The SPJ Code of Ethics is widely consulted and applied in newsrooms and classrooms as the definitive statement of our profession’s highest values and a helpful way to think about the specific and unique journalism quandaries we confront daily.

The Code is voluntarily embraced by thousands of reporters, editors and other news professionals across America and the world. To date, the Code is available to journalists in 13 languages; including French, Chinese, German, Hungarian, Slovenian, Portuguese, Greek, Macedonian, Spanish, Arabic, Croatian, Persian, and English. To have so many translations of the Code is a testament that the pursuit of the best ethical practices of journalism is universal in journalism.

To help raise awareness of these translated versions of the Code of Ethics, SPJ spent just shy of a month working on a special “Journalism Ethics Week” project to share each of them in their native language using our social media resources. With the help of some incredible translators, we successfully posted translations in 10 of those languages, followed by English translations. Now, we want to share them one last time and feature those who helped us along the way.

Chinese
View the original post: SPJ Leads | Twitter 

Natalie Rose Dickson – Chinese Translator
Natalie is a lover of storytelling and China. She was a Mandarin Chinese and journalism double major from the University of Mississippi, has spent two summers in Qingdao, one semester in Beijing and is currently spending one semester in Nanjing, China. In between her studies in China, Natalie has worked at her student newspaper, a pizza magazine and the Mandarin branch of Voice of America.

French
View the original post: Facebook | Twitter 

James Buchanan – French Translator
James is a May 2011 graduate of the Croft Institute for International Studies at the University of Mississippi with an emphasis in French. In the spring of 2010, he spent a semester abroad at the Catholic University of the West in Angers, France. During the summer of 2009, James worked as an intern in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

Arabic View the original post: Facebook | Twitter 

Zeena Kanaan – Arabic Translator
Zeena is an undergraduate at Northwestern University in Qatar, majoring in journalism with a focus on political science. She is currently the president of the first international chapter of SPJ, known as Society of Professional Journalists in Qatar. Zeena is looking forward to spending a summer in the United Nations Headquarters, working and researching humanitarian issues with the Human Rights Committee. 

Portuguese View the original post: Facebook | Twitter 

Michael Frost – Portuguese Translator
Michael Frost is an IT recruiter for the consulting firm Isos Technology in Tempe, Ariz. He lived in Brazil for two years as a missionary and was a Latin American Studies student at Brigham Young University. He still enjoys reading Portuguese and Spanish literature, primarily works of prose by the likes of João Cabral de Melo Neto and Pablo Neruda.

German View the original post: Facebook | Twitter 

Lauren Krantz - German Translator
Lauren is a senior journalism student from Virginia at James Madison University.

HungarianView the original post: Facebook | Twitter 

Elaine Croft – Hungarian Translator

Greek

View the original post: Twitter

Slovenian
View the original post: Twitter

Macedonian
View the original post: Extended Facebook Content | Twitter

Spanish
View the original post: Facebook | Twitter 

Andrew Scott (Hey, that’s me) – Spanish Translator
I studied Spanish for my language during my college tenure. In my youth, my parents twice took me and my siblings to trek the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. I find it fascinating to watch all three original Indiana Jones movies in Spanish.

Thank you to everyone who helped in this project and to those who shared these translations. Remember – Seek Truth and Report it, Minimize Harm, Act Independently and Be Accountable.

Andrew M. Scott (@PRMillennial) is the communications coordinator for SPJ Headquarters. He is a graduate of the University of Mississippi and an SPJ member since 2008.

Well, another tax day has come and gone for us Americans, and like most, it’s one of the few times a year where I sit and look at my finances as a whole.  As a mother of two young children, I naturally worry about how well I’m providing for them now, and what would happen if the unthinkable should happen. 

I do hope someday I find myself in the same situation as my parents, who have raised their children, gotten us through college, and weddings, and grandchildren, and say “Now what do we do with our money?”  My sister and I had to encourage them to draw up a will.  Neither of us are attorneys, but we’re smart enough to know that deciding not to have a will is effectively the same as letting your state decide who gets your assets after your death.

Rather than leave this important issue unanswered or in dispute, each state has a default system (commonly referred to as intestacy) in the event one is needed. For some, the net result is the same as a person would have wanted anyway. Others, however, may be surprised how the state decides who gets what and how much.   The state will not take into account your loved ones or causes you believe in. 

We hope that SPJ is a cause you believe in.  If so, we encourage you to become a member of the 1909 Society. Here are four things to keep in mind when preparing your will or other estate documents:

1. Be sure the beneficiary of your gift is specifically designated as the Sigma Delta Chi Foundation, which is a 501 (C) (3) charity—not the Society of Professional Journalists, which is a 501 (C) (6) business league
2. SDX’s address is 3909 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN  46208 and the telephone number is 317-927-8000
3. SDX’s tax identification number is 36-6106287
4. Be sure to inform SDX if you move, relocate, or have any changes in your long-term plans

As I said, I’m not an estate attorney, or any kind of attorney for that matter, but I have seen the benefits of what a planned gift can do.  Last year, SDX received a $65,000 gift from the estate of long-time SPJ member Alexander Bodi.  That gift, coupled with the $35,000 already endowed in the Terry Harper Memorial Fund, created a fund that spins off enough money to annually send five cash-strapped journalists to SPJ’s national conference.  And that’s a cause to believe in!

We hope you’ll let us know if you’ve included SDX in any of your estate plans so that we can include you in the 1909 Society along with other supporters.  And as we celebrate more than a century of improving and protecting journalism, there really is no better time to provide for the next hundred years! 

Amy Posavac is the Director of Development for SPJ’s Sigma Delta Chi Foundation, and while she’s not a journalist, she does play one on TV.

From Joe Skeel, SPJ Executive Director:

When a news organization presents a controversial story, it often shares with its audience a behind-the-scenes look at the decision-making process. This isn’t done in an attempt to persuade the audience to agree with the decision. The goal is to provide the audience with all the facts so that an informed opinion can be reached.

Today, as Executive Director of SPJ, I’d like to do the same.

Most of you probably know by now that the board of directors voted to retire the Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement on Jan. 14. What I present below is the timeline and process that led to that decision. Please keep in mind: I am an employee of SPJ. I do not sit on the board of directors or have a vote. My job is to simply carry out the wishes of the board. In short, I have no personal stake in the decision regarding the award.  I am not Jewish. I am not Arab. When it comes to an unbiased party in this process, I think I’m as close as you can get.

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, I ask that you take the time to read this entire post so that you may educate yourself on the complexities surrounding this incredibly difficult decision. Only then do I think you will have a true understanding of how gut-wrenching this was for all the leaders that volunteer on behalf of you and SPJ.

THE BACKGROUND

In May 2010, Helen Thomas was asked by a rabbi conducting interviews at the Jewish Heritage Celebration at the White House:

Rabbi: Any comments on Israel?

Thomas: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

Rabbi: Ohh, any better comments?

Thomas: Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland.

Rabbi: So where should they go, what should they do?

Thomas: Go home.

Rabbi: Where’s home?

Thomas: Poland, Germany.

Rabbi: So you’re saying Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?

Thomas: And America and everywhere else.

Here’s a link to the video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14.

Many felt she was ambushed with the questions. At that time, SPJ was contacted by media outlets to get its position on her comments. Reporters also wanted to know if those comments would have any bearing on SPJ’s award that is given in her name.

Then-president Kevin Smith told reporters that he would take the question regarding the award to the executive committee, which was scheduled to meet in July. During that meeting, the executive committee felt the comments were a one-time slip-up that was a result of a questionable interview tactic. No motion was ever made to remove her name from the award, so the committee (and therefore SPJ) took no action. The award remained unchanged. SPJ’s position, and what Smith told reporters, was that her remarks were insensitive and didn’t fall in line with SPJ’s commitment to diversity. But, she was asked her opinion, and she has every right to give it. SPJ didn’t feel that this temporary lapse in judgment warranted any changes to the award. Plus, she later apologized.

When President Smith first shared with the media that he was taking this topic to the executive committee, there was very little if any real backlash or outcry from our membership or the general public. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT FACT TO THIS STORY. REMEMBER IT.

Fast forward to December. During a prepared speech at the “Images and Perceptions of Arab Americans” conference in Dearborn, Mich., the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News quoted Thomas as saying, “Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question.”

Almost immediately, a handful of leaders within SPJ began discussing her comments. Media members began calling and by the next day or two, SPJ received a letter from the Anti-Defamation League. At this point, SPJ leaders had not decided to take the concern to the executive committee. Once the letter from the ADL became public, as a result of being distributed to media outlets, those supporting Thomas began to voice their concerns.

Still, when asked SPJ’s position on the matter by media members, new president Hagit Limor (who began her presidency in October 2010) replied that SPJ’s leadership discussed her comments in July and felt it was a one-time slip up, and that the award remained intact. Clearly, that answer wouldn’t suffice because the notion that this was a one-time misstep was no longer valid. Members of the media continued to reach out in an effort to find out what SPJ was going to do given Ms. Thomas’ most recent comments.

President Limor wanted to make sure that the comments she shared reflected the Society’s position, not her opinion. At that point, she asked for my recommendation on how to proceed.

I recommended that we revisit the topic with the executive committee, which was meeting in less than a month on January 8. Two other board members recommended the same. My rationale: I’m a creature of habit. And this is the same process we followed after Ms. Thomas’ comments in May. My thinking was simple: The committee could revisit the topic and determine if their collective feeling had changed. Regardless of any action (or non-action) we would have a unified SPJ position for President Limor to use when asked about the award.

As word spread that the executive committee would be discussing the topic, to see if its collective feeling had changed, members (including board of directors members not on the executive committee) and the general public became even more vocal. What ensued was the notion that the executive committee was going to decide whether or not to strip Ms. Thomas’ name from the award. For the following month, SPJ headquarters, President Limor and various board members received an onslaught of phone calls and e-mails. We heard from those supporting Ms. Thomas’ free speech rights and those who believed her comments were bigoted and that SPJ was anti-Semitic if it continued to carry an award with her name. These comments, from both positions, came from inside and out of SPJ.

Note: As I sit here today, I’m still not sure why the outcry of the second executive committee meeting came about. It didn’t create a blip before the first meeting in July. I suspect it had a little to do with the fact that Hagit Limor is Jewish. And I suspect that many felt she was pushing a personal agenda. This, of course, is nonsense. And I’ll explain that later. I also suspect that because this was the second time Ms. Thomas made her remarks in the span of six months, those supporting her felt that SPJ leadership may have lost its patience. As those voices grew louder, so did the voices wanting her name removed.

In the end, forced to deal with the derailing cacophony, the executive committee had no choice but to make a decision. Anything less would prolong the onslaught of divisive behavior inside SPJ. With spring conferences just around the corner, it was important that SPJ try to return the focus to things that unite it and keep it running: professional development, networking, recognizing outstanding journalism through its awards programs, setting a budget for the coming fiscal year, etc., etc.

The committee’s job: Decide if SPJ would rather be viewed as a hater of free speech or a bigoted, anti-Semitic organization, judging by the tone of the feedback received on either side leading up to the meeting.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

In an effort to get as much input as possible, President Limor reached out to former presidents. Current board members weighed in. She compiled a sampling of the countless e-mails she and I received from members, former leaders, current leaders and the public. She did more to seek outside input than any president in my six years at SPJ. Each committee member received the compilation. However, the sentiments shared in the packet were not new to committee members. Everyone was fully aware of the differing opinions out there.

As the committee members began to talk, they all shared their concerns about the issues of free speech and SPJ’s commitment to diversity. It was apparent that there was no use in trying to agree on which one was more important. It’s like asking which of your two children you love more. It debated SPJ’s Code of Ethics: Minimize Harm. Act Independently.

The group, agreeing that concerns from both sides were understandable and valid, discussed the original intent of the award: to honor someone for his or her lifetime body of work and commitment to journalism. Some in the group questioned if future winners would refuse the award. Some said the winner should be allowed to decide if they want it. Some questioned the point of even having an award if a winner had to decide between being honored and any potential backlash. Their position: having to make that decision is no honor at all.

At that point, another idea was raised. What if SPJ retired the award and left the history intact? If the original point of giving the award is lost in this controversy year after year, why even give out an award? Ms. Thomas’ name could remain on the award she received in 2000 and the subsequent recipients would be unaffected.

Still, one of the concerns from some board members was that this important decision shouldn’t be made by just the seven people on the executive committee. Several regional directors had asked that this decision be brought to the full board of directors for consideration.

So, in an effort to reach a compromise between those who believe Ms. Thomas name shouldn’t be stripped from the award, and in an effort to display its commitment to diversity, the executive committee voted to send a recommendation to the full board that the award be retired. The motion also stated a conference call of the full board would be held within 10 days to vote on the recommendation. That motion passed 6-1. This, the committee felt, would allow SPJ to move forward and focus on the other important work that SPJ does. Even though the executive committee could have made a final decision on its own, it preferred to heed the call of SPJ’s regional directors and allow the full board a voice. It would now be up to the 23 elected leaders to decide.

Note: Since this controversy restarted in December, President Limor has been accused of pushing her personal agenda. The assumption here is that because she is Jewish, she was working to remove Ms. Thomas’ name from the award. I’m here to tell you that is inaccurate and, frankly, insulting to her integrity and that of SPJ’s leaders who are involved in the process. President Limor kept her comments on this subject to herself. Since taking office in October, she has responded to reporters with SPJ’s position: that Ms. Thomas’ remarks were insensitive, but the award continued to carry her name. She hoped to get the executive committee’s position so she could answer appropriately when asked. During the executive committee meeting, she remained silent in the discussion until the final motion was brought to the table. At that point, she supported the motion – viewed as a compromise by those in the room – with the idea that this would allow SPJ to move on. Those who wanted Ms. Thomas’ name stripped from the award didn’t get their wish. Those who wanted the award to continue in Ms. Thomas’ name didn’t get their wish. This was a lose-lose situation, and she – along with the rest of the committee – recognized that. But, they felt, this was a compromise.

THE CALL

In an effort to put this controversy behind SPJ as quickly as possible, and to stick with the 10 days the motion called for, President Limor scheduled the telephone conference of the board of directors for Jan. 14 – six days following the executive committee. Some people have questioned why a decision of this magnitude had to be made so fast. Why couldn’t it wait until the annual spring board meeting in April? The executive committee felt it was important to come to a conclusion on this matter for a few reasons.

SPJ typically begins marketing annual award nominations in January. This, of course, couldn’t be done with its future still in limbo. In addition, those following this story were waiting for a resolution, although that was a minor influence in the decision, I suspect. Plus, the spring board meeting always has a full agenda, including the adoption of the yearly budget. And, as stated before, the desire was to have this controversial storm well behind us by the time spring conferences rolled around in late March and early April.

As the call started, President Limor asked a member of the executive committee to share the rationale behind its recommendation. It was presented very matter-of-factly: The committee felt this was a compromise between those asking to protect her free speech by keeping her name on the award and those asking for SPJ to strip her name off the honor. Was it a perfect solution? No. The committee knew the outcome was a lose-lose situation. But it felt this was the best way to move forward.

After the explanation, President Limor called for a motion from the floor. At that moment, two people spoke simultaneously. Both had motions to offer. President Limor called on the executive committee member making the motion to retire the award. A second was made and “discussion” ensued.

Because this was a conference call, President Limor gave each board member three minutes to share his or her opinion. Many chose not to speak. At one point, a substitute motion was made and seconded then discussion continued around the virtual table. According to procedural rules, the substitute motion took precedent.

After discussion, the substitute motion – “to continue presentation of the Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement but to make a statement saying the award is for her decades of journalism service and indicating the board does not endorse her statement about Israel” – was considered. The result: 14 against, 7 in favor.

At that point, a motion was made by a board member to “call the question.”  Doing so would put an end to discussion or other motions until the original motion (to retire the award) was considered.  The board voted, 14-7, to call the motion for a vote. The board then voted on whether or not to retire the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award. Again, 14 for retirement, 7 against.

Following that vote, another motion was made that the board “recommend to future boards that SPJ never again offer a lifetime achievement award.” That motion failed, also two-thirds to one-third.

Note: Since that conference call, I have seen claims that “parliamentary tactics” were used to push this vote through the board conference call. Having listened in on the call and taking notes, my opinion is that the order of the motions, votes, etc., did not matter. No matter how you sliced it, two-thirds of those on the call supported the executive committee’s recommendation to retire the award – and they were going to vote that way.

WHAT NOW?

Some people within SPJ don’t agree with the decision. That’s to be expected. When you get 8,000 people in a room, not everyone is going to agree. Fortunately for them, they have the ability to request a vote on the convention floor through the delegate system. That’s the beauty of SPJ’s democracy. The members truly are the keepers of the organization.

From SPJ’s bylaws:

ARTICLE NINE

Section One. The convention shall be the supreme legislative body of the organization. It shall be held at least biennially at a time and place designated by the board of directors.

Section Two. The convention shall be composed of delegates or representatives from each chapter, the national officers and the national board of directors.

SPJ’s next convention will be the joint SPJ/RTDNA conference in New Orleans, Sept. 25-28.

At that point, if SPJ’s membership decides the Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement should be reinstated, then that’s what will happen. No member of the board or executive committee has ever said otherwise. It’s the process our organization embraces.

And if you, as a member, feel strongly that it should be reinstated, then you should work with members who agree with your position.

But as we all move forward, I simply ask that you please understand the impossible decision your elected leaders were asked to make – even if you disagree with the final vote.

Note: As I read the attacks and innuendo that are migrating through Facebook and the Internet about this issue, I have come to feel bad for every single leader that was asked to make this decision. Some are calling them “cowards” who have bowed to outside pressure. They are being painted as leaders who don’t support SPJ’s mission of free speech or as misguided folks who don’t realize the impact of this decision. I sat in those rooms and on that call through this entire process. Trust me when I tell you that this no-win decision was made with the utmost concern and care for SPJ and its members. Many hands were wringed and foreheads rubbed over the past few months as this topic was discussed. For anyone to imply otherwise of this group of leaders is disingenuous and uninformed. They should be admired, not condemned.

Worse yet, I fear that fewer people will be willing to stand up in the future and lead this great organization. When you look at what has transpired over the past few months, who could blame them? The reward for these 23 volunteers has been ridicule and insults. Unfortunately, much of that has come from within SPJ’s family.

Correction [1/25/2011  12:18 p.m. ET ]: This post has been updated to correct spelling/word-usage errors of “Ms.” and “persuade.”

When I started my fellowship, I did not know much about generating and maintaining membership so I was excited to learn from our membership coordinator, Linda Hall. Now that I’ve had the chance to work alongside Linda, I am amazed by her ability to remember hundreds of our members’ names. And not just their names – she remembers a member’s hometown, job, last SPJ activity and even what the member’s children are up to these days. Her personality is infectious, and I can hear it in members’ voices when they ask for her on the phone that they’re looking forward to a chat.

Staying up with our members is not a job – it’s a thrill. It is thrilling to speak with a man who has been a member for 60 years or a student who is brand new to college and eager to start her journalism education and her career. I love when members tell me stories about their intiation into SPJ or how their careers in broadcasting took them from one small town of characters to the next.

 And when our members celebrate their career successes, we love to celebrate with them. Today, we’re celebrating with Jeff.

Jeff Cutler is a social media journalist who just landed his first New York Post byline. He took a moment to write SPJ and tell us his good news because it was through SPJ’s Freelancer Directory that he received the editor’s call. Here, in his own words, is Jeff’s story – and a bit of advice for all you freelance writers out there:

The economy, readership, consolidation and life all get in the way when you’re trying to make a name for yourself as a freelancer. Too many school-committee meetings and too few columns, features and fun stuff. We’ve all been stuck in the struggle to break onto the pages of the larger papers and sometimes it just takes being in the right place at the right time. For me, that place was the men’s room.

 Seriously. I seldom bring my phone to the bathroom, but I was expecting a call so I put the phone down on the vanity. Then it rang.

I ignored the UNKNOWN caller id and answered. The rest of the story is how I got my first byline in the New York Post.

 You see, the Post was doing a story on ex-Governor Elliot Spitzer and his plan to speak at Harvard University. Fortunately for me, they didn’t have a reporter in Boston. Also fortunate was my membership in SPJ and the organization’s freelancer listings.

 The reporter who called at 1PM that day said she found me by going to the SPJ Website and wanted to know if I could dash into Cambridge, MA.

The Post needed quotes from Harvard students by 5PM. It took me about 2 seconds to evaluate my afternoon schedule and say yes. Of course I wanted a byline in the New York Post. Of course I could get to Harvard. Of course I’d be done by 5PM.

 Now my list of publications/outlets includes the Boston Globe, the New York Post, NPR and a variety of weeklies and dailies all over the country. But before you say, “That sounds simple,” think about this…

 Know that you can do a story before you accept the assignment. I don’t care how big the paper or outlet is, if you can’t deliver when you say you can, your phone won’t be ringing from them again.

 Get all the details up front so you don’t waste an editor’s time. Ask the right questions and put all your other work aside.

 Use resources like SPJ to make the route a little easier. If I wasn’t listed, someone else would have gotten those quotes, the byline and the surprisingly impressive check from the New York Post.

 Have fun no matter what story you’re assigned. And always answer your phone.

Jeff Cutler
www.jeffcutler.com

A message from SPJ Generation J committee chairwoman Aiesha Little:

My name is Aiesha Little and I’m the 2009-2010 chair of SPJ’s Generation J committee. As you may already know, Gen J is charged with voicing the needs and concerns of young journalists ages 22-34 in their first, second, and sometimes third, jobs. We feel that it’s important to have Gen J-specific programming not only at the national conventions, but also on a local level. This is where you come in. Our committee goal this year is to get professional chapters to commit to planning and hosting at least one program targeting Gen J-aged journalists in hopes that it will help them decide to join SPJ or renew their memberships. According to a recent APME survey, journalists ages 18 to 35 are being hit the hardest when it comes to layoffs. So what is SPJ doing to nurture and cultivate younger journos? How do we help them advance their careers?

My proposal is that each chapter host a speed pitching event/series. It would be the same set up as a speed dating function, only you’d invite local editors-in-chief, news producers, radio producers, etc. (the ones who do the hiring) and give each Gen Jer five to seven minutes with each of them. Participants could talk to them about whatever they want: they could treat the time like an interview, pitch story ideas, talk about the future of the business. Charge $10 or $15 a person and you’ve created an instant fundraiser for your chapter. You’ve also raised the organization’s profile among a valuable age group. If interested, each chapter could probably do several of these speed pitching events over the next year (magazines, online/interactive, newspapers, radio/TV). You could use the series as a membership drive (“Buy a $72 SPJ membership and get into your choice of two speed pitching events for free”; those who still qualify for the $36 post-graduate membership could get into one speed pitching event for free). The idea isn’t that the participants will walk away with a job, but they will have gotten some face time with people who hire, which could be very useful down the road. I know plenty of 25- and 30-year-olds who would love to get a couple of minutes with the editor of my publication; leaving a good impression now could mean a freelance assignment for them later.

Some of you might be asking yourselves why a committee like Gen J even exists. Why is this age group so important? To that I say the future of SPJ rests in the hands of those who are now learning to navigate the choppy waters of this rapidly changing industry, those who will lead the charge to keep journalism insightful, vibrant, and accountable. So what do you say? Does this sound like something any of you would be interested in doing?  Would you be willing to put a board member on this program for this fall or next spring? If you have more questions, please don’t hesitate to e-mail me.

Cheers,

Aiesha

When I started work as the new communications coordinator for SPJ in May, I didn’t think my life could get more exciting.

Fresh out of the hallowed halls of Ohio University’s E. W. Scripps School, I was eager to get my feet wet in a communications career I’d learned to love while working for the communications staff of the Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs. I was also mainly just excited to start working. I’d slaved away in libraries, coffeehouses and the dingy, dew soaked basements that housed various school publications to prepare myself for the workforce. My most recent scholarly pursuits had earned me a M.S. in Journalism. But while I loved studying, I missed the deadline pressure, the interviews with men and women I would never have otherwise met and the surge of adrenaline I would get from seeing my byline in print. I missed writing and I missed journalism.

I had built my entire life around my passion for writing, which led me on a direct path to journalism and – subsequently – communications. The marriage of those two interests – journalism and non-profit communications – in the fellowship/internship offered by SPJ was almost too good to be true. And when I learned I had received the position, I could barely contain my excitement. I called every member of my family to let each one know that I, the starry-eyed writer from Texas, had been given a chance to chase a dream with the largest and most broad-based journalism organization in the nation. And yes, I said it just like that, you can ask my mom.

But would you believe it? Even that excitement pales in comparison to the excitement I’ve experienced in the four months I’ve worked in my small corner of SPJ, helping to protect and defend journalism.

And while I could blog for posts and posts about all that has inspired and challenged me in the short time I’ve worked for SPJ, I must argue that the most excitement has happened within the last few days. The markup of S. 448, the Free Flow of Information Act, on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s calendar has kept the communications staff on our toes, holding our breath and crossing our fingers in the hope that a piece of legislation SPJ has advocated for and supported so ardently for years will have a chance at being considered by the full Senate. I’ve lived the past week in anticipation for tomorrow’s committee meeting. Everyone in my life – Facebook friends and all – knows what tomorrow brings.

But if holding my breath was all I had to do to advocate for a federal shield law then my life would be easy and definitely far less exciting.

My days have been spent constantly trying to keep our members up-to-date with legislative alerts and informative e-mails and making sure everyone – congressmen, media professionals and the general public – knows SPJ supports a federal shield law and why. When we discovered that Senators Feinstein (D-Calif.), Durbin (D-Ill.) and Hatch (R-Utah) had binders filled with concerns about the bill, we called on their constituents to voice their support – and they answered willingly. When SPJ President Kevin Smith ran into roadblocks with Sen. Sessions’ office, we contacted our Alabama members who were just as eager as Smith was to let Sessions know that this is the bill they wanted! I’ve fielded reporters’ calls asking for insider information or quotes from me or interviews with Kevin. I’ve written draft upon draft of releases days in advance of any decision made by the Senate Judiciary Committee just so we can be ready for anything that may come our way from D.C. Even now, I am taking breaks from this post to check if any more of the nations’ newspapers have quoted Smith’s editorial or mentioned SPJ’s efforts. But it’s not what I’m doing that gets my blood pumping – it’s what our members are doing and why they are doing it. Our members make all the difference, and to see a group that is so dedicated and passionate voice their support so willingly and repeatedly makes me proud to work for them. S. 448 could grant protections to journalists who are just doing their jobs: being watchdogs for the American public, ever vigilant so that the dark sides of society and politics are brought to light and justice.

I can write those words – watchdog, vigilant, justice – and they are simply letters strung in a recognizable pattern. But when I write them to our members, to the nation’s journalists and on behalf of SPJ, those words become something more – they inform, inspire, challenge and call us to act. This is what I love about SPJ, about journalism, about every professional journalist – member or not – who has personally spoken with me. This is what excites me.

This just in! The Senate Judiciary Committee will discuss S. 448, the Free Flow of Information Act, on Thursday, Sept. 24, at 10 a.m.

After the Committee delayed the discussion and vote on bill S. 448 Thursday, Sept. 17, SPJ encouraged the Committee to reopen discussions post haste. The Society is pleased with the quick turnaround.

S. 448 is pivotal to maintaining a free and independent press. The bill would create a federal shield law that would grant protections to journalists who refuse to reveal confidential sources, even when compelled by a subpoena and the threat of penal action. Currently, journalists and their sources are only protected by privilege statutes or administrative rules in certain states. There is no such protection at the federal level.

Once again, SPJ encourages you to contact your senators now to let them know that a federal shield law is crucial for a free press and the free flow of information. The Society appreciates your support and your voice for this vital piece of legislation. Let your senators know your opinion.

Here is a list of Senate Judiciary Committee members with their office phone numbers (Click on names for more contact information). If you are represented by these senators, please consider contacting them:

Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ranking Member, 202-224-4124
Jon Kyle (R-Ariz.), 202-224-4521
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), 202-224-3841
Edward Kaufman (D-Del.), 202-224-5042
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), 202-224-2152
Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), 202-224-3744
Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), 202-224-4524
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), 202-224-3244
Al Franken (D-Minn.), 202-224-5641
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), 202-224-6542
Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), 202-224-5754
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), 202-224-4254
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), 202-224-2921
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), 202-224-5972
John Cornyn (R-Texas), 202-224-2934
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), 202-224-5251
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman, 202-224-4242
Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), 202-224-5653
Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), 202-224-5323

You may watch a webcast of the Executive Business Meeting held Thursday, Sept. 24 via this Web site.

Thank you for your support!

Great musicians have warned mothers to not let their babies grow up to be cowboys.

Apparently my mom never listened to Willie Nelson or Waylon Jennings or purposely bit her thumb at their advice.

To my mom’s credit, however, she did do everything to keep my brothers and me away from “the cowboy” lifestyle. When I asked for “boots” as a seventh birthday present, I received a nice pair of waterproof galoshes (perfect for the desert climate of eastern Washington state). Heck, I wasn’t even allowed a BB gun because of the apparent connection (in her mind) between air-powered toys and satanic cults.

So, despite my mom’s efforts to quell any notion of “Scottie the Cowboy,” I found myself dressed as an Old West sheriff last weekend. And I technically got paid for it. (Twitpic here)

The 2009 SPJ Convention and National Journalism Conference was notable for many reasons other than me coming out of the closet as an apparent Village People wannabe. It was, after all, the culmination of SPJ’s 100^th anniversary, a celebration of a century of improving and protecting journalism. And there were notable speakers, such as recently jailed (in Iran) journalist Roxana Saberi and 73-year SPJ member Austin Kiplinger. Plus, dozens of sessions on everything from harnessing new media to building a freelance business helped journalists expand their knowledge and broaden their job prospects.

For me, though, the convention was a time to eat some humble pie and, well, look a little ridiculous. I was the “sheriff” for the Legal Defense Fund Jail-N-Bail. The general concept is easy. People pay $5 to file charges against someone else. The sheriff “arrests” the criminal and locks him or her in jail. The convict spends the next hour or so trying to raise $100 (or whatever amount) in bail, either by soliciting cash from passersby or calling friends, family and coworkers to pledge money.

Electronic communications proved useful to many jailbirds, such as SPJ Region 4 director Jeremy Steele (@jwswrites) and digital media guru Ron Sylvester (@rsylvester). Steele texted on his cell phone to raise most of his bail. Sylvester raised over $100 in what seemed like a few minutes using Twitter.

Here are a few thoughts that ran through my head (admittedly constrained due to the tight brim of my hat) while I walked around for three days arresting people:

— Despite what people say about cowboy boots being “extremely comfortable,” the kind rented from a costume shop are apparently an exception.

— If wearing boots is anything like wearing high heels, I have newfound respect for women and anyone else who wears heels. In fact, the experience of wearing boots has forever dissuaded me from wearing heels. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that. People’s footwear preferences are nobody’s business but their own.)

— Hearing “There’s a new sheriff in town” isn’t really funny the first time. The next 78 times causes migraines.

Those may have been my thoughts as I walked around a classy hotel looking like a character from “Bozo Does Dallas,” but I’ve now had time to digest the experience. Here are some more appropriate musings:

— As boring as sitting in “jail” for an hour may be, actually being incarcerated for ostensibly doing your job (reporting, etc) would really suck.

— Twitter, used properly and in tandem with other communications devices and technologies, is an extremely powerful way of sharing information and connecting people for social cause marketing.

— The amount of people who came in contact with the SPJ Legal Defense Fund and its work this weekend is immeasurable. For every person who donated money – from $1 to $500 – there were likely dozens who heard about the fund and its work for the first time. The value of that is priceless.

So, after every tiring and almost painful aspect of this weekend, I’m glad for the opportunity to dress like an 1850’s version of Barney Fife. Sure, the boots may have been uncomfortable and the comments from passersby insufferable. But we did raise $4,300, mostly cash, for a darn good cause.

It’s too bad I’m a trustworthy Eagle Scout, otherwise I would have taken some of that cash and bought a BB gun of my own. It’s been a long time coming. Just don’t tell my mom.

What does federal legislation – namely the Free Flow of Information Act – have to do with inclement weather?

In January there was a rather mighty storm in Indianapolis that resulted in the largest single-day snow fall of the last 13 years. Mass pandemonium ensued for a city that, geographically speaking, can’t decide if its weather patterns are closer to those of Louisville or Chicago.

Since the staff at SPJ is really devoted (read: certifiable), the office remained open while every other sane person in the nation’s 14th-largest city stayed home.

My 1992 Toyota Corolla may be the automotive version of that insufferable Energizer Bunny, but even it has limits. Fourteen inches of snow is one such limit.

Thus, I walked to work. Two miles. No sidewalks. Down the middle of the main north-south highway through the city. Clipped by snow plows. It was fun and unique!

It was around mile one, tossed into an embankment by a passing plow, that I took some time to think.

I thought about the SPJ office, how it had remained open when so many others closed. The situation conjured images of the Free Flow of Information Act, aka the federal Shield Law, which SPJ has been lobbying Congress to pass since 2005. I thought of the thousands of members who have signed on to receive “legislative alerts” and other Shield Law updates. I thought about past presidents and their advocacy and leadership, from Irwin Gratz to Christine Tatum to Clint Brewer, to name a few. I thought about current president Dave Aeikens and his numerous interviews with the national press, reiterating why the shield legislation is for every citizen, not just privileged journalists. I thought about the bill stalling in the Senate last year and the veto threats from the Bush administration.

Paralyzed there in the snow – like Ralphie’s kid brother in “A Christmas Story” – I thought, for at least one brief moment, that it was all in vain, much like my pathetic attempt to reach the office.

Several weeks later, in February, Representatives reintroduced the bill in the House. SPJ responded right away. The bill went to the House Judiciary Committee and passed easily. SPJ responded right away. The bill went before the full House and passed by voice vote with no objection. We had a statement written before the vote took place.

Now the fate of the bill is once again in the hands of Senators. Some think it may be easier this time around. Some suggest the entire vote may come down to Minnesota and its still-undecided Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Indeed, only time and good ol’ fashion advocacy will tell.

One thing is certain among this sea of uncertain legislative processes: SPJ will remain vigilant in the fight. This legislation is too important. There are too many dedicated and devoted people contributing to this effort. The legislation may have an uncertain outlook in 2009, 2010 and however many years in the future. But SPJ and its leaders and members will be there every step of the way.

And the headquarters, at which I eventually arrived that snowy day in January, will remain open through it all.

I never thought I’d say this, but I’m happy to be back in Indianapolis. Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with the Circle City, but it’s been difficult for this boy from the West to adjust to Midwestern living … though I am slowly beginning to appreciate Bob Evans and Cracker Barrel for their kitschy novelty (despite not eating meat other than fish, which, according to my Catholic upbringing, is not meat). Thus, when my plane landed at good ol’ IND the other night, I found myself breathing a strange sigh of relief. Truth be told, I had enjoyed my Christmas vacation in the Northwest – complete with infuriating amounts of snow. However, I’d grown tired of answering the persistent question from friends and family: “So, what do you do?”

That’s a good question. What do I do? Discounting time spent on Facebook and Twitter, I do many productive things throughout the day (if, by chance, my superiors are reading this, the Facebook thing is entirely related to work). In the spirit of brevity, here’s a condensed version: SPJ Leads. Ethics Hotline. Grants Committee. Press releases. SPJ Report. Media inquiries. Marketing plans. More friggin’ press releases. That’s some of what I do. But I can’t just spout a litany of SPJ/PR/journalism terms to people largely unfamiliar with the industry. Rather, I simplify.

“I write for a journalism trade magazine,” is my typical response after trying – usually unsuccessfully – to explain that SPJ is not the same thing as the AP.

In reality, I spend less than 15 percent of my time on Quill-related content, but the magazine route is the quickest way to satisfy the endless inquiries from those I’ve not chosen to update on my life, which is everyone.

There’s a deeper reason, though. When I first started at SPJ, I was called a “spin doctor” by a working reporter. If there’s one way to stop a confident, often cocky aspiring writer in his tracks, it’s by using the dreaded “spin” term. Spin is an art in which bloviating commentators on cable television excel.  I may not file stories on the daily wire, but there is a copy of the AP Stylebook on my desk, and that has to count for something.

After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and if I can’t be a cub reporter, I’ll sure have a good time pretending. In the meantime I’ll keep sending those friends and family bylined content from Quill, just to keep them up to speed on what I do, or at least what I do less than 15 percent of the time.

Hopefully my next visit out West will come with fewer questions. Or perhaps I’ll go to Florida instead. At least there’s no snow there.