There was a lot of bad.

The bombings — tragic.
A city gripped by fearful uncertainty — terrible.
News media spewing inaccurate information — beyond disappointing.

Much has already been said about the journalism mistakes: the impact on the industry, the misuse of social media and what to consider the next time big news breaks.

Among those valuable takeaways, it’s important to highlight news consumers’ reactions to media blunders.

More than ever, they’re not having it.

That’s my unscientific observation. In my year with SPJ, I’ve monitored the social media reactions to the SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Care Act, the theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., damage caused by superstorm Sandy, the Newtown, Conn., school shooting and now the Boston Marathon bombings and the manhunt that followed. (There was the U.S. Presidential election, but that went smoothly. Did I miss anything? Probably.)

As big breaking-news events occurred, news consumers became increasingly intolerant of inaccurate reporting. Via Twitter, Facebook and Reddit, they ask for verification and urge news deliverers to exercise patience and ethical judgements.

Setting aside the inaccuracies churned out on those same platforms, it’s wonderful to see a hunger for quality journalism. Plenty of journalists got it right, but the ones that didn’t must take note of their audiences’ reactions. People want — they demand — informative, accurate reports.

Give the people what they want.

___

FYI, the SPJ Code of Ethics is a great reference » http://spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Christine DiGangi is the communications coordinator at SPJ headquarters. She graduated from DePauw University and has worked in journalism and communications. Connect with Christine through email, cdigangi@spj.org, or Twitter,@cdigang.

Here at SPJ HQ, we have been sifting through scores of internship applications for our two summer positions and the yearlong communications internship.

Based on what we received, we compiled advice for job-seekers. Here are some application dos and don’ts, based on this year’s applicant pool. (Kudos to those of you whose materials included the dos.)

When applying for journalism or communications positions:

• DO include a cover letter. DON’T misspell the name of the person you’re addressing. Also, DON’T mistype the name of the organization you want to work for.
• DO read and follow all directions. DON’T forget to send all required materials.
• DO include links to your website, relevant online profiles and anything that helps an employer learn more about you. DO include your twitter handle alongside your name, email address and phone number. In this industry, it’s just as relevant as the standard contact information.
• DON’T mess up your own contact information.
• DO carefully choose relevant writing samples. DON’T send a college term paper as a writing sample. If you don’t have clips, consider starting a blog about topics related to the position.
• DON’T apply for a position that you are not interested in. DO clearly articulate your interest in the position by citing related experiences.
• DO tailor your résumé and cover letter to the job you seek.
• DO research your potential employer. DON’T repeatedly tweet at him or her.
• DO find the “about” tab on the organization’s website.
• DO whatever you must to send a legible application. You may look at your application and think, “That’s great penmanship!” but next to typed applications, it looks sloppy.
• DO structure your letter like a letter. DON’T send a one-paragraph essay for the one-page essay portion of the application. DON’T send a three-page essay for the same requirement.
• DO follow up. Once.

There is plenty of job-application and résumé advice out there, so take advantage of it. This is a small list of tips based on the more than 100 applications that have come across our desks so far.

Here’s a final thought for you from Tara Puckey, SPJ’s chapter coordinator who is also processing internship applications.

“This is a large stack. If you want me to notice you, you have to do something different.”

No matter what job you want, keep that advice in mind.

Christine DiGangi is the communications coordinator at SPJ headquarters. She graduated from DePauw University and has worked in journalism and communications. Connect with Christine through email, cdigangi@spj.org, or Twitter, @cdigang.

Failure. Disappointing. Sloppy. People had a lot to say about the role of journalism in the Manti Te’o girlfriend hoax, and much of the commentary assailed the media.

The criticism has merit, but in the weeks since the scandal unfolded, the more bizarre and complex the details have become. The media cannot be wholly blamed for or excused from the mishap, and all that mess is meaningful to journalism and its mission to report the truth.

Instead of compiling an expert-laden media analysis, SPJ wants to talk to you about it. An issue of this magnitude deserves wide discussion, which is why SPJ will participate in tonight’s #muckedup chat about the media’s tangled history with hoaxes.

Join us tonight at 8 EST for the chat hosted by Adam Popescu (@adampopescu) for Muck Rack. The more SPJ members we can include in this conversation, the better — the topic means a lot to the growth of journalism.

Follow the #muckedup hashtag to participate, and we (@spj_tweets) will see you there.

Christine DiGangi is the communications coordinator at SPJ headquarters. She graduated from DePauw University and has worked in journalism and communications. Connect with Christine through email, cdigangi@spj.org, or Twitter, @cdigang.

On Election Day, I sat as a spectator in the arena of journalism, eager to watch unprecedented news coverage unfold. “The first social election,” some called it.

I knew I wouldn’t catch everything, and I certainly didn’t, but my goal on Nov. 6 was to document the election from journalists’ perspectives. My observations are just that — trends I saw among hours of online coverage, which I consumed from one tiny computer monitor with one set of eyes. Given my resources, there’s nothing scientific in my analysis. Nonetheless, I think it has value.

My method: Monitor journalists’ and news outlets’ Twitter feeds, Facebook posts and Instagram activity; check related RSS feeds; repeatedly expand the sample size by exploring others’ Twitter lists, seeking impressionable accounts through Topsy and Hashtracking and browsing news sites to identify election reporters; finally, Storify as much as possible.

After less than an hour of this, I formed four sections within SPJ’s Storify “Journalists on Election Day”: “resources and tips,” “status updates,” “election coverage” and “just for fun.” Nearly everything I collected fit one of these categories, though some could have gone in more than one. It’s amazing what people can fit into a post of 140 or fewer characters.

Twitter was my most plentiful resource. I collected information from more than 180 accounts and learned a lot from the posts I read.

On perhaps the greatest day for civic duty in the U.S., journalists provided a variety of public services. They posted photos of polling places, sent updates of wait times in voting lines, posted links to voting resources and giving citizens multiple ways to access election results. I saw a great effort from journalists to communicate with their audiences.

In terms of election coverage, journalism impressively embraced interactive graphics and (gasp) math. In the four newsrooms I’ve worked, in the scores of conversations I’ve had with reporters, I’ve heard few kind words for math. (And I majored in English writing, so I’m guilty of cringing at math, too.)

“I do words, not numbers.”

“Well, I’m bad at math, so I chose writing.”

You’ve heard it, I’ve heard it (I’ve said it), but that doesn’t mean journalists don’t understand the importance of math — there are plenty of journalists who like math, even love it. But after Election Day, its significance has never seemed clearer. I won’t rehash the commentary from dozens of articles on Nate Silver, but if the emergence of data journalism hasn’t motivated reporters and editors to prioritize data literacy, Election 2012 should.

Ethical debates have gained momentum as a result of the election and use of social media. Instagram use among journalists has great advantages in serving consumers, and it also encourages impressive citizen journalism. The New York Times boasted an impressive collection of readers’ Instagrams on Election Day, too. But the use of Instagram’s editing features and its impact on photojournalism remains a debated ethical issue.

Even ethical topics with deep history, like whether journalists should vote, sparked fervent interactions on social media. It’s more than just voting, though, as journalists frequently take to the Internet with their political commentary and opinions.

Speaking of commentary: The “just for fun” and “status updates” segments of the Storify are, at least from my perspective, highly entertaining. Among the more serious messages like those urging others to vote and describing polling-place atmosphere, you can find many a funny message about caffeine, pizza and the inevitable system failures before a deadline.

As election returns poured in, I scaled back my rate of aggregation, first because this expected coverage didn’t add much value to the Storify and second because I could hardly keep up. What I noticed was an increase in care and accurate reporting from other breaking news that has emerged on Twitter (Hurricane Sandy, the SCOTUS decision on the Affordable Care Act). Perhaps this is indicative of a maturing digital media.

Despite the limits of my journo-tracking, this sample displayed many trends in breaking-news coverage, and I hope news organizations reflect on Election 2012 as they consider how to best deliver journalism amid industry and technology advances. Major news events double as learning opportunities, and journalists need to capitalize on them, specifically this one.

Journalists: What did you learn on Election Day? How will this year’s election coverage impact your approach to planning, reporting and editing? If you wish to weigh in, please engage with this discussion on our Facebook page, or send me an email. I may quote you in a future blog post.

Christine DiGangi is the communications coordinator at SPJ headquarters. She graduated from DePauw University and has worked in journalism and communications. Connect with Christine through email, cdigangi@spj.org, or Twitter, @cdigang.

Today, I am disappointed in journalism.

Not everyone botched the announcement of the Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act ruling, but plenty of trusted media outlets did a disservice to their audiences by prioritizing speed instead of accuracy.

Like half a million others, I turned to SCOTUSblog at 10 a.m. today, toggling between that and my Twitter feed. At 10:08, the explosion began: The Associated Press said the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. CNN said it was ruled unconstitutional. The Daily Beast said it was struck down at 10:08 but retweeted The AP at 10:09. Confused, I went back to SCOTUSblog to read their measured reports.

My Twitter feed in the seconds following the ruling announcement.

From the SPJ Code of Ethics: “Journalists should test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.”

Many of the erroneous tweets and headlines have disappeared from their primary sources, though those blunders live on, thanks to screen shots and the copy-paste function. But the confusion was costly from a future credibility standpoint. The networks and publications that got it right should take note of the ridicule and criticism raining down on their Twitter-happy peers.

Most of my frustration came from seeing the incorrect reports retweeted. As the minutes after the announcement passed, I continued to read posts of misguided happiness and anger, all because a friend of a follower of a follower of a news organization perpetuated the seemingly reliable information.

(Jeff Sonderman of Poynter has a good roundup of and reaction to the inaccurate reports/tweets.)

The social media response to the blunders proves that people would rather get correct information as it becomes available, rather than quickly receive an imperfect report. The point of engaging with a news outlet is to stay informed.

I don’t want to have to congratulate the journalists who waited to verify the ruling to publish the result. They just did their jobs correctly, which I expect of them. I am disappointed that this expectation was not met by others.

The winner in this brawl to break news is SCOTUSblog — it’s a non-traditional outlet started by law professionals, and they presented reliable coverage of the complicated ruling. By 10:22, they had 866,000 people tracking their live blog.

But for the millions who referenced Twitter, breaking news alerts, live TV and 24-hour-news-cycle websites, the day was one of defeat. Regardless of one’s opinion on the legislation, news consumers were exposed to a slew of unreliable reports before being corrected.

I hope health care isn’t the only industry that sees reform after today’s ruling.

Christine DiGangi is the communications coordinator at SPJ headquarters. She graduated from DePauw University and has worked in journalism and communications. Connect with Christine through email, cdigangi@spj.org, or Twitter, @cdigang.

Posted by Scott Leadingham

Hang on for a moment while I invoke two strange bedfellows – comedian Bill Hicks, who built his routine on smoking, and bicyclists – in writing about what journalists should do better.

Bill Hicks, who died in 1994 of pancreatic cancer, was nothing if not passionate. His rants and stage presence are famous among stand-up comedians. He’s particularly well-known for his stance on smoking, or, more accurately, on why non-smokers made him so angry. In one bit he polls the audience and asks who smokes and who doesn’t. When the non-smokers voice their presence in laudatory, enthusiastic tones, he calls them a bunch of “self-righteous slugs.” (Warning: his language is rather “colorful.” Don’t watch if you object to such language.)

“I’d quit smoking if I didn’t think I’d become one of you,” he says in the bit.

That line reminds me of my interest in biking (the kind with carb-loading and spandex, not chaps and Sturgis).

I’d become a hardcore bicyclist if it weren’t for hardcore bicyclists. In fact, I remarked to a friend recently that “the worst part about biking culture is biking culture.”

Forgive the gross generalization, but it’s been my experience that bicycling breeds an upper-crust crowd comparable to the snottiest fox-hunting, caviar-eating, polo-playing societal elitists out there. Go into any bicycle shop (not big box retailer) and ask about the lubrication benefits of using WD-40 on your chain.

“Eh. That’s a cleaner, not a lubricant. Don’t EVER use it to lube a chain!” is a likely response. “Here’s our selection of specialized lubricants – $10 per three oz. bottle.”

This notion of superiority, the kind coming from people on bikes that cost more than my car, keeps me away from becoming fully immersed and involved in biking culture.

Transfer that to journalism.

It’s not a new sentiment to say there’s a certain amount of arrogance in the profession. One doesn’t lead to the other, of course, but perhaps it’s more apparent in an industry that sees its practitioners’ names, faces and voices constantly before the public. As Linda Thomas aptly noted in a recent Quill piece on journalists to follow: “ … having the title of journalist doesn’t make you more interesting or important than anyone else.”

If there’s a lesson to be learned in this era of “citizen journalism” and CNN iReports, it’s that acts of journalism can come from any source and any moment. And now comes the obligatory invocation of informative video and messages disseminating from Iran in 2009 from “ordinary people” and not journalists. As my boss often says: Great journalism happens everywhere. I’ll add my own addendum: And by those who didn’t mean for it to happen.

So that’s what journalists should avoid in the bicycling culture – the notion that anyone is better for any reason, primarily based on the quality and price tag attached to one’s equipment and training.

BUT WHAT SHOULD JOURNALISM COPY FROM BIKING?

Call it a “God smack” or cruel irony or karma or whatever, but I recently found myself needing help from the very people I’d previously scorned: hardcore bikers.

Two days after remarking that the biking culture was the worst part of biking, I committed the cardinal sin of long-distance riding: no spare inner tube in case of a flat. Six miles from home, and no nearby bike shop open at the time, I began the long walk of shame down the bicycle friendly paved trail through Indianapolis. Nearly every biker I’d deem “hardcore” stopped to help or inquired of my situation. These were the type wearing team riding jerseys and specialty bike shoes more expensive than my monthly rent. One guy, who it turned out worked at the kind of bike store I avoid, offered to change my tire on the spot with his spare tube.

I denied all help, however, reasoning that I needed to learn my lesson, even if that meant walking well into the darkness of a muggy summer night. It occurred to me later that no “casual” biker – of which I saw at least 30 – offered assistance or even moral support. Nothing so much as an “are you okay, dude?” from the people in cotton t-shirts riding mountain bikes.

Perhaps that’s because they, like me, had no spare parts to offer. They, like me, weren’t prepared (another cardinal sin broken, this time from my Eagle Scout training).

Whatever the reason, I knew immediately that the “hardcore bikers” that I so passionately didn’t want to become were exactly the right model for journalists.

It’s that kind of willing-to-help attitude that more experienced journalists (the type winning Pulitzers and Sigma Delta Chi Awards) need to selflessly pass on to a new generation of reporters. Instead of getting locked into the box of “how can I turn this award-winning project into a best-selling book” (not that there’s anything wrong with that) perhaps the first thought should be “how can a younger journalist benefit from my experience?” The book deals and fellowships will fall into place. Heck, some news outlets are still lucky enough to have staff coordinate such opportunities for their high-profile journalists.

But the mentoring opportunities, such as SPJ’s program, for some strange reason aren’t as sought after as a Pulitzer or Peabody nomination. It’s not because there’s no one out there seeking help. Just take a look down the hall from your office. There’s a young reporter out there, perhaps limping along, waiting for you to put air in his tires. Stop and help. Don’t just blow smoke in his face as you walk (or ride) by.

Scott Leadingham is editor of SPJ’s Quill magazine. He quit smoking on December 31, 2009 and to his knowledge has not become one of “those” non-smokers. Twitter: @scottleadingham.

I’m convinced that the journalism industry is one of the most cannibalistic professions. Sometimes for better (e.g. weeding out the Jayson Blairs of the world). Sometimes for worse (e.g. technoratti who practically cheer the death of the printed word). Sometimes for the fact that its practitioners are its most stalwart critics.

I don’t know in what category (if any) today’s chatter about The New York Times standards editor Phil Corbett’s pronouncement about the use of “tweet” falls, but there’s no shortage of cannibalistic tendencies taking place from within. Just check out some of the comments from this post on The Awl.

Yes, it’s true, ladies and gentlemen, The Gray Lady is putting the smackdown on Twitter slang, at least in most instances. In fairness, there isn’t an outright ban on “tweet,” though Michael McElroy in the Times’ public editor office wrote me in an e-mail that “it’s pretty close.” (Note that the public editor’s office doesn’t speak for the Times, but rather is an advocate for, well, the public.)

Reactions range from the snide (“rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic”) to the laudatory (“Thank you Phil Corbett. Can you imagine if you looked up a NYT article from 1974 and it was filled with CB radio slang?”).

Since we at SPJ are always interested in what journalists think about this thing we call “our livelihoods,” we put it out to the Twitterverse (a word I’ve just deemed acceptable in all SPJ Works blog posts):

And, of course, the responses varied:

For what it’s worth, the AP Stylebook is of at least minimal guidance. The new social media guidelines say this about Twitter:

“Twitter A message-distribution system that allows users to post continual updates of up to 140 characters detailing their activities for followers or providing links to other content. The verb is to tweet, tweeted. A Twitter message is known as a tweet.”

I’m not entirely sure if that means it’s acceptable to use “tweet” in AP style, or just that it’s been defined by the updated Stylebook. But, of course, The New York Times is free to use whatever style and guidelines it wants. In fact, it (and many outlets) diverts from AP style in notable instances, such as by using “Mr.” or “Mrs.” before surnames after a first reference.

And that brings me to the point of this: Does it really matter if the Times chooses to use “tweet” to describe a message or status update on Twitter? After all, don’t journalists and outlets pride themselves on their individualism, uniqueness and “local voice”?

Chew on that … cannibals.

Scott Leadingham is editor of SPJ’s Quill magazine. He’s a vegetarian. Twitter: @scottleadingham

Today, on Earth Day, we’re all thinking about the planet, apparently, whether how to be more “green,” how to antagonize those who preach being more “green,” or how to cover one of the two. But at SPJ, we’re always thinking about the journalism industry and the journalists who drive it.

That got me wondering: When is Journalism Day? We need one.

Stay with me.

I’ve got a habit of walking around the neighborhood during lunch. Nothing fancy, and certainly no power walking or sweat suits. And only a sweatband in truly dire circumstances. Normally I try to pick up stray litter and pieces of garbage that won’t cause bodily harm, at least in the short run. But today, Earth Day, I took a little more time and expended a little more energy – call it the product of National Parks-loving parents and being an Eagle Scout. (It’s true … on my honor.) Normally I wouldn’t pick up empty beer bottles, especially in the middle of an overgrown lawn.

A sample of litter from the SPJ neighborhood. Who's drinking all the Bud? (Not it!)

 ‘But hey,’ I thought, ‘it’s Earth Day. I earned that Environmental Science merit badge for a reason!’

What would prompt the public to have a similar thought for journalism? When people walk past a news stand or go online, what would make them say, “I need to read the news today because I recognize the importance of a free and independent press and the news journalists report.”?

Who’s planning that event? What do we have to do to get that message across? Where’s the trending topic on Twitter for Journalism Day? Why aren’t there rallies supporting the fourth estate? When is journalism’s day?

I’d like to think it’s every day. But I also like to think people don’t toss empty beer bottles in yards for strangers to pick up.

No one is planning the event FOR the industry. Journalists have to do it themselves, every day, through their honest, fair, accurate reporting.

And SPJ is there to help. If we’re out of the office, don’t worry. We’re just on a quick stroll. We’ll be right back.

Scott Leadingham is editor of SPJ’s Quill magazine. He didn’t earn the Journalism merit badge. Twitter: @scottleadingham

Though I constantly bemoan the fact that Indianapolis is not Washington state – my homeland – to anyone who will listen (and those who won’t), I must say there are a lot of hidden treasures here. On the whole, they almost make life in the Circle City tolerable.

(Hang on; there’s a journalism connection coming.)

Indianapolis is known for things other than speedways and Colts, namely the low cost of living. Forbes has ranked it at the top of the most affordable cities in which to live. And it apparently has a vibrant arts and culture scene. Who knew? Not this Northwestern boy.

In this spirit of affordability and the arts, I recently attended a weeknight concert/mixer for the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra called “Happy Hour at the Symphony.” For $20 (actually $10, since I had a discount code), I got access to food, cocktails and a 90-minute symphony performance. Quite the weeknight.

The “Happy Hour” concept is aimed at the younger professional crowd, if not by design than by common logic: cheap food, drinks and good music. Oh, and the music – it’s a clever mix of traditional classical arrangements and modern pop standards from the likes of John Mayer and Coldplay. Yeah, they even had an alto sax and drum set. Edgy, I know. Roll over, Beethoven.

(Okay, here comes the journalism connection.)

Journalism, it seems, would benefit from its own “Happy Hour.”

Conducting the symphony orchestra that night was a young, multi-faceted 30-year-old named Steve Hackman. He did it all: conduct, play piano, sing with convincing elegance. Throughout the performance, he explained everything – history of the songs, relevance to today’s modern pop music, the interconnectivity of the harp and trombone. He even linked an iPod to the sound system for a neat demonstration.

There are countless journalism industry practitioners, commentators, observers, analysts and just plain bloviators currently discussing and opining on the future of the industry. (As SPJ President Kevin Smith put it: stop talking, start doing.) No doubt many have reiterated this theme (I’m thinking mostly of the very astute and poignant Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis). But I’ll say it again: The industry needs to focus on context and relevance, not ratings, wrapping “stuff” around the ads, and pushing out content to an increasingly bombarded and wary public.

The trumpeters, violists and conductors get it. It’s time for the editors, publishers and news directors to follow suit.

Scott Leadingham is editor of SPJ’s Quill magazine. He plays the trumpet from time to time, though not in a symphony orchestra. Twitter: @scottleadingham

If you’re anything like us at SPJ headquarters, you probably have a mildly unhealthy obsession with “Glee”  …  er … journalism industry news. Ah, then what better way to follow the news about the news than with a handy Twitter list?

Here’s a useful (and admittedly unfinished) list of real-time tweets from those who discuss journalism industry issues. Specifically, you’ll see groups such as the National Association of Black Journalists (@nabj); a digital journalism blog with tips from Mark Luckie (@10000words); updates from venerable media reporters like CJR’s Megan Garber (@megangarber) and former E & P writer Joe Strupp (@joestrupp); and much more.

Of course, the list isn’t exhaustive, as there are seemingly more people in the Twittersphere discussing and dissecting journalism than there are rabid fans of “Glee.” (And, hey, sometimes people do both.) If you have a suggestion to add, drop us a line at @spj_tweets.

So, here you go. Oh, and click here for a similar list of tweets from SPJ chapters and instructions on how to get a Twitter list working for you.