the news. Be accurate and fair. That’s what they want,” he must have said enough times to chant it in his sleep.

That’s  an amazing statement that still has a place within today’s context of high-speed, technologically driven delivery systems.

In President Barack Obama’s tribute to the CBS News anchor, he told the crowd about the time Mr. Cronkite, as a young reporter, lost his job because he dared pick up the phone to verify a fire at a local department store instead of rushing on the air to tell it. Obama suggested, rightfully so I believe, that even with the supernova brightness of technology and the light speed by which information is disseminated, that Mr. Cronkite would still do the journalistic right thing and take the time to verify the information, get it right and then report it.

Listening to the likes to Bob Schieffer, Andy Rooney, Katie Couric, Nick Clooney, Sir Howard Stringer and Brokaw tell their stories about Mr. Cronkite, I was comforted by the notion that the way I was taught to be a journalist, and how I now teach my students, is straight from the Cronkite book – people need to know what happened. Above all else, accuracy and fairness must exist. Journalism is a noble calling and you must honor it with these commitments, lest you lose the trust of the public and undermine your credibility.

As Obama said, Mr. Cronkite was the “most trusted man in American” not because it was a marketing tool or a gimmick to get viewers to tune into CBS News.  It was a title bestowed upon him by the people who matter the most – the American public.

His work is legendary and his commitment to journalistic excellence is second to none, so my respect for him didn’t need to grow as a result of this service. But, what did happen is I renewed my spirit and reaffirmed my respect for what it is I do – journalism. I have the great fortune of sharing this profession with Mr. Cronkite.

He set the bar for which we all reach and in the final analysis, that may be his greatest gift to journalism — that we aspire to be as honorable and trusted as Mr. Cronkite.

I may never have met him, but that seems less important to me today because of what he meant to American journalism and his beloved public.

I think you can trust me on this.

As those of you who attended the convention last week will recall, I talked about a plan to turn our membership numbers around. While adding 1,000 people to our roll seems daunting in these most difficult of times, it will not be if many of us make an effort to reach out to journalists in this coming year and convince them to join our organization. I referred to it as my 10 percent plan. If one in every 10 members did this, we’d be back to numbers of almost two years ago. Maybe we need to modify it to a 15 percent plan. However we promote it, the message is the same — SPJ has to stop the membership slide now.

Just days ago a new report shows we fell below 8,000 members for the first time in many, many years. We are wanting our numbers to be closer to 9,000. Heck, I can remember two years ago thinking we could easily push it to 10,000. Not such an easy task as times change. But the need for our organization hasn’t. More than ever, SPJ has to prove it has relevance to displaced journalists, working journalists and college journalists. As a member you know it does. That’s why it’s vital for you to make efforts to bolster our membership.

It’s not just about image, it’s also about survival. SPJ draws more than a third of its operating budget from dues and as we fall below 8,000 members we run risks of budget deficits and program cutbacks. I don’t want to see that happen and neither do you. That’s why I wrote the letter below that was sent out to all chapter leaders this week making my pitch to them to make membership a priority.

I think you will agree that there is no better time than the present to start this turnaround.

—

Sept. 4, 2009

Dear Chapter Leaders:

As many of you are aware by now, one of my primary missions for the next year is to elevate our membership numbers by more than 1,000 journalists. This is an ambitious undertaking in tough economic times for the news industry and its employees.

I know this sounds wildly ambitious, but it isn’t that difficult of a task. Think of the number of journalists you come in contact with each day, week, and month — on the job or in social settings. These are prime opportunities to sell SPJ. You know and understand the value of your SPJ membership. Now you need to use your best skills of persuasion and make others feel that same way. Don’t let a moment pass you this year that you can’t extol the virtues of belonging to the largest, oldest and most prestigious journalism organization in our country.

This is why I believe we can make this happen. Using a very conservative approach to membership recruiting, I strongly believe it is attainable with a simple 10 percent plan. That is, if only 10 percent of the membership reached out to one journalist in the next year and brought them into the fold, we’d be well on our way to reaching the level this organization aspires.

We are now entering a very crucial time in our membership year. Students are arriving back on campus and membership numbers tend to dip for us at the end of the calendar year. As you return from convention energized with new-found knowledge you obtained from professional development and you have that SPJ spring in your step, don’t hesitate sharing it with others.

Student and professional chapter leaders can plan events that attract new faces. What we know is people join SPJ for our virtues but stay for local events. So, it’s vital that chapter leaders work diligently in this area to assure that SPJ has relevance for these journalists.

The staff at headquarters stands ready to assist you. Our new membership chair Holly Fisher and her committee members are ready to help you attract new members, retain old ones and devise new strategies that will keep SPJ vibrant and powerful in the years to come.

Don’t hesitate to ask for assistance or share your successes with others. Together, starting today, we will turn the corner and grow in numbers and strength.

Sincerely,

Kevin Z. Smith
President

The SPJ board on Saturday decided to offer a helping hand to existing members who have lost their jobs.

The organization will extend memberships for six months for certain people. To find out if you are eligbile, you must apply using this form.

This is a very difficult time for all journalists especially those who have been put out of work as the business struggles financially. This policy, which is good for one year, is intended to allow people in a difficult spot to continue their memberships while they look for their next job in journalism.

The Region 1 spring conference is my next stop. I leave for Philadelphia Thursday morning. The conference at Temple University starts Friday and ends Saturday. I am looking forward to seeing the leaders from Region 1 again.

This conference and the Region 10 conference in Montana wraps up what has been a successful spring conference season.

Here is a recap of Saturday’s SPJ board meeting:

Here is a short recap of the SPJ board action from Saturday, April 18. Please feel free to share this at what spring conferences remain and with your chapters leaders and members.

Budget:

The board approved a budget that spends about $1.6 million and projects a $30,000 surplus at the end of the year. We have added categories to the Mark of Excellence Awards in hopes of adding entries. Quill magazine will be printed six times instead of nine, saving about $40,000

We are also going to replace the roof at the headquarters in Indianapolis, sharing the cost with the SDX Foundation. Revenue projections are based on membership levels of 8,200. We are at 8,500 this week. Membership is about 32 percent of our revenue.

New chapters

The board admitted five new chapters to the Society. This is very exciting. Please welcome Angelo State, Butler University, Harding University, Northern Kentucky University and Western Michigan University campus chapters.

Relief for laid off journalists

The board approved a six-month extension for existing members who have lost their jobs. The offer is good for the next year. This will help journalists who have been laid off to maintain their SPJ memberships while they transition to their next job. Quill will be sent digitally to members who apply for this option. Look for more details in the coming weeks.

2010 Convention

We are going to Las Vegas. We had a successful convention their in 2005 and we plan to return in 2010. The convention will probably take place in early October. The board also considered New Orleans. Hotel rates are expected to be under $150 a night. The conference was originally schedule for New York in 2010 but the board rescinded that when it became clear travel and hotel costs would be too expensive for members.

2011 Convention

SPJ plans to pursue the concept of a joint convention with the Radio Television News Directors Association in 2011. Both organizations have a goal of creating a giant professional development conference that might some day include additional partners. The partnership provides the opportunity for more participants, better room and meal rates. It also ends the need to compete for speakers, fundraising and attendance with another large organization.

It is important to note that both organizations will keep any traditions they have in this new setup. We would still have the President’s Installation Dinner, the LDF auction and the Mark of Excellence Awards. Our business meetings would still be conducted.

The board rescinded its plan to have the convention in San Francisco in 2011 so it could work on a location that is suitable for both SPJ and RTNDA.

Fairness Doctrine

The board took a position in opposition to the Fairness Doctrine. No bill exists but there has been discussion. The organization opposes government intervention in speech and journalism ethics. A number of people have been contacting us asking what our position is on this issue. We will post a statement on the web site next week. The Fairness Doctrine was originally put in place in 1949 and required anyone with a broadcasting license to provide both sides of any controversial issue. The FCC repealed it in 1987.

We believe that the Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to regulate speech.

Branding statement

The Public Outreach committee was asked to recommend a branding statement that can be used as a slogan internally and externally. The board approved the slogan, “Fighting for your right to know, one story at a time.”

This will complement and not replace the “Improving and Protecting Journalism” that is now being used. It will start gradually making its way onto our promotional materials during the next few weeks.

Chapter reports

A recommendation to put before the delegates a plan to remove from the bylaws the annual report requirement was rejected. The regional directors are working on improving the current system to rate student and campus chapters.

Shield law

SPJ has scheduled July 13-15 as its annual trip to Washington D.C. to talk to congress about issues important to journalists. More information will come out later on how board members and committee leaders can take part if they are interested.

Improved digital communications

The Digital Media Committee recommended SPJ improve its blog system, engage more in social networking opportunities and put all digital tools in one place on the web site. All of these things are in the process of happening in the next year.

Strategic plan

The board is still committed to the strategic plan approved in 2007. It met for about an hour Saturday to talk about the nest steps in meeting the goals of the plan.