A critique: first draft of SPJ Code of Ethics update

One of the major projects on SPJ’s agenda this year is a review – and possible update – of the SPJ Code of Ethics.

The code of ethics was last updated in 1996.

About four years ago, when I was chairman of the SPJ Ethics Committee, Kevin Smith – SPJ’s president at the time – asked the committee to review the code of ethics. However, the committee soon realized that it wasn’t the right time.

SPJ was about to publish a new edition of a journalism textbook. Fred Brown, the committee’s vice chair, who edited the book, said the publisher would not want us to change the code of ethics, a prominent part of the book, right after the textbook came out. So, we waited.

The idea for a review returned last year. The Ethics Committee has moved ahead.

On March 27, Smith, who is now chairman of the Ethics Committee, posted a first draft of possible changes to the code, as suggested by the committee. (A version that tracks the changes was added more recently.)

The plan is to get wide feedback on the first draft, then have the committee return with a second draft for the national board and convention delegates to consider at Excellence in Journalism 2014 in Nashville in September.

The board and the delegates also could look at the proposed changes and decide that the code of ethics should remain as it is.

 

Below are some of my thoughts on the committee’s first draft.

 

Here is the current preamble:

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society’s principles and standards of practice.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of “rules” but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable. [We added the second paragraph during my time on the committee to counter attempts to use the code of ethics as a set of rules, especially as part of litigation.]

 

Here is what the committee proposed:

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that justice and good government require an informed public. The journalist’s duty is to provide that information, accurately, fairly and fully. Responsible journalists from all media, including nontraditional providers of news to a broad audience, should strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Responsible journalists think ethically before acting, and make every effort to get the story right the first time.  Integrity is the foundation of a journalist’s credibility, and above all, responsible journalists must be accurate. The purpose of this code is to declare the Society’s principles and standards and to encourage their use in the practice of journalism in any and all media. [There is different language here, but it expresses pretty much the same thing. The paragraph about the voluntary nature of the code doesn't show up on the committee's draft, but I'm told that will remain.]

 

 

Here is the current “Seek Truth and Report It” section:
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

 

Here is what the committee proposed:

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should:

Aggressively gather and update information as a story unfolds and work to avoid error. Deliberate distortion and reporting unconfirmed rumors are never permissible. [The "deliberate distortion" reference, from the current draft, is good. But I disagree with a declaration that it's "impermissible" to report unconfirmed rumors. Naturally, confirmed information is more credible than unconfirmed reports, but that's for a news organization to decide - as long as the context ("this has not been confirmed") is given.]

Remember that neither speed nor brevity excuses inaccuracy or mitigates the damage of error. [Is "brevity" the right word here? ("concise and exact use of words in writing or speech") This seems to be a reminder to get it right, no matter the pressure. Perhaps: "Getting it right should always trump reporting it first."]

Journalists, not sources, are responsible for the accuracy of stories. Verify information from sources before publishing. Information taken from other news sources should be independently verified [and credited?]. ["Taken" might not be the right word; it connotes lifting information and using it. Perhaps: "Information from any source, including another news organization, should be independently verified before including it in your own report. Give credit to other news sources as you would attribute any information you collect."]

Work to put every story in context. In promoting, previewing or reporting a story live, take care not to misrepresent or oversimplify it. [This appears to be a rewrite of a line in the current code: "Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context." I think this line still works fine, despite the claim I heard that it's an example of language from olden days. The new version doesn't capture the concern as fully - i.e., what about an exaggerated headline over a newspaper story?]

Clearly identify sources; the public is entitled to as much information as possible on source’s identity, reliability and possible motives.  Seek alternative sources before granting anonymity. Reveal conditions attached to any promises made in exchange for information. Keep promises. [should be "sources' " (plural) - not "source's" (singular) - or make it "a source's..." The "Reveal conditions" phrase is probably better than the existing "Clarify conditions" phrase, in that it points toward disclosure, not just mutual agreement.]

Seek sources whose views are seldom used. Official and unofficial sources can be equally valid. [The current reference is: "Give voice to the voiceless." That's stronger and better captures what we're trying to say. It's too simple to say "whose views are seldom used," which sounds like everyone should get a chance, regardless of whether they deserve it. That's probably not the intention.]

Diligently seek subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to criticism and to allegations of wrongdoing.

Avoid publishing critical opinions by those seeking confidentiality. [What this says and what it probably means to say are two different things. This falls under the "clearly identify sources" clause above. The addendum could be: "Anonymity should be reserved for sources who could face danger, retribution or other legitimate hardships for sharing information they know. Anonymity should not be granted freely as merely a license to criticize."]

Never alter or distort news images. Clearly label illustrations.

Avoid re-enactments or staged news events. [I don't understand why "misleading" was removed from this clause, as it's written in the current code ("Avoid misleading re-enactments..."). Why prohibit a re-enactment that's clearly presented as one?]

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional, open methods will not yield vital information to the public.

Never plagiarize. Always attribute information not independently gathered. [I like this addition. Plagiarism is clearly wrong, but I think there's no consensus of what it is, so urging attribution is worthwhile.]

Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience.

Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be clearly labeled.

Avoid stereotyping. Examine your own cultural values and avoid imposing those on others. [By cutting the examples of stereotyping in the current clause - "by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status" - it tightens the line considerably. But those examples might prompt people to consider the types of stereotyping they might have done, unwittingly.]

Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection. Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

 

This is the current “Minimize Harm” section:

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

 

This is the committee’s draft:

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect. Journalists should:

Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort.  Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance, irreverence or an invasive behavior. [The current draft stops at "arrogance." That isn't the only behavior to avoid, but there are too many to continue listing them. Or at least shorten "an invasive behavior" to "invasiveness" for parallel construction.]

Be sensitive when seeking or using information, interviews and images of people affected by tragedy or grief. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

Recognize the harm in using photos or information, including any photos and data from social media forums, for which the source is unknown, or where there is uncertainty regarding the authenticity of the images or information. [This is a good addition for today's times and practices. It could use some tweaking, though.]

Recognize that legal access to information differs from ethical justification to publish. Journalists should balance the importance of information and potential effects on subjects and the public before publication. [This also is a good addition, but it should be limited to the first sentence. The second sentence doesn't add anything.]

Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. ["Public figures" is a little better than the current reference to "public officials."]

Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. Avoid following the lead of others who violate this tenet. [The third sentence was added to the current version, but isn't needed. The first two sentences are clear on their own.]

Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges, and victims of sex crimes. Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed. [This line in the current version sticks to juvenile suspects and victims of sex crimes. I don't think the "criminal suspects" reference belongs here - it's a different issue. Publishing a name at all vs. when to publish a name. However, I think it's reasonable to have a separate reference to using care when publishing a suspect's name before there are formal charges.]

Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of online publication. Provide updated and more complete information when appropriate. [This is an excellent addition.]

 

This is the current “Act Independently” section:

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

 

This is the committee’s draft:

A journalist’s highest and primary obligation is to the public’s right to know. Journalists should:

 Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts. [These are two different lines in the current version. They are correctly grouped on one line here.]

Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations that may conflict with an impartial approach to information-gathering. ["...that may conflict..." replaces "if they compromise journalistic integrity" in the current version. Either is fine, although the new draft is a little more specific, which is good.]

Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for news or access. [This is one of the best changes in the new draft. "Do not pay for news or access" is much stronger and clearer than "Avoid bidding for news," which made "bidding" (as in, competition) the problem rather than payment.]

Deny favored treatment to advertisers and donors, or any other special interests, and resist pressure to influence coverage. [This appears to be an acknowledgment that modern nonprofit news organizations might be getting outside money, but I don't know if the reference is clear. "Donors" might conjure a political campaign.]

Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not. Distinguish news from advertising and marketing material. Shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. [I hate the word "content," which, in my opinion, minimizes what news is. That's a personal peeve. Also, this lists three categories - news, advertising, marketing material - but cautions about blurred lines "between the two."]

Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

 

This is the current “Be Accountable” section:

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

 

This is the committee’s draft:

Journalists should be open in their actions and accept responsibility for them. Journalists should:

Clarify and explain news coverage and encourage a civil dialogue with the public over journalistic practices. ["Civil" was a good addition here, but I prefer "journalistic conduct," which I think refers to individual cases, over "journalistic practices," which makes me think about the profession and its traditions. A small change, either way.]

Admit mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently wherever they appeared, including in archived material. [Excellent. This is another strong, important addition - correcting archived material. It could be expanded to include current material, not just archived material. For example: A story was posted on a news website in the morning, then corrected in the evening.]

Expose unethical conduct in journalism.

Disclose sources of funding and relationships that might influence, or appear to influence, reporting.

Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

[Why cut: "Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media"?]

 

 

Finally: I’d like to see one of my biggest pet peeves addressed – anonymous comments posted after stories.

Perhaps: “Consider the dangers of mean, unfair and potentially libelous feedback posted anonymously online after news stories.”

 

 

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

At Georgetown, authors and officers

A Nov. 11 SPJ event at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., served two purposes.

First, the audience of about 40 people got to hear from and talk to Pulitzer Prize winners Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman about their new book, “Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD’s Secret Spying Unit and Bin Laden’s Final Plot Against America.” It is based on their reporting for The Associated Press.

An audience members asked the authors about their approach to talking to sources. Apuzzo’s advice: “Talk casually.” Get to know a source, as if you’re dating. You can’t ask for the “big scoop” when you barely know each other.

Apuzzo, a member of the faculty at Georgetown, said government officials consider it “messy and inconvenient” when information gets out – but that’s not a reporter’s concern. “Governing is easier with secrecy,” he said.

Goldman listed some prominent recent leaks of so-called sensitive information, through WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden, and noted: “The sky hasn’t fallen yet.”

Trying to navigate through national security documents can be “like wandering in a dark room with a flashlight,” Apuzzo said. Some days, the flashlight doesn’t work.

Getting that story exactly right on the first try is unlikely because not all of the details and context will be clear, Goldman said.

Apuzzo and Goldman were part of an AP team that won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. The team also included Chris Hawley and Eileen Sullivan.

Asked about working closely with a colleague, Goldman explained why he meshed with Apuzzo: “I like him. He’s not a jerk. I could depend on him.”

The book discussion event also gave the new officers of the Georgetown University SPJ chapter a chance to get to know each other, a few days after they had been elected.

Vice President Mikayla Bouchard and Secretary/Treasurer Nayana Davis are new to the Master of Professional Studies in Journalism program at Georgetown. President Capricia Alston was active in SPJ last year.

Welcome, all, to SPJ leadership.

From left: chapter Secretary/Treasurer Nayana Davis; chapter President Capricia Alston; Adam Goldman; Matt Apuzzo; and chapter Vice President Mikayla Bouchard.

From left: chapter Secretary/Treasurer Nayana Davis; chapter President Capricia Alston; Adam Goldman; Matt Apuzzo; and chapter Vice President Mikayla Bouchard.

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

SPJ immersion

That’s the best way I can think of to describe the Ted Scripps Leadership Institute – SPJ immersion.

You learn a lot about a lot, from what SPJ is and does to the psychology of leadership.

I’ll leave it at that, so as not to give away the curriculum from this coming weekend’s leadership session in Richmond, Va. I will be there as Region 2 director, sharing my SPJ experiences and wisdom.

Under the new “traveling” format for the Scripps Institute (coming to a region near you), the Richmond session will be heavy on Region 2 participants:

Christina Jackson from the Western Carolina University chapter

Keith Cannon from Greater Charlotte Pro

Jonathan Michels from North Carolina Pro

Melissa Burke from Delaware Pro

Amy Cherry from Delaware Pro

David Cabrera from the Salisbury University chapter

Minal Bopaiah from Washington, D.C., Pro

April Bethea from Greater Charlotte Pro

David Burns from Maryland Pro

Brett Hall from the University of Maryland chapter

Emily Schweich from the University of Maryland chapter

 

I am excited to spend some time with this Region 2 crew, several of whom I have met in person and electronically.

See you in Virginia.

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

Celebrating ‘Tinker v. Des Moines School District’

If you’re a First Amendment fan (a given) and you’re in the Washington, D.C., area, you’ll want to be at the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 6 at 6 p.m.

That’s when the Tinker Tour rolls through the District.

Mary Beth Tinker was 13 years old in 1965 when she and some other young students in Des Moines, Iowa, wore armbands to school as a silent statement about the Vietnam War. Administrators tried to force the students to remove the armbands, which led to a challenge in the court system. Ultimately, in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the armbands were free speech; the students won.

This fall, Tinker and attorney Mike Hiestand – who won SPJ’s First Amendment Award in 2012 – have been criss-crossing the country to talk about free speech and a free press.

The tour is supported by the Student Press Law Center.

The Nov. 6 event will be part of the United States Supreme Court Historical Society’s Leon Silverman Lecture Series.

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

A fever over the Code

Here is SPJ review topic number 2 this year: the venerable code of ethics. (The first topic, in the previous post, was whether SPJ should update its name).

There have been several versions of the code. The first one dates to 1926, when Sigma Delta Chi (as SPJ was known at the time) “borrowed” a code from the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code in 1973. It was updated in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

About four years ago, then-SPJ President Kevin Smith asked the Ethics Commitee, which I chaired, to review the Code of Ethics and consider whether it should be updated again.

That effort was put on hold, though. SPJ was in the midst of publishing a new edition of a book of journalism ethics case studies. Since the book contained the SPJ Code of Ethics, the sentiment among committee members was that this was not the right time to change the code.

Now, in 2013, there is renewed interest in reviewing and possibly updating the code.

Some say parts of the code are dated and, in particular, it doesn’t address new technology, such as social media.

I, however, see the code as a set of structural principles that don’t change because of new methods of collecting and distributing information. The underpinnings of ethical journalism remain the same.

Nonetheless, SPJ is soliciting opinions about the current code and whether and how it should be changed, a little or a lot.

Please share your thoughts by taking this survey.

Then, look at this page on Google Docs to see what others have said.

As of this writing, 92 people had answered.

On the question of whether the code should be updated, 35 said “yes” (38 percent) and 24 said “no” (26 percent). The remaining 33 people (36 percent)  said “not sure – but it’s good to review.”

SPJ will continue the discussion at the chapter and regional level this year and next year. If the consensus is that changes are needed, there will be a draft for delegates to consider at next year’s convention in September in Nashville.

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

A new Society

SPJ is in the midst of two lengthy public reviews.

One is: What should we be called? (More on the second review in the next blog post.)

Sigma Delta Chi was the original name of the organization. It was founded as a fraternity in 1909 at DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind.

In 1960, the fraternity became a professional organization.

The next change came in 1973 — to Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi.

“Sigma Delta Chi” was dropped from the name in 1988.

Now, we are thinking about another alteration of the name – to the Society of Professional Journalism (or maybe something else).

For a fuller explanation of the reasoning behind the proposal, read what Region 3 Director Michael Koretzky wrote on his SPJ blog.

At this year’s national convention, Michael submitted a resolution suggesting a new name of “Society for Professional Journalism,” focusing on the act of journalism rather than the people who practice it.

Scroll down through the comments on Michael’s blog to read my reaction to his proposal.

Whether you agree with either – or neither – of us, please share your opinion of the name-change proposal. The SPJ board would like to know what all members think.

SPJ President David Cuillier has formed a task force to investigate a name change, including the associated expenses and how it would be perceived. (I recently was added to the task force.)

Is this a worthwhile change? Does it makes sense?

Do you have an alternate idea for a new name?

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

Contest coordinator opening

Each year, SPJ picks one person from Region 2 to run the Mark of Excellence contest for student journalists in our area.

I have done it the last two years. If anyone is interested in the position for the coming year, please let me know as soon as you read this.

There is a stipend for doing the work (unless you are the regional director).

Ask me questions at LawnGyland@aol.com.

I’ll explain what the job entails. You’ll need good organizational skills and the willingness to (gently) prod the judges, as needed.

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

Get with the program

The first SPJ $500 grant deadline of 2013-14 is upon us (today, Oct. 1). That gives you two months to apply in the next cycle (deadline Dec. 1).

If you’re in charge of programming and activities for your chapter, but not sure what to plan, feel free to borrow.

Here are samples of programs for which 10 chapters were honored last year.

In the First Amendment/FOI category, the winner for small chapters was our own Virginia Pro:

Small: The Virginia Pro chapter took to the halls of the Virginia legislature, distributed guest opinion columns to newspapers in support of a campus newspaper repressed by college officials and held programming to help educate members on freedom of information issues.

Virginia Pro also was honored in the Campus Relations/Scholarship category:

Small: The Virginia Pro chapter awarded two cash scholarships for the 51st year and gave grants to members of campus chapters in Virginia to cover the cost of registration to EIJ.

Programming is at the heart of SPJ chapters’ work. We can and should learn from each other.

I’ll keep my eye open for programs that are informative, fun, easy, and/or eye-catching and occasionally post them on this blog. Please share ideas with me and the region when you think they’re cool.

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

Pushing back against intellectual vises

Twenty years ago, I was a reporter for a small weekly newspaper in upstate New York. One fascinating story we covered that year was a high school student challenging his teacher’s use of “The Great Santini” by Pat Conroy, claiming it had inappropriate themes. The student lost.

Ever since, I’ve paid closer attention to how often books are challenged in schools and public libraries.

Sometimes, you can understand parents’ discomfort with books and topics – racy language, sexuality, violence – their children face. (The problem is when a few parents try to decide what’s right for an entire school or community and take away everyone else’s access to the material.)

Other times, the challenges are outlandish. “Where’s Waldo?” had a topless woman on the beach, lying face down. The dictionary contains bad words. The availability of both has been challenged.

Anna Quindlen spoofed the mind-purity movement nicely in a column: “The Cat in the Hat is nude except for the gloves, the tie and, yep, the hat. Winnie the Pooh does not wear pants. Just a warning.”

Shortly after my newspaper in New York covered that book challenge, I found out about Banned Books Week, an American Library Association project that numerous organizations now support.

I went to the New York State Museum for a public reading of banned books. People signed up to read aloud from their favorites on the list of banned or challenged books.

This year’s Banned Books Week starts on Sept. 22. Check the website for events near you. There also is a chance to do a “Virtual Read-Out.” Send tweets using the hashtag #bannedbooksweek.

The American Library Association says there were 464 challenges reported to its Office of Intellectual Freedom in 2012 and the group thinks many other challenges were not reported. Here are lists of recently challenged books.

This is a natural cause for journalists to support: the freedom to read.

 

 

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

The Scripps experience

If you’re new to SPJ, or not so new but thinking you’d like to get more involved…

Try Scripps.

It’s formally known as the Ted Scripps Leadership Institute. It’s a place you go to learn more about SPJ and how to lead a chapter. You also schmooze, network and make new friends.

I’ve been through the program and can attest that it’s worth your time. If nothing else, it energizes you with an ample dose of SPJ pep.

And, SPJ pays for your lodging and meal costs, thanks to the Scripps Howard Foundation.

For years, the Scripps Leadership Institute was held in Indianapolis, which is where I experienced it. Now, it’s a traveling road show that comes to you..

The fourth and final stop of 2012-13 is in – pay attention, Region 2ers – Richmond, Va., Nov. 8 through 10.

You have to apply before Sept. 23.

Every chapter should send one or two people from its board, or people who might like to serve on a chapter board at some point.

Give it a try. I’m reasonably sure you’ll enjoy it and learn plenty.

 

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit


Newest Posts

Congrats to Steve York, our April Volunteer of the Month! April 22, 2014, 6:05 pm
BEST OF THE SOUTH April 22, 2014, 10:31 am
2014 Regional Conference Recap April 21, 2014, 3:44 pm
Chicago Ethics Report April 21, 2014, 3:15 pm
A critique: first draft of SPJ Code of Ethics update April 21, 2014, 6:27 am
Congratulations! Mark of Excellence Awards list April 16, 2014, 5:21 pm
Mark of Excellence Award duplicate order form April 16, 2014, 5:13 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