The American Academy of Diplomacy
(LINK) awarded its 2005 Arthur Ross Media Award to Jim Boyd the deputy editorial page editor for the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota Star Tribune ("Strib") last week at a ceremony held at the U.S. State Department. Among previous winners are Jim Lehrer of PBS and Anne Garrels of National Public Radio. The Academy cited Boyd's
"critical, perceptive and nonpartisan commentary on the policies of governments and international organizations, reflecting exhaustive research, a willingness to tell truth to power and a consistent appreciation for the importance of cooperation among nations."
This diary isn't just a "look at this!" note; I actually have a more general point to explore below the flip:
I read the Strib's article about Boyd's award this morning (
LINK) and had the pleasure of listening to some of Mr. Boyd's comments during today's edition of "Midday," a daily call-in show on Minnesota Public Radio
(LINK). This award, some of Boyd's comments, and a measure of pride over such national recognition for a regional media outlet in my home town provoked me to post this, my
first-ever dKos diary -- as such, your
constructive criticism as well as your thoughts on my subject will be heartily welcomed!
People here on dKos have praised the Strib's editorial page's steadfast, consistent criticism of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy and handling of the "Global War On Terror" ("GWOT") over the past several years. For example:
Twisted by Knaves from August 19, 2005;
Strib has a good edit on Rove from July 14, 2005;
Star Tribune: Supporting Durbin's Message from June 21, 2005;
Awaken the MSM: Downing Street Memo Alert (6/15) from June 15, 2005;
Star Tribune Refuses to let DSM go. from June 9, 2005;
Reaction Re: Star Tribune Editorial from May 31, 2005; and my personal favorite
Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial kicks ass! from October 30, 2003.
I should note that the Strib has taken a lot of flak (your trivia question for the day is: where did the word "flak" used in this context come from?) for its editorial positions. Of course, the Strib receives a deluge of irate letters from BushCo apologists denouncing the paper as the "Red Star," but right-wing bloggers like PowerLine (alas, also based here in the Twin Cities) keep up a constant barrage of name-calling and abuse directed at the Strib. As the Strib article linked above noted, Hugh Hewitt even organized a campaign to get people to cancel their Strib subscriptions (unfortunately, some 200 people actually did so)! It's great to see a credible, knowledgeable organization like the American Academy of Diplomacy recognize the Strib's courage. It's a good balance to the usual result of "no good deed goes unpunished."
During his appearance on the "Midday" program, Boyd was asked whether the Strib's editorial positions influenced its reporting of the news and how a regional paper got itself fairly far ahead of the crowd in chiding the Bush Administration over Iraq, the GWOT, Plamegate, and the like. His answers were interesting.
Boyd said that, with rare exceptions limited to fact-checking (per Boyd, factual errors are a "mortal sin"), he and his colleagues on the editorial staff have no contact with the news room other than "walking through it" to get to their offices and that, although the publisher does review every editorial before it's published, the publisher rarely has any comment on an editorial that has survived editorial staff review and vetting. I don't know how that compares to national outlets like WaPo and NYT, but I'd say that reflects well on the Strib.
Perhaps more interestingly, Boyd mentioned that the Strib, as a regional paper, doesn't have any special "access" in Washington to worry about, so the Strib feels no pressure to pull its punches to preserve the sort of "special privileges" to which some journalists in the DC Beltway seem to have succumbed. Boyd said he was disappointed that, with only a few exceptions, the DC press corps has "sold its integrity" in return for access. That idea, together with all the stories I've read here on dKos and elsewhere about the media stars of DC selling out to preserve their "access" to Administration sources, led me to wonder whether regional media outlets might in general be more likely to "call 'em as they see 'em" simply because they haven't been sucked into the all-to-cozy world of the likes of Bob Woodward, trading kid-gloves treatment for special access to Administration sources. What experiences can some of you pass along? What do you think? Take the poll!
Boyd also made a point bearing on whether "chickenhawks" bring a fully-informed sensitivity to questions of war and peace. I found Boyd's comments rather moving:
"I am a Vietnam veteran. I went there as an Army case officer, under cover as a Foreign Service Reserve officer. But the kids I went through basic training with were mostly farm kids from around the Northwest. Most went straight from basic to advanced infantry training to Vietnam. About half did not come home. I feel a deep commitment to them, and through them to today's young men and women, to help ensure that whenever they are put in a combat zone it is because we have no other option."
Boyd's discussion during the Midday program covered many other interesting subjects in an intelligent, interesting manner, but I won't discuss those here -- this diary is already longer than I originally intended. Anyway, I hope that you'll find this award to Boyd and the Strib a bit of good news -- sometimes when you tell "truth to power," the good you do actually will be recognized and rewarded by people who know what they're talking about.