<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.spj.org/blog/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Freedom of the Prez</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/default.aspx</link><description>&lt;img src="http://spj.org/images/blogheads/presidentbloghead.gif" border=0 width=835 height=165&gt;</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60217.2664)</generator><item><title>Ethical journalism is not lost; let me help you find it</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2008/05/04/20497.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 01:33:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:20497</guid><dc:creator>ClintBrewer</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/20497.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=20497</wfw:commentRss><description>We’re journalists and we’re here to help you. Trust us.That is essentially the line American media companies have been using since the dawn of television. Each year, however, that message is received with increasing skepticism from news consumers.The studies detailing the American public’s distrust of the media — and of journalists — are too numerous to count. But instead of heeding that warning, many traditional news entities bend to pressing market forces. With each passing year, they blend in...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2008/05/04/20497.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=20497" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Shield Law Slam Dunk</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/10/17/8839.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:25:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8839</guid><dc:creator>ClintBrewer</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8839.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8839</wfw:commentRss><description>What a day. What an amazing day for journalism and democracy.
In a historic, landslide victory, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 sailed through the U.S. House of Representatives on a 398 to 21 vote&amp;nbsp;Tuesday, enjoying clear bipartisan support.
It was a long day of political maneuvering and some drama brought on by a move to see the bill sent back to committee. SPJ Communications staff and our attorneys from Baker Hostetler monitored the debate live&amp;nbsp; from the floor and via C-Span...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/10/17/8839.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8839" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1002.aspx">Freedom of Information</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1003.aspx">Federal Shield</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1016.aspx">Media Law</category></item><item><title>Tatum's random thoughts on her way out the door</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/10/07/8744.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:48:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8744</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8744.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8744</wfw:commentRss><description>If you missed SPJ's 2007 national conference, you missed what very well could be the best wingding this great organization has staged in years. As USA Today Editor Ken Paulson put it Saturday night, "The star power was here in full force."

It was a glorious end to a wonderful year packed -- absolutely packed -- with accomplishment. Very soon, you'll find my annual report on SPJ.org. Please take a look at it because I think you, too, will be mightily impressed with the ground covered since August...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/10/07/8744.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8744" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1008.aspx">SPJ Matters</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1009.aspx">Odds and Ends</category></item><item><title>Shield Law progresses -- and SPJ was there! </title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/10/04/8710.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:43:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8710</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8710.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8710</wfw:commentRss><description>This morning, a proposed federal shield law that would help journalists protect confidential sources sailed out of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 15-2. 

One of the dissenters: Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican SPJ members also known as "Senator Secrecy." The other? Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Some things to note: 

 Several people deserve credit for this important legislation. I have been referring to this Senate version of the shield bill as the Specter...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/10/04/8710.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8710" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1003.aspx">Federal Shield</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1008.aspx">SPJ Matters</category></item><item><title>Come to terms with the trouble we're in</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/24/8610.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:38:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8610</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>2</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8610.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8610</wfw:commentRss><description>MarketWatch's John Dvorak's Sept. 22 column is a must-read. It's harsh, but his assessment of the newspaper industry is dead on. These are snippets I particularly appreciate:
"As more newspapers make the mistake of eliminating reporting jobs, they fall into the pit of redundancy with nothing special to offer."
"The only papers or news organizations that can expect to survive will be those with lots of original content available only at their individual sites. The operations that rely more on universally...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/24/8610.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8610" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1018.aspx">Technology</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1070.aspx">The Business Side</category></item><item><title>Free speech, Responsible journalism NOT synonymous</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/24/8605.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:04:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8605</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>5</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8605.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8605</wfw:commentRss><description>I have watched with great interest two controversies spinning in the last week out of college campuses. One is practically in my backyard -- Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo. -- and the other is at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, Conn. 

Obviously, different publications, different students and different journalism are involved -- but both conflicts illustrate why I firmly believe that free speech and responsible journalism are not synonymous. I’ll be explaining...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/24/8605.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8605" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1007.aspx">On campus</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1010.aspx">J-Ethics</category></item><item><title>Still laughing at FOX lawsuit ... </title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/20/8580.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:04:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8580</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8580.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8580</wfw:commentRss><description>The next time you need a video MP3 player to help wile away all those hours you anticipate being stuck in the car, on the train or in the airport, you must download "The First Amendment Project." 
This 2004 production from the Sundance documentary collection (and co-produced by Court TV) is priceless if for no other reason than the 20-minutes-or-so segment titled, "Fox vs. Franken." 
Some quick background: Fox network filed suit against Al Franken after network commentator Bill O'Reilly's angry-looking...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/20/8580.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8580" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1004.aspx">Corporate shenanigans</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1009.aspx">Odds and Ends</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1016.aspx">Media Law</category></item><item><title>It is ethical to question the news business</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/13/8532.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:32:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8532</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8532.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8532</wfw:commentRss><description>Amen, Amy Gahran!

I, too, am sickened by layoffs of highly qualified journalists when it's clear -- crystal clear -- that many news organizations actually could afford to boost their editorial ranks (and, in turn, deliver more great journalism) if only they had a better handle on technology. 

Gahran is absolutely correct that many news companies are losing out on big bucks because they haven't built -- or bought -- the systems that would allow them to make the most of online ad sales.

C'mon....(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/13/8532.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8532" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1010.aspx">J-Ethics</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1018.aspx">Technology</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1070.aspx">The Business Side</category></item><item><title>Help push SPJ into exciting, new territory! </title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/12/8526.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:43:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8526</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8526.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8526</wfw:commentRss><description>Video-conferencing technology isn't new -- but it's new to SPJ. And wow, does it have the power to help this organization do amazing things. 

On Sunday afternoon, I visited with SPJ members in Knoxville, Tenn. While sitting in my home. In Denver. I even got a chance to show off my 2-year-old daughter, Tatum Elizabeth, who insisted on saying, "Hi, Tennessee!"

A small camera built into my MacBook Pro laptop was trained on my face (very carefully trained because I didn't want everyone to see my...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/09/12/8526.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8526" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1008.aspx">SPJ Matters</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1018.aspx">Technology</category></item><item><title>Will Owen Wilson get to heal in private?</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/28/8427.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:05:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8427</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8427.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8427</wfw:commentRss><description>The breathlessness of many of today's stories recounting actor Owen Wilson's reported suicide attempt has made me cringe. (Full disclosure for the Us-Weekly-magazine conspiracy theorists among you: No, not because I have a secret crush on him. No, not because I secretly hope to interview him one day. And no, not because I want to use Mr. Wilson to win the affections of actor Vince Vaughn.)
Today, I'm seeing anonymous sources dishing this, that and the other about a Hollywood star who clearly has...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/28/8427.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8427" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1010.aspx">J-Ethics</category></item><item><title>Anchorwoman: More bomb than bombshell</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/24/8407.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:46:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8407</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8407.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8407</wfw:commentRss><description>Fox has pulled the plug on "Anchorwoman,"&amp;nbsp;one of the dumbest reality shows&amp;nbsp;concocted yet (and that's really saying&amp;nbsp;something). &amp;nbsp;
This reaction arrived in my e-mail inbox from Michael Drudge of San Antonio: "Amazing. How refreshing to see&amp;nbsp;there IS a limit to the depth of low taste in this country."
Indeed.
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/24/8407.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8407" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1004.aspx">Corporate shenanigans</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1010.aspx">J-Ethics</category></item><item><title>The Bourne Ultimatum and Journalism</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/24/8406.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:22:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8406</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8406.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8406</wfw:commentRss><description>The hubby and I watched "The Bourne Ultimatum" last night, and it reminded me of discussions swirling in journalism/newsroom/SPJ circles.
We're buffs who love to discuss over dinner a film's every detail. For years, without fail, my husband always has gotten the conversation rolling with one simple question: "Why did they make that movie?" 
I'm no spoiler, so I won't recount too much here, but the final(?) installment of the series about a young black-ops CIA agent included themes journalists typically...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/24/8406.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8406" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1009.aspx">Odds and Ends</category></item><item><title>Go ahead! Plug your blog! </title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/19/8365.aspx</link><pubDate>Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:15:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8365</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8365.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8365</wfw:commentRss><description>Certainly no news flash here: a blog can have serious reach. 

I launched Freedom of the Prez in September 2006 with hopes that SPJ national presidents for years to come would log on occasionally to document important issues/events, generate discussion and generally connect with SPJ members and the public. Perhaps, over time, this blog's archives will help inform everyone's perspective about where SPJ is, how it got there and where it needs to head next.

It's also my hope that Freedom of the...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/19/8365.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8365" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1008.aspx">SPJ Matters</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1009.aspx">Odds and Ends</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1018.aspx">Technology</category></item><item><title>Global attacks on journalism: Do you really care?</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/18/8362.aspx</link><pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:03:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8362</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8362.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8362</wfw:commentRss><description>The news this week out of the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX) was especially depressing. Journalists worldwide are literally fighting for their lives. 

I have written about how checked out American journalists can be where matters of global press freedom are concerned. 

A few new connections might snap more of us out of our complacency. Speaking with journalists from foreign countries never ceases to amaze, disturb and inspire me. During a recent SPJ event, I chatted with...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/18/8362.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8362" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1005.aspx">Global press issues</category></item><item><title>Andy Schotz makes a great point</title><link>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/13/8326.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:53:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">09b0eec0-9b9f-45ed-a018-dbfba5cb4b26:8326</guid><dc:creator>christinetatum</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/comments/8326.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/commentrss.aspx?PostID=8326</wfw:commentRss><description>If you haven't read National Ethics Committee Chairman Andy Schotz' column in this month's edition of Quill magazine, please do so. 
In a nut shell, Andy challenges what is becoming a common practice: newsrooms are permitting anonymous posts on their Web sites.
He writes: 
"The standards should be high. Anonymity may be granted, in a news story or for a letter to the editor, if there’s a compelling reason. We explain why. 
"With online comments, we do the opposite. We let people hide behind a...(&lt;a href="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/08/13/8326.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.spj.org/blog/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8326" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1008.aspx">SPJ Matters</category><category domain="http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/category/1010.aspx">J-Ethics</category></item></channel></rss>