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.

Anyone who listens to NPR more than once in a blue moon probably remembers the catchy plugs for sponsors such as the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which has granted millions to public broadcasting (and others) to support journalism “… in the digital age.”

Similarly, journalists and industry followers even mildly interested in digital media trends are likely familiar with the Knight Foundation’s popular Knight News Challenge, a five-year, $25 million initiative that annually seeks innovation submissions from journalism and information technology entrepreneurs.

Click image for Knight Foundation report

Continuing its quest to research and fund digital-age projects supportive of quality journalism, Knight commissioned a study from Arabella Philanthropic Investment Advisors on 29 “media, information and communication contests.” Of course, the News Challenge is included in the analysis.

Some highlights:                           

-Knight currently gives away the most annually, with $5 million, though Google will soon supersede that with its $10 million Project 10¹⁰⁰.

-The amount of submissions per contest ranges from a few dozen to over 12,000.

-Sponsors and funders come from all sectors, including government, non-profit, education, and for-profit. The sector that sponsors the most contests (not surprisingly) is foundations, followed by for-profit technology companies.

But the analysis is not a competition among groups vying for the title “best funder.” Rather, the report highlights (very concisely, in my opinion) the various funding opportunities for those interested in sharing information on constantly changing digital platforms.

Plus, it’s not all journalism. Many of the projects and programs highlighted are for the more technical-minded: application developers and telecommunications gurus.

But there’s a general theme: Sharing information – either through published/broadcast news reports or over social media networks – is a critical component in the Internet age. Whether journalism entrepreneurs or computer science whizzes seek the money is moot. The point is that there’s a lot being done to spur and spread information-sharing technology. And there’s plenty of room for more players, both funders and seekers.

Scott Leadingham is editor of SPJ’s Quill magazine and spends way too much time on Twitter (@scottleadingham) following industry news.

But tweet them we did!

Yesterday afternoon, the Free Flow of Information Act, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The moment the vote was in, SPJ HQ began to celebrate. But we voluntarily cut our celebrating short, knowing it was imperative to alert our members of the news as soon as possible. And we – enthusiastically – did just that with a legislative alert to members, a press release to everyone else and tweets galore.

In a way, I arrived to SPJ Headquarters a bit late in the game. By the time I assumed communications responsibilities, the Society had been fighting for a federal shield law bill for five years. And to think I was getting frustrated with the process after only a few months! But patience is needed for such important, pivotal legislation. Patience and persistence. Because the battle for a federal shield law continues… Sen. Sessions released a strongly-worded news release against the bill shortly after it passed out of committee; we’re all pretty sure Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.) won’t be backing down from her desired definition of a “covered person” anytime soon; and none of us have forgotten about the version of the bill that made it to the Senate floor in 2008 only to be stalled. (Knock on wood that won’t happen!)

At least one thing’s certain: SPJ won’t be giving up. The Society will continue fighting for a free press and the public’s right to know, whether we do it by sending SPJ President Kevin Smith back to D.C. to go to senator’s doors (which he volunteered to do happily last week – great job, Kevin), or through editorials and press releases, or through the hard work of our members whose calls and e-mails truly make a difference.  The fight continues.

Okay, try to contain your excitement. . .

The Nov/Dec issue of Quill magazine is available now (in print and online).

Quill - Nov/Dec 2009. There’s a prize if you can identify the newspaper name and issue date from which the newsprint on the cover is taken.

Features in this issue:

- News Hole:  Can local news Web sites fill the void left by shrinking newspapers?

- The Eternal Optimists: If the industry is shrinking, why are there still so many journalism majors, and what do they think about their job prospects?

- Three’s Company: With all the news about print going away, consider one Midwestern community served by a burgeoning trilingual newspaper.

All that plus the regular slate of Toolbox columns to help your career. And don’t miss the “10” interview with Rosette Royale, a truly inspiring journalist in Seattle whose work you’ll want to emulate (he won a Sigma Delta Chi Award last year).

As always, if you have questions, comments, concerns or snide remarks about Quill (print, online or otherwise), contact editor Scott Leadingham or leave a comment below. (And mom, if you’re reading this, please don’t sign your comments “Scottie’sMomma.”)

Happy reading!

SPJ has learned that Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) may propose a detrimental amendment to S. 448 — more commonly referred to as the federal shield bill — in the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. The amendment would limit who is protected by the bill to a “salaried employee” or “independent contractor” of a news organization.  This language would likely exclude from coverage many online journalists, freelancers without contracts, and students or volunteer journalists, among others. The amendment would also exclude people who publish anonymously or pseudonymously.

SPJ is adamantly opposed to this amendment. This morning, President Kevin Smith is on Capitol Hill to express the Society’s strong opposition. We encourage you to contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as early as possible this morning to tell them that you do not support an amendment that limits who is protected by the bill. The Committee is slated to vote on this bill at 10 a.m. Eastern (for a live webcast of the meeting, click here). Please be sure they hear from you before that time.

The following is a list of Senate Judiciary Committee members (Click on names for contact information):

Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ranking Member
Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Edward Kaufman (D-Del.)
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman
Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)
Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)

 To learn more about SPJ’s efforts, click here. Read shield law press releases sent earlier this year on SPJ News.

Thank you for your immediate action to support this pivotal legislation.

Sure, the American public, the world and the aliens receiving our telecommunications signals 500 years from now are sick of Balloon Boy – but there’s a lesson here somewhere.

Let’s find it.

SPJ and Quill magazine are in need of your opinions on the subject: “What lessons, if any, have journalists and newsrooms learned from Balloon Boy?”

For the next issue of Quill – online and print – journalists of all stripes and media are encouraged to tell us how Balloon Boy – and other “quick to air breaking news” events such as the Sept. 11, 2009, Potomac incident – shaped your news coverage for the future.

Did you learn anything? Did your newsroom change any procedures? Did you become jaded or more skeptical? Did you change the lessons in the reporting class you teach?

There’s no right or wrong answer, just a multitude of opinions and outlooks from which we can all mutually benefit.

To submit: E-mail a one-to-three sentence answer with your name, title, outlet/organization for which you work and daytime contact information to Scott Leadingham. Responses will be confirmed, edited if necessary and possibly used in Quill.

Thanks in advance for your contribution.