url-19.jpgLast Saturday, the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University honored Roxana Saberi with the Medill Medal for Courage in Journalism. In her remarks accepting the award (text and video at the link), she said

I don’t know how you define courage. Before I went to prison if I thought about it much maybe I would have said maybe it means focusing on something greater than I. And now I think I understand a little bit more about what this means. To focus on something greater than myself. And I think that’s something that actually journalists do in their jobs.

Yes they do, even those that do not have to deal with imprisonment.

Dan Froomkin, for instance, described his job like this back in 2005:

My agenda, such as it is, is accountability and transparency. I believe that the president of the United States, no matter what his party, should be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable. And he should be able to easily withstand that scrutiny. . .

This column’s advocacy is in defense of the public’s right to know what its leader is doing and why. To that end, it calls attention to times when reasonable, important questions are ducked; when disingenuous talking points are substituted for honest explanations; and when the president won’t confront his critics — or their criticisms — head on.

That takes courage, especially at the Post.

Dan wrote these words after a column by then-Post Ombudsman Deb Howell pooh-poohed him as "highly opinionated and liberal" and therefore a non-journalist and a threat to the integrity of the serious folks in the print newsroom. Indeed, Dan himself acknowledged the tension by offering his own opinion of the situation:

The journalists who cover Washington and the White House should be holding the president accountable. When they do, I bear witness to their work. And the answer is for more of them to do so — not for me to be dismissed as highly opinionated and liberal because I do.

But literally dismissed from the Post he was, finally, last Thursday.

Three days later, CEO and Publisher of the Washington Post Katharine Weymouth spoke.

Weymouth was the commencement speaker at Medill, where she spoke at length about new and old media and the craft of journalism, especially at the Post.

People have tried to paint the shift that technology has brought about as a fight between new and old media. That is the exact wrong way to look at it. I would posit that there is no old and new media. There is good journalism and new tools that are bringing that journalism alive in ways that it has never been before. Good journalism that is enhanced by having readers and users who can participate in the conversation and push it farther. It is no longer just a one-way conversation. It is no longer journalists just telling people what has happened and how to interpret it. It is now a conversation – and often a conversation on multiple platforms with multiple players.

And so the Post decides to get rid of one of their best at making that conversation happen? If I were Fred Hiatt, I might be a bit worried about what my boss said last Saturday. And she didn’t stop there.

[U]sing new tools do not mean doing away with the profession of reporting – of cultivating sources and spending days and weeks and sometimes years developing a story and digging to the bottom. Of parsing sides in order to get at the underlying truths.

Fred, I hate to break it to you, but it sure sounds like she’s talking more about Dan and less about you, especially that "parsing" bit.

As she moved to her conclusion, Weymouth said "The need for fast, accurate news and insightful opinion is greater than ever."

Indeed. Too bad for her that readers will find less of that accuracy and insight at the Post on the day after Froomkin’s last column runs.