Ombudsmen: to be or not to be
The discussion of the value of ombudsmen and public editors is back on the table, thanks primarily to the New York Times' consideration of abolishing that position. Jeff Jarvis brings us up to date quickly and voices his always well-considered opinion.
I've always wanted an ombudsman here, but haven't figured out how to do it. We came close a year or two ago, but when push came to shove, we decided against it. The decision always comes down to whether to have a reporter on the street or an ombudsman, and I can't swallow losing another reporting position. They are precious in this day and time. Or rather, I would have had a full-time reporter writing about us, which, while intensely interesting to me, I didn't think it reflected the interest of the bulk of our readers.
Of course, readers who are Web-savvy can contact all of our reporters via e-mail. They can talk virtually with most of the reporters via our blogs, too. And, then, they can come straight to me, here. We say that every journalist is an ombudsman -- and they should be -- but I think we all know that that is just something we say. Like everyone else, each of us has varying degrees of defenses and defensivenesses.
Still, an independent voice representing readers and holding the organization to account has tremendous value. Bloggers here do it when a topic suits their fancy, but not often enough, frankly, and, in my opinion, not always on the "right" topics. (Yes, I know the loaded meanings of the word.) On occasion, I've asked about feedback options and insider reporting opportunities, but I haven't gotten much interest, which is curious to me.
My bottom line: Were I Bill Keller, I would continue the public editor's position. I realize this can be perceived as hypocritical. but I don't have 1,000 people in my newsroom, either.
While I was at it, I would also set up a series of editor blogs. The excuses for top editors not to blog has long ago fallen by the wayside.
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
John,
From time to time over the past 40 years I have watched recurring debates about newspaper ombudsmen. In the spring of 1967, journalism teacher Kay Keefe, who established the Lyons Township High School Lion as a continuing powerhouse among student newspapers, read Ben Bagdikian's Esquire article ("The American Newspaper is neither Record, Mirror, Journal, Ledger, Bulletin, Telegram, Examiner, Register, Chronicle, Gazette, Observer, Monitor nor Herald of the day's events). Bagdikian suggested putting a community ombudsman on a newspaper's board "to be present, to speak, to provide a symbol and, with luck, exert public interest in the ultimate fate of the American newspaper." Ms. Keefe was struck by the word and concept, "ombudsman," and assigned me to write an article about it. A few months later, after I'd graduated, on my birthday in fact (June 29), Barry Bingham and Norman Isaacs appointed the first American newspaper ombudsman at the Louisville Courier-Journal. I remember being astonished then (as now) by Ms. Keefe's prescience.
While I worked for the Lee Enterprises chain, the idea of having an ombudsman came up from time to time at our larger newspapers. Now-familiar arguments usually shot down the idea -- we don't have the money (or it could be spent better on a reporter or editor), we shouldn't put an obstacle (or intermediary) between readers and editors, the editor(s) should handle complaints, it's the editor's job to uphold our standards of fairness, accuracy, etc. I heard some good arguments in favor of ombudsmen, too, and one seems more compelling today than in the past.
Now that we attach reporters' e-mail addresses to their stories, readers can contact them quickly and easily. That's a good thing, but the downside is that not all reporters will respond appropriately. The danger, it seems to me, is a reporter (or columnist or editor) may reply or simply blow off a reader in ways that reflects poorly on the paper. And, once posted, that reply can spread virally on the Web. The value of having an ombudsman in the loop is that the ombudsman's presence can help ensure certain standards of fairness, courtesy, prompt responsiveness and respect. If that problem does not exist at the Greensboro News-Record, however, you might not need an ombudsman.
The other test of whether a newspaper needs an ombudsman, it seems to me, is to answer the questions, "Will an ombudsman make the newspaper better? Will we be more accurate, more fair, more accountable to our readers?" If the answers are in doubt, I'd invest the time and money on other projects, such as your idea of adding editor blogs and, while you're at it, a blog on blogs so I can see at a glance what everyone is writing about.
Posted on January 16, 2007 1:03 PM