Read more >>

The review follows last year’s update of CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices and deals specifically with the role of the ombudsmen in the current media landscape. The mandate has not been reviewed for several years.

CBC president Hubert T. Lacroix says social media and the Internet have changed the way in which the corporation does business, so “it’s important that we understand new media’s impact, either real or potential, on the mandate and role of our ombudsmen.”

Read more >>

Dear colleagues,

We have received a complaint from an organisation that was criticised by a number of other organisations. The complaint turns on the allegation that our story was unfair, partial and lacked balance. What makes this a little different is that our reporter tried to speak to the organisation being criticised on two occasions. The organisation refused to comment but says that fact does not absolve the Guardian from its responsibilities to produce a fair and balanced story. What would you expect of your reporters in such circumstances? How would your news organisations make the decision that, in the face of  ’no comment’, your journalists had discharged their obligations?

Any thoughts would be very gratefully received.

Best wishes

Chris

Chris Elliott
Readers’ Editor
The Guardian, London

=====

Our Code of Practice requires journalists “to strive at all times for truth and accuracy” (Principle 1), and to “take reasonable care in checking facts before publication (Principle 4).” Whether newspapers have met these obligations in any given set of circumstances depends on the facts of the case. Complaints about a breach of either of these principles will not generally be upheld on these grounds if the reporter has made the call but is met with “No Comment”, unless there are other grounds for investigating and/or upholding a complaint.

Problems can, however, arise in cases where the reporter has contacted the organization (or individual) very late in the day, in circumstances in which they argue they haven’t been given an adequate opportunity to give their point of view, or in circumstances in which a statement they have made on request has been written down or contextualized in the story to imply that it is disingenuous, insignificant, or worthless. Each of these cases has also to be judged on its merits, but the operative Principle in such cases is more likely to be one of the Principles dealing with misrepresentation or distortion rather than the Principles dealing with the need to check.

If a refusal to comment is a factor involved in the publication of an inaccuracy that is significant enough to require correction, then, in my view, the publication of a correction should be facilitated by the newspaper, but should be made by the individual or organization concerned, without the publication having to accept responsibility for the error. Where articles contain significant errors that are the responsibility of the publication alone, then of course the correction should be made by, and with the authority of, the publication itself.

To accept that an organization which had refused to comment is automatically entitled to redress for any injustices, real or perceived, whatever the story said and regardless of the professionalism of the writer, offers a blank cheque to all organizations that want to bully the press into a state of nervous self-censorship, and is almost equivalent to an informal gagging order. To be resisted!

Best

John Horgan
Irish Press Council
Dublin

=====

Dear Chris

The complainant is being silly. The blame for the story not being fair, partial and balanced rests squarely on its shoulders. It would have come out differently if they had spoken to your reporter. Having said that, they refusal to comment would not have entitled you to knowingly produce a story that is unfair, partial and unbalanced. That charge, however, would hold true if you deliberately included information that know to be untrue or excluded relevant information that is in their favour with a view to “getting them” or punishing them by publishing untruths, with a view to teaching them a lesson not to refuse to comment in future.

Having said that, we have an obligation to ensure the information we publish is truthful and accurate. We are also required to set the record straight in the event what we published is subsequently found to be lacking in veracity. To do otherwise would be to distort the truth. Imagine researchers who have to rely on your article when it’s not true, regardless how that happened. My suggestion would be that you give them the opportunity to set the record straight and state clearly that the new article is being done for that purpose. You’ll have to make it clear they’re now coming forward with information that they had refused to divulge for the earlier article. That should not be taken to mean you’re retracting the original story. I hope this helps.

Regards,

Thabo Leshilo
Public Editor
Avusa Media
4 Biermann Avenue
Rosebank. South Africa

=====

Chris,

I assume we would all expect reporters to check facts and seek balance in any case. But I believe you have highlighted a general problem: One parts refusal to comment is sometimes used by reporters’ and editors’ as an excuse to publish stories without careful fact-checking.

To some extent you can surely argue, that the “no-comment”-people only have themselves to blame for misunderstandings or misrepresentations. But blame-game or not: For us the priority must be given to informing the public correctly.

All the best,

Jacob

Jacob Mollerup
Listeners and Viewers Editor
Danish Broadcasting Corporation

=====

If the journalists made it clear in their reports that the organisation refused to give a comment, I don’t think there’s anything wrong.

Just the other day, the Estonian public broadcaster did a critical story of a government department in charge of internet domain registration. The story said the department had declined “repeated offers by our
reporters to comment on the accusations”. So the story lacked the government department’s point of view, but I don’t think journalism ethics was violated here. And in our case, the department has not complained (yet?) about one-sided coverage. It seems the facts were well checked.

Best regards
Tarmu

Tarmu Tammerk
Media Ombudsman
Estonian Public Broadcasting Company

=====

Chris:

CBC’s policies contain the notion that individuals and organizations
have the right not to participate and that CBC journalists should do
their best to reflect the context as fully as possible. Of course, at
the end of the day, if there is no other source of context but the
individual or organization, and he/she or it refuses to comment, that
refusal should not prevent a journalist from doing a story as balanced
as he/she can make it.

Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman
Toronto

=====

Chris,

Here in Argentina (we are having more problems every day), I would argue simply that the source of the complaint specify the quibbles and even express an opinion on the content. However, the reporter would definitely have the right to add a paragraph of explanation as to the work done.
This is not what I remember happening in the UK, but here at Perfil it is a necessity. Sometimes the exchanges are quite entertaining, if usually tetchy.

best,

Andrew Graham-Yooll
Perfil, Buenos Aires

=====

I find it interesting that the complaint relates to partiality and balance. Unless I am missing something, that seems a slightly different complaint than inaccuracy.

Obviously, a news organization has an obligation to ensure the facts of a story are accurate, regardless of whether a story subject will comment. It sounds like the reporters involved may have done that. As much as possible, reporters must also be diligent about presenting “all sides” of a story. Bu that can be a little more difficult and nuanced than getting the facts right if one side is not talking.

If the facts of the story were accurate, we would consider offering the complaining organization an opportunity to respond in a published letter to the editor, rather a published correction. We would tell the organization that they could not assail the accuracy of the story but could put forth the views they believed should have been included to “balance” the original article.

Cheers,
Shawn McIntosh
Atlanta Journal Constitution Public Editor
Atlanta, GA

=====

Hallo!

I think you should publish the story, if the company twice has been asked to comment and don’t want to, they should stand by their decision. It would be totally wrong if people and companies can stop an article or a subject just by refusing to comment.

Kind regards

Janne Andersson
TV4 Sweden

=====

My own view is that the reporter and the news organization retain the responsibility to be fair and accurate in their response even if the object has no comment after attempts to get comment. If there is trustworthy, verifiable information on the record elsewhere that makes the other case it should be sought and included. I don’t think such articles have to be “balanced” in terms of equal space and comment because there may not be any real balance to such a story, but it should be fair in going the extra mile to gather all relevant information.

Mike Getler
PBS Ombudsman
Washington, DC

=====

Hello,

The complaint seems unfounded if (and only if) the report was indeed accurate. If not the organization has the right to ask for a rectification (correction), but not a justification.

In France, the law is so strict that anybody quoted in an article has a “droit de réponse” meaning the newspaper is obliged to publish his answer. This is a problem because generally, it gives to the person or the organization a free tribune (platform) without any way to comment on it. So, we end up most times negotiating the size and legitimacy of this answer.

The “no comment” tactic poses more or less the same problem: the only solution is to quote them saying this in the article and, afterwards, negotiate their answer: nothing if there is no error, a simple precision if the error is trivial, a real tribune (or another article) if the error and the prejudice is heavy.

Best wishes

Véronique Maurus
médiatrice
Le Monde
Paris

=====

Dear Colleagues,

I have had more than a dozen replies and all have been really helpful. Thanks so much for taking the time to respond.

Best wishes

Chris

Read more: Keeping Tabs on the Times

Prof. Flavia Pauwels of the University of Buenos Aires is a scholar of ombudsmanship
in Latin America, Spain and Portugal. Here is her scholarly assessment of the
growth of the institution in Latin countries. An English translation to follow shortly.

Resumen:

Al iniciarse 2010 al menos treinta experiencias de Defensorías del público se encontraban en funcionamiento en los medios de comunicación de América Latina. No sólo en diarios, sino también en medios audiovisuales, particularmente en aquellos de gestión pública. El trabajo de los News Ombudsmen o Defensores en la región es complejo, debido a las dificultades económicas que atraviesan los medios, a las resistencias de los periodistas a la autocrítica y a la débil participación del público. Hace falta una mayor difusión de estos casos y el avance hacia algún tipo de organización regional que permita el intercambio de experiencias.

Al momento de describir el estado de situación de la figura del Ombudsman (también llamado Defensor, Ouvidor o Mediador) en la prensa latinoamericana, distintos investigadores coinciden en remarcar que se trata de un proceso que todavía se encuentra en desarrollo.

Susana Herrera Damas y Rosa Zeta de Pozo (2005) concuerdan con Zaira Sánchez Piña (1999) en señalar que la implementación de esta forma de autorregulación en los medios de comunicación de la región ha sido “reciente”. Es necesario tener en cuenta que -si bien el primer caso se registró en 1989 en el diario brasileño Folha de San Pablo- fue en la década del 90 cuando “la figura empezó a generalizarse y darse a conocer” en otros países.

Gerardo Albarrán de Alba (2002), en tanto, al comparar el surgimiento de este mecanismo en la prensa norteamericana y europea con respecto a la latinoamericana, concluye que en ésta última “su aparición ha sido tardía”. Germán Rey (2003) también se refiere a los “pocos años” transcurridos desde 1989, lo que según su visión, hace que los Defensores de la región deban enfrentar un “oficio nuevo”, todavía “en construcción”.

Desde 1989 a la fecha se han registrado experiencias de Defensorías del público en casi todos los países de América del Sur y en algunos de América Central (Ver Anexo). Sin embargo, no han estado exentas de dificultades surgidas por motivos económicos , por conflictos con los periodistas o directivos y por la débil participación del público , lo que ha terminado en algunos casos con la desaparición de los cargos.

Por parte de las empresas periodísticas, se observa en la región la influencia, al momento de iniciar este tipo de experiencias, de lo hecho al respecto por el diario español El País. Su Defensoría del Lector (vigente desde 1985) y el Estatuto que rige su actuación, han sido fuente de inspiración para los medios locales.

Ahora, si se analizan las motivaciones de los medios para implementar este mecanismo de autorregulación, los objetivos declarados apuntan a mejorar los canales de comunicación entre el público y los periodistas. Sin embargo, y tal como señala Albarrán de Alba (2002), en los hechos “el alcance del defensor del lector latinoamericano tiene diverso acento”: a veces señala “el desarrollo de una conciencia ética de la redacción” o de “una voluntad empresarial de cambio”. En otros, simplemente se trata “de un instrumento de control interno” o de una mera “apariencia” para tratar de conquistar lectores.

La participación del público, en tanto, y su conciencia acerca de que la información también es un derecho humano que se debe ejercer, aparece como un aspecto que todavía sigue siendo necesario trabajar. En este sentido, Rey (2006) es claro al indicar que en Latinoamérica “aún es precaria la participación de la sociedad civil, los procesos de transparencia y las actividades de rendición de cuentas”. Un concepto similar al expresado por Caio Tulio Costa (2006: 11), el primer Ombudsman del diario brasileño Folha, quién acerca de su experiencia indicó que le tocó “implantar un servicio de atención al ciudadano en un país donde la ciudadanía no llega a ser una noción, es un deseo difuso y una posibilidad distante”.

También el carácter foráneo de la figura parece agregar otra dificultad para su afianzamiento en la región. Al menos, así lo analiza el ex Defensor del diario español El País, José Miguel Larraya (Ortiz, 2009: 80) cuando se refiere a las diferencias existentes entre el tipo de sociedad en la que surgió el Ombudsman con respecto a aquellas de raíces latinas. En este sentido, señala que “la figura del Ombudsman responde a una mentalidad anglosajona”. Por eso considera que “si hay un cierto escepticismo en las sociedades latinas sobre este tipo de funciones, es en parte razonable”.

Por otra parte, aparece la dificultad de determinar cuántos Defensores del público u Ombudsman actúan en la prensa latinoamericana. En un rastreo hecho para la Maestría en Periodismo de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), se ha podido determinar que en 2010 se encontraban activas, al menos, treinta Defensorías distribuidas en Argentina, Brasil, México, Colombia, Ecuador y Venezuela (Pauwels, 2010).

Sin embargo, la falta de una agrupación regional y el escaso número de Defensores latinoamericanos que integran la Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) complica el establecimiento de un número más certero. Existen intentos de avanzar en algún tipo de intercambio regional entre quienes ejercen el rol, aunque por el momento sin organizaciones de tipo formal. Uno de ellos es el impulsado por Lucio Segovia, ex Defensor del lector y la lectora del diario venezolano El Nacional, quien creó un grupo virtual para que sus colegas de distintos países puedan enviar sus artículos, compartir informaciones y debatir aspectos vinculados con el oficio.

En cuanto a la ONO, Albarrán de Alba (2002) llama la atención acerca de la “ignorancia” que tiene esa organización internacional acerca de la “mayoría” de los Defensores latinoamericanos. Situación también advertida por los brasileños de Folha. Junia Nogueira, la primera mujer en ocupar este tipo de cargo en ese diario, señalaba que la ONO le parecía “una entidad distante” (Costa, 2006: 258). En tanto, su colega Marcelo Beraba marcaba “la fuerte influencia de los diarios norteamericanos” en la entidad y la necesidad de “redefinir su rumbo y ampliar sus cuadros a Europa y América Latina” (Costa, 2006: 279).

En similar sentido, se expresó el Ombudsman de TV4 de Suecia, Jaane Andersson (2009), durante la conferencia de la ONO de 2009 en Washington. Allí advirtió acerca del “dominio” de los Defensores estadounidenses en la Organización y cómo “todos los procedimientos, debates y presentaciones se hacen en inglés”. En este sentido, señaló que “debe invitarse” a colegas “franceses, españoles y portugueses” a “unirse” a la ONO.

Tales sugerencias no pasaron desapercibidas por la Organización que tras su conferencia anual de 2010 anunció que “uno de sus próximos pasos” sería incorporar material en “francés, español y chino” a su sitio web (Dvorkin, 2010).

Ahora, ¿cómo es ser Ombudsman o Defensor en América Latina? y ¿qué innovaciones se han registrado en los últimos años?.

Germán Rey (2006), ex Defensor del Lector en el diario colombiano El Tiempo, describe la tarea de quienes actúan en la región como “compleja”. Como ejemplo señala que mientras ejerció el cargo recibió “cartas de paramilitares, narcotraficantes, sicarios y políticos corruptos protestando por las informaciones que en la mayoría de las ocasiones eran verdaderas, pero que contrariaban sus intereses criminales”.

En cuanto al perfil de los Defensores latinoamericanos, dos trabajos coinciden en afirmar que si bien hay “dimensiones comunes” se observan “diferencias” en las formas de trabajo.

La Fundación Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano (FNPI) organizó en 2002 en Guadalajara (México) el Primer Seminario Internacional de Defensores del lector. Quienes ejercían, en ese entonces, este tipo de cargo marcaron como coincidencias su labor de “mediación”, el necesario carácter “autónomo del oficio”, las “limitaciones temporales” en el ejercicio de la función y el “trabajo con las demandas de la gente”. Las divergencias estuvieron relacionadas fundamentalmente con la “distancia” o “cercanía” que cada Defensor mantenía con los periodistas del medio (Rey, 2003).

En tanto, la investigación de Herrera Damas y Zeta de Pozo (2005) también concluye que, si bien las Defensorías del público en América Latina presentan “una variedad de formas”, tienen similares objetivos: “el fomento de la autocrítica, el diálogo interno y el respeto de la ética profesional”.

En cuanto a las innovaciones, aparece como un dato relevante en la región el surgimiento durante la primera década de 2000 de distintas experiencias de Defensorías en medios audiovisuales, sobre todo en aquellos de carácter público. Así lo demuestran los casos de Brasil, México, Chile Argentina y Colombia , aunque con distinta suerte, ya que algunos sólo han sido intentos de corta duración.

Constituye también una novedad la aparición en Brasil, a partir de 2007, de Defensores con competencias exclusivas sobre dos sitios de Internet (UOL e IG), lo que sigue ubicando a este país en la vanguardia con respecto a este tema.

Merecen citarse también a algunas Defensorías en particular por llevar adelante iniciativas que podrían ser fuente de inspiración para otras experiencias:

Por ejemplo, se destaca el diario mexicano Público de Guadalajara, por la forma de elección de su Defensor, quien puede ser propuesto no sólo por los consejos editoriales o los miembros de la redacción sino también “por cualquier lector interesado en el proceso” .

En algunos casos la participación del público se formaliza a través de Consejos que actúan complementando la labor de los Defensores. Esto sucede en medios brasileños como el diario O Povo y la Empresa Brasil de Comunicación (EBC).

Otras Defensorías se distinguen por ser promotoras de actividades o “servicios” que incluyen talleres abiertos a la comunidad, encuentros de estudiantes con periodistas, visitas a las instalaciones del medio y hasta la posibilidad de presenciar las reuniones editoriales. En este aspecto sobresalen el diario venezolano El Nacional y el mexicano Tabasco Hoy.

Tampoco hay que olvidar los intentos de distintas universidades por dotar a sus propios medios de comunicación de una figura como la del Ombudsman. Se trata de una forma de instalar entre los estudiantes la importancia de la autorregulación. Tienen o han tenido experiencias de este tipo: México (Universidad de Guadalajara ), Colombia (Universidad de Antioquia ) y Brasil (Universidad Católica de Santos, Universidad de Brasilia y la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Minas/Arcos ).

En tanto, algunas Defensorías comienzan a explorar otros caminos para estar en contacto con audiencias y periodistas, más allá de la información que pueden publicar en sus propios sitios en Internet (Pauwels, 2006). Algunas, como Radio Educación de México y Teleantioquía de Colombia cuentan con sus propios “perfiles” en Facebook, desde donde piden a sus seguidores sugerencias y propuestas. El Canal 22 de México, por su parte, sube los videos del programa “Defensor del Televidente” a YouTube y en El Colombiano de Medellín, Víctor Zuluaga Salazar ha utilizado la Intranet del diario para poner en marcha un “proyecto pedagógico” dirigido a los periodistas .

Otro aspecto queda por resaltar. Se trata de la coincidencia de tres gobiernos de la región (Argentina, Ecuador y Bolivia) en proponer la creación de Defensorías del público por ley, en particular, con competencias sobre los medios audiovisuales. Estas iniciativas, si bien se alejan de la concepción de las Defensorías como un mecanismo de autorregulación de la prensa, sí indican la actualidad de un debate referido a cómo el público puede presentar objeciones a los contenidos de los medios.

La “pedagogía del Derecho a la Información” es el fin superior del trabajo de los Defensores. Así lo ha explicado Javier Darío Restrepo (2003, Marzo), no solo un referente en materia de ética periodística en la región sino también alguien que conoce esta labor desde adentro, ya que encarnó el rol de Defensor en medios colombianos en dos oportunidades. Tal “pedagogía” debe ir dirigida en dos sentidos: hacia el público y hacia los propios periodistas. Este esfuerzo requiere, en el panorama latinoamericano, necesariamente de un trabajo colectivo.

Es por ello que las Defensorías del público de la región necesitan de una mayor difusión. A nivel social, para que el público participe con sus observaciones y deje de ser “una mayoría silenciosa” (García Posada, 2007, Enero 7). A nivel profesional, entre los dueños de los medios y los propios periodistas, para lograr el compromiso de los primeros -en cuanto a la independencia y autonomía de los Defensores- y la cooperación de los segundos, en la respuesta al público y en la corrección de los errores. A nivel institucional, se hace necesario también aunar esfuerzos y tejer redes de cooperación con escuelas, universidades, organizaciones no gubernamentales, gremios del sector, etc.

Allá, por 1993, la revista argentina La Maga –la primera en tener Ombudsman en este país- lo caricaturizaba como una especie de Superman: un hombre de gesto adusto y postura firme que calzaba botas, llevaba una capa y en su pecho una insignia con una gran letra “O”. Seguramente, los Defensores lejos están de tener esos poderes sobrenaturales para cambiar por sí solos el estado de las cosas en materia de medios. Ellos son, todavía, una minoría en los medios de comunicación de Latinoamérica. Sin embargo, sus trabajos requieren de nuestra atención, porque marcan uno de los caminos posibles, no el único, por el que puede transitar el Derecho a la Información.

(*) Flavia Pauwels es licenciada en Ciencias de la Comunicación por la Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina), carrera en la cual se desempeña como profesora. Cuenta con un postgrado en Planificación y Gestión de la Actividad Periodística y ha cursado también la Maestría en Periodismo en la mencionada universidad, donde se ha especializado en la figura del Ombudsman de la prensa o Defensor del público. Para su Tesis de Maestría ha estado en contacto en los últimos cinco años con Defensores o ex Defensores de Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, México, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Panamá, España, Estados Unidos, Inglaterra, Holanda, Sudáfrica y Dinamarca.

Contacto: flaviapauwels@hotmail.com

NOTAS

En 2007 IG Brasil creó el cargo de Ombudsman para su portal en Internet. El elegido fue Mario Vitor Santos, con gran experiencia en este tipo de funciones ya que ocupó en dos oportunidades el mismo cargo en el diario Folha. Sin embargo, a comienzos de 2009 el director de la empresa le comunicó a Santos que “el contrato del Ombudsman no era compatible con una nueva realidad salarial vigente en IG” (2009, Febrero 17). En tanto, Juan Carlos Nuñez del diario mexicano Público reconoce que la crisis económica que ha afectado en forma global a la prensa gráfica, incide negativamente sobre la labor de los Defensores. Al ser consultado para esta investigación señaló que “el periódico vive momentos difíciles desde el punto de vista económico, lo que ha implicado duros recortes de personal”. Tal situación hace que “las recomendaciones del Defensor no sea fáciles de cumplir, pues los compañeros reporteros y editores carecen de tiempo y de recursos necesarios para elaborar un mejor diario” (e-mail, 2009 Diciembre 12).

La gestión de Mário Magalhães, en el diario brasileño Folha, finalizó con polémicas. El periodista se fue del cargo, que ejerció solo durante un año (2007-08), por disentir con la Dirección, la cual ordenó que no se publicara más en Internet su Crítica Interna, cuyo acceso era libre para cualquier lector desde 2000. En su última columna, Magalhães (2008, Abril 6) dijo que para renovar su mandato el diario le exigía “un retroceso en la transparencia de su trabajo”, aduciendo que “la competencia” se aprovechaba de las “ideas y sugerencias” del Ombudsman de Folha y las implementaba antes en sus propios diarios. Magalhães contrarrestó diciendo que de esta forma “los lectores perdían un derecho” y que la Crítica Interna, ahora sólo distribuída por e-mail a los principales periodistas de Folha, igual podría llegar a la competencia. En tanto, y si se habla de relaciones tensas con los periodistas, valen como ejemplos las experiencias de dos ex Defensores del diario brasileño O Povo. Adisía Sá fue víctima de un atentado en el cual tiraron ácido sobre su auto. Además recibió amenazas en las cuales le advertían que iba a ser atropellada, que su vehículo se iba a prender fuego o que una bomba explotaría en su edificio (Faria Mendes, 2003). Lira Neto, en tanto, relata en su libro (2000) las represalias que tomaron en su contra los colegas del diario porque él criticó a quienes desempeñaban en forma paralela su rol periodistas y de asesores de comunicación de políticos o empresas.

La queja por la falta de reclamos aparece con frecuencia en el discurso de los representantes latinoamericanos. Sebastián de la Nuez, de Últimas Noticias de Venezuela indicaba: “siento que (los lectores) no son lo suficientemente críticos (…) no ven muchas sutilezas que se pueden dar en la mala concepción de una información” (Pineda, 2006). La brasileña Débora Cronemberger de O Povo calificaba a la intervención del público como “muy tímida” (2002, Enero 5). Similar apreciación hacía Víctor Zuluaga Salazar de El Colombiano (2008, Enero 7), quien indicaba que en ese periódico la colaboración de los lectores era “constante pero escasa”. En el diario La Época de Chile, cuenta el investigador José Luis Santa María (2005), la experiencia de la Defensoría duró poco por la falta de un “rol crítico” por parte de los lectores. El principal problema, señala, es que “la gente casi no se quejaba”. En el diario El Deber de Bolivia, Juan Javier Zeballos Gutiérrez vivía una situación similar. Cuenta al respecto que su experiencia como Defensor ha sido “poco gratificante por una falta de cultura de los lectores a quejarse” (e-mail 2009, Diciembre 12). Finalmente, Ronald Nava al asumir el cargo de Defensor en El Nacional de Venezuela se declaraba “preocupado” porque en su primera semana de trabajo no había recibido “ni una llamada” de los lectores (2007, Mayo 25).

Colombia tiene en la región la particularidad de haber sido el primer país en sancionar una ley que establece la obligatoriedad de los canales de televisión de contar con un Defensor del Televidente. En 1996 la ley 335 estableció en su artículo 11 que los operadores privados debían “reservar el 5% del total de su programación para presentación de programas de interés público y social”. “Uno de estos espacios”, se precisaba, “se destinará a la Defensoría del Televidente”. En tanto, y en enero de 2007, la Comisión Nacional de Televisión (CNTV), en su Acuerdo 1, artículo 7, estableció que: “Los operadores privados del servicio de televisión abierta de cubrimiento nacional y local con ánimo de lucro, los operadores públicos de cubrimiento nacional y regional y los concesionarios de espacios de televisión del Canal Uno, deberán destinar un espacio al Defensor del Televidente”. La normativa no sólo extendió, como se observa, la obligatoriedad de las Defensorías sino que además estableció en su artículo 8 la existencia de un programa de televisión dedicado a tal fin en cada canal.

Algunos medios audiovisuales, públicos y privados, de otros países de la región también han intentado la puesta en funcionamiento de una Defensoría. Por ejemplo, Radio de la Ciudad en Argentina (Pauwels, 2005); Radio Universidad en Chile (Bersezio Pavez y Manosalva Rodríguez, 2006); TV Cultura y EBC en Brasil; Ecuavisa en Ecuador y Canal Once, Canal 22, Radio Educación e IMER en México.

Un ejemplo de la convocatoria que hace el diario Público para que los lectores sugieran candidatos a Defensor puede leerse en: http://impreso.milenio.com/node/8048308 (Consulta: 2009, Diciembre).

En marzo de 2008 la Universidad de Guadalajara designó al profesor Enrique Sánchez Ruiz como Defensor del Público con la tarea de “velar porque las producciones audiovisuales (de televisión abierta) y los programas producidos y transmitidos por las estaciones de la Red Radio UdG se realicen con altos estándares éticos, que no falten a la verdad ni ofendan al público”. La gestión de Sánchez Ruiz fue efímera y terminó renunciando. La Universidad designó luego, en junio de 2008, a José Luis Vázquez Baeza, director de la Escuela de Periodismo Carlos Septién García. Más información: http://www.ombudsman.udg.mx/ (Consulta: 2009, Diciembre).

El mérito de haber sido el primer medio de comunicación con un Defensor del lector en Colombia lo tiene una publicación universitaria. Fue en 1990 cuando el periódico EntreVista, editado por la Facultad de Comunicación de la Universidad de Antioquia designó al experimentado profesor y periodista Juan José García Posada para tal función. García Posada volvió a ser Defensor del Lector en el diario El Colombiano de Medellín entre 2004 y 2007.

En el periódico de la Universidad Católica de Santos el rol lo desempeñaba un profesor. En tanto que, en las publicaciones de la Universidad de Brasilia y de la Pontificia Universidad Católica, se elegía a un alumno para tal función. El investigador brasileño Jairo Faria Mendes (2003) señala que estas experiencias se convirtieron “en un gran ejemplo para los medios brasileños”.

El proyecto puesto en marcha por la Defensoría de El Colombiano, a través de la Intranet del diario, se titula “Pensando en los lectores”. El mismo, consta de una biblioteca virtual con dos centenares de títulos, decenas de diccionarios, enlaces a sitios de interés y la recopilación de las columnas de todos los Defensores que han pasado por el cargo. Recursos que están disponibles en las computadoras de cada periodista (Zuluaga Salazar, 2009, Abril 13 y 20).

Existió en Bolivia en 2007 una iniciativa, promovida por el partido político del presidente Evo Morales, acerca de la posibilidad de incorporar a la nueva Constitución la figura del Defensor del lector, del televidente y del oyente. Sin embargo, tal iniciativa no prosperó. Según da cuenta Juan Javier Zeballos Gutiérrez, ex Defensor del lector del diario El Deber, “la Asamblea Constituyente finalmente no aprobó nada al respecto” (e-mail: 2009, Diciembre 14). En Ecuador, en tanto, a fines de 2009 había sido entregado al Consejo de Administración Legislativa la propuesta de crear la figura del Defensor del Público como parte de una nueva Ley de Comunicación. Más detalles en: http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/files/Tema%20del%20dia/Info-Defensor-del-pueblo.jpg (Consulta: 2009, Diciembre). Finalmente, en Argentina se aprobó en octubre de 2009 la Ley de Servicios de Comunicación Audiovisual que establece, entre otras cuestiones, la creación de la “Defensoría del Público”. Se accede al texto completo de la ley a través de: http://www.comfer.gov.ar/web/ley26522.pdf (Consulta: 2010, Mayo).

BIBLIOGRAFÍA

ALBARRÁN DE ALBA, Gerardo (2002, octubre): “La figura del defensor del lector en los diarios digitales”. IV Congreso Iberoamericano de Periodismo en Internet. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Lima – Facultad de Ciencias y Artes de la Comunicación.

ANDERSSON, Janne (2009, Junio 6): “Twelve fewer Ombudsman”. TV4. Suecia. En: http://newsombudsmen.org/columns/twelve-fewer-ombudsmen (Consulta: 2009, Junio).

BERSEZIO PAVEZ, Cristóbal y MANOSALVA RODRÍGUEZ, Felipe (2006): Sistemas de autorregulación ética y propuesta aplicable a las radioemisoras chilenas. Licenciatura de grado. Escuela de Periodismo. Universidad Santo Tomás de Aquino. Santiago. Chile. En: www.ust.cl/img/facultades/periodismo/…/autorregulacion_radios_06.pdf (Consulta: 2009, Diciembre).

COSTA, Caio Túlio (2006): Ombudsman. O Relógio de Pascal. San Pablo. Geracáo Editorial.

CRONEMBERGER, Débora (2002, Enero 5): “O processo não pára”. Ombudsman. Diario O Povo. Fortaleza. Brasil. En: http://opovo.uol.com.br/ (Consulta: 2009, Junio).

DIARIO EL TELÉGRAFO (2009, Noviembre 21): “Sección primera de la Defensoría del Público”. Diario El Telégrafo. Ecuador. (http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/files/Tema%20del%20dia/Info-Defensor-del-pueblo.jpg) (Consulta: 2009, Diciembre)

DVORKIN, Jeffrey (2010, Junio): “The value of an ombudsman”. Organization of News Ombudsmen. En: http://newsombudsmen.org/ (Consulta: 2010, Junio)

FARIA MENDES, Jairo (2003, Marzo): “A ouvidoria de imprensa no Brasil”. Sala de Prensa N 53. En: http://www.saladeprensa.org/ (Consulta: 2009, Diciembre)

GARCIA POSADA, Juan José (2007, Enero): “Hoy, la última página de mil días de faena”. Defensor del lector. Diario El Colombiano. Medellín. En: http://www.elcolombiano.com.co (Consulta: 2007, Enero).

HERRERA DAMAS, Susana y ZETA DE POZO, Rosa (2005, Febrero): “Situación del Ombudsman en Latinoamérica”. Sala de Prensa N 76. En: http://www.saladeprensa.org (Consulta: 2009, Diciembre)

MAGALHÃES, Mário (2008, Abril 6): “Despedida”. Ombudsman. Folha de S, Paulo. Brasil. (http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ombudsman/ombudsman_quem_ja_foi.shtml) (Consulta: 2009, Diciembre).

NAVA, Ronald (2007, Mayo 25): “El Defensor es un intermediario sin poder”. Entrevista de Antonio Montilla Zapata. Diario El Nacional. Venezuela. En: http://www.el-nacional.com (Consulta: 2007, Mayo).

NETO, Lira (2000): A herança de Sísifo – Da arte de carregar pedras como ombudsman na imprensa. Fortaleza. Brasil. Edições Demócrito Rocha.

RESTREPO, Javier Darío (2003, Marzo): “En defensa del derecho a la información”. Sala de Prensa N 53. En: http://www.saladeprensa.org (Consulta: 2005, Febrero).

ORTIZ, Sonia (2009): “El defensor del lector, un càrrec en perill d´extinció?”. Colegio de Periodistas de Cataluña. España. En: http://www.periodistes.org/files/ombudsman.pdf (Consulta: 2009, Noviembre).

PAUWELS, Flavia (2010): Defensores de lectores y oyentes en la prensa argentina. La pedagogía del Derecho a la Información. Maestría en Periodismo. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Universidad de Buenos Aires.

PAUWELS, Flavia (2006): “Ombudsman e Internet: a mitad de camino”. Observatório da Imprensa. Brasil. Año 12. N 397. En: http://www.observatoriodaimprensa.com.br/artigos.asp?cod=397DAC004 (Consulta: 2006, Diciembre).

PAUWELS, Flavia (2005): “La primera experiencia de un defensor del oyente en un medio público argentino”. Sala de Prensa N 85. En: http://www.saladeprensa.org (Consulta: Noviembre de 2005).

PINEDA GONZÁLEZ, Míriam Lorena (2006): El defensor del lector como promotor de la participación ciudadana. Universidad Central de Venezuela. Facultad de Humanidades y Educación. Comisión de Estudios de Postgrado. Maestría en Información y Comunicación para el Desarrollo.

REY, Germán (2006): “Realidades y actos de fe. La situación del periodismo en América Latina”. Ponencia presentada en la Conferencia anual de la Organization of News Ombudsmen. San Pablo. Brasil.

REY, Germán (2003, Marzo): “El defensor del lector: un oficio en construcción”. Sala de Prensa N 53. En: http://www.saladeprensa.org (Consulta: 2005, Marzo).

SA, Adísia (1998): Clube dos Ingênuos. Fortaleza. Brasil. Edições Demócrito Rocha.

SÁNCHEZ PIÑA, Zaira (1999): La figura del defensor del lector en el diario colombiano El tiempo y el diario venezolano El Nacional. Caracas. Universidad Católica Andrés Bello.

SANTA MARÍA, José Luis (2005): “El defensor del lector: ¿Un paso adelante en la ruta de la transparencia informativa?”. Cuadernos de Información N° 18. Facultad de Comunicaciones. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. En: http://fcom.altavoz.net/p4_fcom/site/artic/20051209/pags/20051209090606.html (Consulta: 2009, Diciembre).

SANTOS, Mario Vítor (2009, Febrero 17): “Despedida”. Ombudsman. IG Brasil. En: http://colunistas.ig.com.br/ombudsman/ (Consulta: 2009, Febrero).

ZULUAGA SALAZAR, Víctor (2009, Abril 13): “Aumentan los comentarios enviados por los lectores”. Defensor del lector. Diario El Colombiano. Medellín. Colombia. En: http://www.elcolombiano.com/ (Consulta: 2009, Abril).

ZULUAGA SALAZAR, Víctor (2008, Enero 7): “Una mirada al inicio del año 2008”. Defensor del lector. Diario El Colombiano. Medellín. Colombia. En: http://www.elcolombiano.com/ (Consulta: 2008, Enero)

____________________________

ANEXO

Los principales casos por país, sus años de surgimiento y los nombres de quienes ocuparon los cargos se detallan a continuación. Aquellos medios que se encuentran subrayados conservaban sus Defensorías en funciones a inicios de 2010: Los datos surgen de fuentes documentales y de los testimonios de los Defensores en cada país consultados por Pauwels (2010). En esa Tesis, realizada para la Maestría en Periodismo de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, también se explica detalladamente la historia y las características de cada uno de los casos.

BRASIL:

Folha –diario- (1989): Caio Tulio Costa, Mario Vitor Santos, Junia Nogueira de Sá, Marcelo Leite, João Batista Natalí, Renata Lo Prete, Bernardo Ajzenberg, Marcelo Beraba, Mário Magalhães, Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva y Suzana Singer.

O Povo –diario- (1994): Adísia Sá, Márcia Gurgel, Lira Neto, Gibson Antunes, Débora Cronemberger, Regina Ribeiro, Guálter George, Plínio Bortolotti, Paulo Verlaine, Rita Faheina y Paulo Rogério.

TV Cultura –televisión- (2004): Osvaldo Martins y Ernesto Rodrigues.

Radiobrás:.-radio y televisión- (2004): Emília Magalhães y Paulo Machado.

EBC (Empresa Brasil de Comunicación) –radio, televisión y agencia de noticias- (2007): Laurindo Leal Filho (Ouvidor General), Paulo Machado (Agencia Brasil), Maria Luiza Franco Busse (TV Brasil) y Fernando Oliveira Paulino (radio)

IG –Internet- (2007): Mario Vitor Santos.

UOL Brasil –Internet- (2007): Tereza Rangel y Mara Gama.

Otros casos: consultar el artículo de Faria Medes (2003)

COLOMBIA:

EntreVista –periódico, Universidad de Antioquia- (1990): Juan José García Posada.

El Tiempo –diario- (1992): Felipe Zuleta, Nohra Sanín, Leopoldo Villar, Javier Darío Restrepo, Germán Rey, Patricia Lara, Cecilia Orozco y Clara Mendoza.

Vanguardia Liberal –diario- (1992): Sonia Díaz Mantilla.

El Espectador –diario- (1998): Manuel José Cepeda y Juan Manuel Charry.

El Colombiano –diario- (1999): Jesús Vallejo Mejía, Javier Darío Restrepo, Juan Luis Mejía, Juan José García Posada y Víctor León Zuluaga.

Caracol –televisión- (1997): Bernardo Hoyos y Amparo Pérez.

RCN –televisión- (1997): Julio Nieto Bernal y Consuelo Cepeda

Teleantioquía –televisión- (2001): cuenta con un Comité integrado por cinco miembros procedentes de distintas disciplinas.

Defensorías del Televidente desde 2007 en: Telecafé (Joana Trujillo), Telecaribe (Iván Barrios), Telepacífico (José Arizmendi), Canal Uno (Patricia Gómez), CityTV (Paula Arenas), Canal Capital (María Teresa Herrán, Germán Yances y Judith Sarmiento) y Canal 13 (Alejandro Rodríguez).

BOLIVIA:

La Razón –diario- (1990): José Gramunt de Moragas.

Grupo de Prensa Líder –para sus ocho diarios-: El Deber, El Norte, La Prensa, Los Tiempos, Correo del Sur, El Potosí, Nuevo Sur y El Alteño- (2003): Luis Ramiro Beltrán. Finalizada su gestión solo el diario El Deber continuó con la experiencia, primero a cargo de Martha Paz y luego de Juan Javier Zeballos Gutiérrez

CHILE:

La Época –diario- (1991). Guillermo Blanco

El Periodista –revista- (2003). Ernesto Carmona

Radio Universidad de Chile –radio- (2006). Ingrid Saavedra

ARGENTINA:

La Maga –revista- (1992): Carlos Abrevaya y Adriana Lazzeretti.

Luna –revista- (1997). Cecilia Absatz y Clara Fontana

Perfil –diario- (En 1998: Abel González. En 2005: Nelson Castro. En 2007: Andrew Graham-Yooll)

Radio de la Ciudad –radio- (2004): Guillermo Jelen.

El Tábano –revista- (2003): Daniel Luján.

Línea Capital –diario- (2007): Rubén Zamboni.

MEXICO:

Uno más uno – diario- (1992): Algunos investigadores mexicanos citan a este diario como el primero en tener Defensor, en cambio otros adjudican tal mérito a El Economista.

El Economista –diario- (1993): Alejandro Avilés.

Público –diario- (1997): Francisco Núñez de la Peña, Carlos Enrique Orozco Martínez, Mara Robles, Augusto Chacón y Juan Carlos Núñez.

Síntesis –diario- (2004): Lilia Vélez Iglesias

Tabasco Hoy –diario- (2004): Antonio Javier Nucamendi Otero.

Noroeste –diario- (2006): Arturo Santamaría Gómez y José Refugio Haro Haro.

Canal Once –televisión- (2008): Ricardo Raphael de la Madrid y Mauricio Farah Gebara.

Canal 22 –televisión- (2008): Gabriela Warkentin.

Radio Educación –radio- (2008): Ernesto Villanueva.

Sistema de Medios de la Universidad de Guadalajara (2008): Enrique Sánchez Ruiz y José Luis Vázquez Baeza.

IMER (Instituto Mexicano de Radio) –radio- (2009): Felipe López Veneroni.

Otros casos: consultar el artículo de Albarrán de Alba (2002).

PARAGUAY:

Hoy –diario- (1993): José Luis Simón

ECUADOR:

Hoy –diario- (1994): Juan Pablo Moncagatta, Felipe Burbano de Lara, Diego Araujo, José Lasso, Omar Ospina, Carlos Jijón y Ana Karina López.

Ecuavisa –televisión- (2008): César Ricaurte

PUERTO RICO:

El Nuevo Día –diario- (1997): Florilda “Nanny” Torres

VENEZUELA:

El Nacional –diario- (1998): Elías Santana. Alba Sánchez, Lucio Segovia y Ronald Nava.

Últimas Noticias –diario- (2004): Sebastián de la Nuez, Miriam Colmenares y Jesús Cova.

PANAMÁ:

La Prensa –diario- (2001): Herasto Reyes, Mileika Bernal, Marianella Ferrer y Yasmina Reyes.

Link to English translation

The Netherlands Media Ombudsman Foundation, which is dedicated to the self-regulation of journalism in Dutch-speaking regions, in collaboration with the Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Department of Journalism in Tilburg, has conducted a study into the performance of ombudsmen in the news media.

The study is intended to provide professional journalists with more insight into the phenomenon of the news ombudsman as a self-regulation instrument.

The experiences gained thus far with regard to the performance of ombudsmen in news media have demonstrated that the phenomenon of news ombudsman can be an instrument in the self-regulation of journalism. Our frame of reference for this study is the ideal image of a news ombudsman, viz. a fully independent ombudsman who deals with complaints from news consumers in an efficient and adequate manner, who publicly and critically assesses the quality and presentation of journalistic products generated by the medium for which he works, and who places his assessment in the light of relevant issues related to journalistic ethics.

In this study we aim to answer several questions: what types of ombudsman can be distinguished, in the Netherlands and at the global level; what are the similarities and differences; what types of media employ news ombudsmen (daily newspapers, broadcasting companies, digital media); and do news ombudsmen actually contribute to the quality of journalistic products?

In order to gain a picture of the role played by a news ombudsman we have asked ombudsmen across the globe to fill in a survey. In this survey we presented the following questions: what are the tasks and authorities of a news ombudsman; who took the initiative in appointing him; what is his background; how independent is he; does he operate on the basis of his own statute and, if so, what does this statute entail; to whom is he accountable; does he have his own column (for example, weekly) and does he write it in accordance with his own views or is it reviewed beforehand by the editor-in-chief or the management?

We consider that we have made a reasonable case for arguing that, despite the trends outlined, there are amply sufficient points of departure to conclude that the news ombudsman contributes to fostering journalistic quality. Once journalists are aware that some one is monitoring their work every day, critically and publicly (through his column) and that complaints from news consumers about the journalistic product are taken seriously, this will decidedly generate a quality impulse.

To news media that wish to expand their credibility with the public and reinforce their journalistic quality, the ombudsman is one of the most pre-eminent instruments. It seems likely that media will gain in reliability and solidity if the journalistic policy process were made accessible to the public.

A shift, if any, in the position of news ombudsman, viz. from house critic to PR officer or even legal adviser, will not be conducive to journalistic self-regulation. The self-regulating effect of an ombudsman primarily encompasses the publishing of substantiated judgements on journalistic processes and products.

We take a positive view of blogs and sites set up to improve contacts between the media and news consumers, but in our opinion, such options cannot be a substitute for the ombudsman instrument. Accountability and self-regulation are promoted by the media’s public analysis and correction of mistakes. In this respect, ombudsmen and readers’ editors can increase the transparency and accountability of media organisations.

Determining the degree of independence of a news ombudsman and its effect on his position is difficult, even in cases in which that independence has been laid down in an individual statute. Many ombudsmen, also those with their own statutes, indicate that they are accountable to the general editors or the management. This study seems to justify the impression that truly independent ombudsmen, critically assessing their media’s own journalistic product, represent a small minority.

The recent sharp fall in the number of news ombudsmen, especially in the United States, is at odds with the trend that modern society is calling on the media to give more account and exercise more openness regarding their journalistic policy process. This is an alarming discovery, considering the fact that in his plans for the new press policy Minister Plasterk expresses his satisfaction about the appointment of ombudsmen or readers’ editors by news media (cf. http://www.minocw.nl/docu men ten/67791.pdf). Firstly, we do not share his satisfaction at the number of ombudsmen and readers’ editors. Secondly, we believe that the minister ignores the fundamental difference between independent ombudsmen/readers’ editors and their colleagues, who lack an independent status at their medium.

Recommendations

Ideally, the ombudsman is a journalist or media expert assessing the journalistic product on a full-time basis, as a house critic, rather than operating as a PR officer in order to try and earn the commitment of the public.

In order to remove the existing skepticism in society, a news ombudsman needs to be able to operate fully independently. He has no connections with the editors and does not participate in editorial consultations. He tests the journalistic products against prevailing ethical standards and shares his analyses and unfettered judgement with the public.

When journalistic processes and products are tested against ethical standards, these standards must be open and accessible to the public, for example, through the media’s web site. The ombudsman must specify such standards in his publications. The ombudsman’s own methods must also be transparent; his statute must be public.

Another essential requirement is that the ombudsman or readers’ editor must be easy to reach and approach. The newspaper or broadcasting company must publish his e-mail address, telephone number and office hours in a clearly visible manner in the colophon and/or on its home page.

In order to promote worldwide uniformity in the role of news ombudsmen, the ethical code (Mission Statement) of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) is recommended as the basis for his operations. It should be noted in this respect that the uniqueness of each news medium, manifested in medium type and target group, can lead to certain adjustments and supplements to such a standard code.

Should an ombudsman preferably be some one from the editorial ranks? Or is an external ombudsman given preference? Some one who used to be a (general) editor has the advantage of being familiar with the editorial culture. An outsider can adopt a fully independent position, especially when appointed for a limited period of time. That is why a structure involving an editor-in-chief publishing a letter or responding to questions once a week is not ideal. Although his recommendations carry more weight in terms of policy than those of an ombudsman or readers’ editor, there is no independent and critical review.

Especially this independence is essential. In addition, the candidate must be someone who is well acquainted with journalistic practices and the prevailing customs and standards. Someone who enjoys the confidence of the editors and the general editors. In order to be credible in the eyes of the readers or viewers, he will need to adopt a critical attitude towards the editors. This implies that he will continually test the journalistic processes and products against the journalistic and ethical principles and standards of the medium concerned.

The position of a news ombudsman is still delicate, particularly among fellow journalists at the ombudsman’s own medium, who feel uncomfortable with a professional critic (“the copy police”) of their product. Full independence of a news ombudsman can aid in internal acceptance.

The public needs to have low-threshold access to some one who takes their comments and complaints seriously and who challenges the editors to give chapter and verse. This will contribute greatly to the transparency of journalism and self-regulation in the media sector.

Download the entire document  [in PDF format]

Few people know what an ombudsman is, but various of the biggest newspapers in the world have the column, as Le Monde (France); El Pa¡s (Spain); Washington Post, Boston Globe e Philadelphia Inquirer (USA); The London Free Press, Calgary Herald, Montreal Gazete, Toronto Star e Halifax Cronicle-Herald (Canada) for instance; and even the Russian newspapers Izvestiya, known as an official organ of the communist party of the extinguished USSR. About half of the Japanese newspapers have an ombudsman, among which the one with the biggest circulation in the world: the Yomiuri Shimbum (10 million copies a day).

In Brazil, it is difficult to know how many newspapers have an ombudsman. In 1995, at least eight newspapers had one: Folha de S. Paulo, Folha da Tarde (SP), O Dia (RJ), AN Capital (SC), O Povo (CE), Correio da Para¡ba (PB), Di rio do Povo (Campinas- SP) e Rumos (CE), the lather a monthly publication.

In spite of that, at least two of these a newspapers put an end to the function: Folha da Tarde (in 1996) and AN Capital (in August 1997, not waiting even for the end of the commission of the ombudsman). The only Brazilian publications affiliated to the ONO(Organization of News Ombudsmen) and to the ABO (Associa‡ao Brasileira de Ouvidores) are Folha de S. Paulo e O Povo (CE).

We have also two Brazilian Broadcasting systems with ombudsmen: Radio Bandeirantes( SP) and O Povo/CBN-OM (CE). Up to the moment, in the USA you have one ombudsman in a TV station, Paul Giacobbe, in Warwick, CT (Connecticut); and in Canada, two: both in the CBC Network, one for the French and another for the English transmissions.

Proportionally, there are few means of communication with ombudsmen (except in Japan). This brings a question about the reason for the majority of the media being afraid of implementing the function.

History

The ombudsman appears officially in 1809, in Sweden, with the status of minister and the function of controlling the public power and listening to the appeals of the citizens against government organs. Later, the ombudsmen were adopted in other countries, mainly the Scandinavians ombudsmen were created against ethnical discriminations, they have the Parliament Ombudsmen, that of the consumers, etc.

Before the Swedish experience (in the XIX century), there had been “listeners”. We know that in ancient Rome the Tribune of the Pleb listened to the complaints of the citizens. In Colonial Brazil, the bishops had the function of “Listeners of the Crown”, which gave birth to the popular expression (in Brazil): “Complain to the bishop”.

The first press ombudsman appears in the U.S.A. in july 1967, with the function of listening to the complaints of the readers of the Louisville Courier Journal and of the Louisville Times, both in Louisville, Kentucky. In spite of that, the first ombudsman with a public column has been Richard Harwood, in the Washington Post, in 1970.

The American pioneerism in the creation of the press ombudsman in questioned by the Japanese. The Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbum guarantees that, in 1938, it had already a professional with a function similar to that of the ombudsman.

In Brazil, the first newspaper to adopt ombudsmen has been the “Folha de S. Paulo”, that in 1989, chose Caio T£lio Costa to occupy the function. Other newspapers could have tried to create it first. According to Caio T£lio, the first publication that tried to implement the function was the Jornal do Brasil, in 1982, and didn’t succeed because various journalists invited to occupy the function refused it.

According to him, the main competition of the Folha, O Estado de S. Paulo tried to create the function. Directors and journalists of the Estado discussed the subject with specialists of the Navarra University and everything was being prepared for the implementation of the project, until finally in the middle of 1990, this project was abandoned since the Folha de S. Paulo had created the office first.

Folha’s experience was pioneer not only in relation to the press, but also in relation to any kind of institution. After the attitude of the Folha, many enterprises, public organs and even county administrations adopted ombudsmen.

The word “ombudsman”

The word “ombudsman” is of Swedish origin. It is the fusion of the word ombud (representative) and man (man). Caio T£lio translated the word as “the one that represents”, but its real meaning is “person with a delegation”. When the function was created in 1809, it received the denomination of “Justitieombudsman” (justice ombudsman).

By the word’s origin, it would be wrong to form its plural as “ombudsmen”, since it isn’t an English word. The correct form would be “ombudsm„n”. Its feminine form would be “ombudskvinna”, that would be “ombudskvinnor” in the plural form. “Ombudsmen” is used as it is the case in this article. The Folha de S. Paulo makes use of the word “ombudsman” when the function is occupied by a woman.

The work

Most of the times, the ombudsman has three functions: listening to the readers, writing a daily a bulletin criticizing the paper (which circulates internally among the journalists) and preparing a weekly column to be published. Some ombudsmen don’t have columns for public criticism, as is the case of “O Dia”. In these cases, the work of the ombudsman is very similar to that of a complaints department and loses its function, which is to stimulate the reflection main and the debate about the process of journalistic production.

To make their work, the ombudsmen need independence in relation to the direction of the paper. Because of that, some guaranties are given to this professional, as stability during his mandate (in the Folha it is of a year, which can be prorogated for two years more).

The ombudsman’s room far from the editorship, to avoid his involvement with the orientation of the publication. In the case of the Folha, the ombudsman has an office in a building near by.

The columns

The columns of ombudsman have characteristics that make them different from other sections of the paper. As to their contents, questions are presented that will help the reader very much in his critical point of view in relation to the means of communication. Many columns of ombudsmen in the Folha de S. Paulo have been read, and we verified that they bring basically:

1. Comparisons among newspapers (mainly between O Estado de S. Paulo and the Folha);
2. Critics concerning the covering of certain subjects, news, comments, headlines, photos, etc;
3. Discussions about ethic questions of the paper and those of the media;
4. Self-criticism of the ombudsman;
5. Consideration of themes connected to journalism;
6. Presentation of reader’s demands (some times reproducing the letters);
7. Critics to problems of the paper’s circulation, care of the subscribers, among other operational questions of the paper;
8. Disputes of the ombudsman with other press professionals;
9. Praises to the Folha and to other media vehicles;
10. Presentation of the news process, showing how they are obtained and edited;
11. Presentation of conflicts among Folha’s professionals and professionals of other media vehicles;
12. Report of the attendance to the readers;
13. Discussion about grammatical questions, mainly these concerning orthography;
14. Interviews with important professionals of the Folha.

The majority of these items refer the ombudsman’s to work as a critic, which corroborates the importance given by the ombudsman to his task of these aspects, the one that appears in the columns is number two (“critics concerning the covering of certain subjects”).

These contents show the importance of the ombudsman’s work. For instance, through item tem (presentation of the news process) the reader may understand that journalistic work isn’t totally objective.

In a column published in July 10, 1990, the Folha’s ombudsman mentioned a mistake concerning information vehiculated by the paper, that could be related to the process of inquiry of the fact. According to the ombudsman, the ex-president Collor talked by radio to the navigator Almir Klink, who was in Antartica. But owing to a technical problem, the navigator had no means of answering. Later, the press department of the Presidency distributed the conversation(inexistent), having transcripted the conversation between the president and the navigator. All newspapers, except O Estado de S. Paulo believed(and published) this lie.

Some months before, in January 28, 1990, the ombudsman had talked about a release by the press of a meeting between President Collor and the economist M rio Henrique Simonsen that never took place. In both these cases, the ombudsman showed how easy it is to create news, and that the reader must question the veracity of the media.

Language

The text of the ombudsman has characteristics that differ from other texts in the newspaper. The journalistic style to which the columns of the ombudsman better adapt themselves is the commentary (they are signed, give emphasis to opinion, have definite periodicity, they analyze up to date subjects). But in spite of that, various peculiarities turn them different from other columns of the paper.

One aspect that is quite peculiar in the ombudsman speech is the constant use of the first and second person’s singular. In the paper, even the opinative texts are almost always written in the third person sing. 50 columns published in the Folha de S. Paulo have been analyzed in relation to their linguistic characteristics.
The columns of ombudsmen have a touch of humor and have a dynamic text (with the constant use of short sentences, puns, etc). In the column of December 12, 1996, for instance, the ombudsman Marcelo Leite talks about the postponement of the transmission of his function to other professional in a quite ironical way: “Freedom has been postponed for three or four weeks”.

But the main characteristic of the ombudsman’s speech is the use of various strategies in the attempt to stimulate the dialogue with the readers. Since he is “the representative of the reader” this couldn’t happen otherwise.

Then, to create a near relationship with the public, the ombudsman calls the reader to a direct dialogue. He uses the word reader with a function similar to that of a vocative. “I call the reader’s attention to…” (FSP, 3-3-1996). Other times the reader is “the main actor”. “The reader has been carried by TV from a world of moral deformity to the immensity of the cosmos” (FSP, 12-8-1996).

Trying to create a relationship of identification with the public, the ombudsman sometimes presents himself as a reader. “As a reader I want to know who is interested in…” (FSP, 5-26-1996).

It’s interesting to notice that he prefers the use of the singular (reader) when referring to the public. Using the singular, it is as if he were speaking to each of us in particular.

Besides the word reader, the ombudsman sometimes made use of the second person singular, a stronger means to create a relation of intimacy with the public. Trying to create an informal relationship with the public, he uses the first person. “When I wrote the column…” (FSP, 12-29-1996). In some situations, the ombudsman presents himself humbly, making clear that his opinions are not unquestionable. “I am not competent and don’t have the courage to interpret…” (FSP, 12-29-1996). This posture makes the readers feel at easy to get touch with him.

With the journalists the ombudsman also has a dialogue. But, different from that which takes place with the readers, the interlocutor with press professionals is conflictive. The “reader’s representative describes the journalists as professionals without ethics and incompetents. In the columns analyzed they are called “na‹ve”, “ignoramus”, “incompetents”, “boring”, “morbid”, “complicated”, caused of not knowing the grammatical rules, “opportunists” and “of lack of respect”, among other things.

By Andrew Finkel
IBI Global Journalist

Blaming the media when things go wrong may be an old political trick, but it is one that succeeded only too well in earning Turkey’s prime minister Tayyip Erdoðan an enthusiastic round of applause in a speech at the end of a Washington gala dinner last June. His subject was the vexed question of US-Turkish relations and he won the approval of his audience for his assertion that a friendship conducted through the media was bound to go wrong.

The Turkish government’s view that the unravelling of one of the key strategic friendships of the post-War era is a matter of press perception than of substance has not convinced everyone. Turkey and America do not see eye to eye on what is happening in Iraq. However Mr Erdoðan’s less than full respect for the integrity of his country’s media, an attitude repeated on other occasions, has suddenly found a much wider audience.

The weight of anti-US headlines and editorials, stories about the blood lust of American troops in Iraq, even the suggestion that American scientists had caused or refused to issue warnings about the Asian tsunami, led Robert Pollock, editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal, to speculate in a signed article that Turkey was not so much Europe’s “sick man” as that continent’s raving loony. He described the press as egging Turkish society on a downward spiral to becoming “small minded, paranoid, and marginal … friendless in America and [pace Ankara's EU aspirations] unwelcome in Europe”.

Others began to ask themselves what exactly it is the Turkish public reads. The Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post were among the many to report the runaway sales of a lurid revenge thriller called Metal Storm in which a Turkish patriot avenges the American invasion of his country by detonating a nuclear device outside the White House. The Financial Times pondered the success of “Mein Kampf” in Ankara bookstores (March 10, 2005).

Throughout the 1990s, the Turkish press was often depicted as competitive and vibrant, despite the attempts by an oppressive state apparatus to prune it back. The implication in the annual reports of organisations concerned with press freedoms like the publishers of Global Journalist, the International Press Institute (IPI) was that if the press did not speak out more openly, it is because it is confronted by an antediluvian statute book and the deep-seated illiberality of the Turkish establishment. These organisations have been slow to take on the proposition that there may be something rotten inside the media itself and the consequences could be equally damaging to Turkish society – if only because it has allowed not simply the Wall Street journal but the government itself to dismiss the country’s media not as a watchdog but as an untamed beast not to be taken seriously. Indeed, I would argue further that a strategy only to criticise the state and not consider the corporate cultures of media organisations themselves has led to an erosion of press freedom and legitimated bad practice.

Of course the Turkish media itself has answered some of the accusations that it behaves irresponsibly. One not altogether satisfactory riposte is that genuine Turkish anxiety over the quagmire on the other side of its border with Iraq has indeed made press and society more receptive to the journalistic equivalent of asymmetric warfare – a barrage of rumour and innuendo against which the only defence is integrity and vigilance, habits which not all news outlets in Turkey have bothered to cultivate. Yet another reply is that the worst excesses of vitriol and slander are in fringe publications of limited circulation, and that it is wrong to depict them as having penetrated the mainstream. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) whose website monitors among other things anti-semitism often quotes papers like Yenicað or Orta Dogu, publications which most Turks have never even seen, let alone read. Even those papers with slightly higher circulation which attempt to curry government favour, like Yeni Þafak, have only limited influence over policy makers. One of the columnists whom MEMRI quotes for his crypto-Nazi stance in the religious reactionary Vakýt newspaper is Hüseyin Üzmez, an unreconstructed ultra-nationalist infamous for the attempted assassination of the liberal newspaper editor Ahmet Emin Yalman back in 1952!

This leads to a third line of defence that the real novelty is not the scattering of wild, politically unreconstructed views throughout the Turkish media, but the West’s decision to pay attention to them. Turks themselves, like readers of the US supermarket scandal sheets have long acquired of reading their newspapers with a pinch of salt. Much of the current criticism of the Turkish press originates in the very American neo-conservative tradition which is fundamentally peeved by Turkey’s refusal to see events in Iraq through its end of the binoculars. This school is certainly more sensitive to government deputies’ and ministers’ failure to distance themselves from attitudes which are anti-semitic or otherwise distasteful.

The outgoing American ambassador to Turkey famously organised a public seminar to refute charges that his government was responsible for the tsunami. And yet the British media continuously mocks the Bush administration’s own medieval scientists who deny the existence of global warming or see life inviable in a stem cell embryo. Curiously enough the Turkish state, too, took a dim view of the fringe sectarian paper Yeni Asya when in 1999 it described the horrendous earthquake in Western Turkey as divine retribution against the country’s secular establishment. The subsequent trial of the editor and a journalist of that paper was a cause celebre among international organisations concerned with freedom of expression and the subject of a stiff letter of protest from the director of the IPI to the then Turkish prime minister (19 June, 2001).

That applause for the Tayyip Erdoðan’s Washington speech still suggests, however, that most Turks suspect that the problem is not superficial and lies within the way the press itself is a political actor, and the way it uses the power it accumulates irresponsibly or in a way motivated by self-interest, with or without the complicity of the state.

This point was reiterated at a recent lunch with foreign correspondents where the head of the country’s premier industrial corporation, Mustafa Koç, complained of the “harm” the nation’s press had done in helping to precipitate the economic crisis of 2001. Many media groups used their influence to secure bank licences and engage in a financial world in which they were ill-equipped to operate. In several instances banks owned by groups with media interests operated fraudulently. The forced closure of some 20 public and private banks cost the Turkish tax payer $46 billion of private banking debt (then over 33 percent of GNP) through the government’s insurance deposit scheme.

One of the most notorious examples was the $6 billion collapse of Imar Bank controlled by the Uzan family, a group whose interests included Turkey’s first private television station, Star, as well as a newspaper of the same name. It used these outlets to pursue an unabashed war against the group’s business opponents and set a tone for yellow journalism throughout the media during the 1990s. One of Star’s most famous vendettas was against the head of the Turkish Capital Market Board who had accused the Uzan parent company of illegally stripping the assets of CEAÞ, a major hydro-electric supplier which the Uzan’s had purchased from the state. Those holding shares in the publicly listed CEAÞ, including Mark Mobius’ Templeton Securities, found the value of their shares eroded and the incident eroded foreign confidence in the emerging Istanbul Stock Exchange.

The Uzan media latterly promoted the political fortunes of Cem Uzan, one of the family members. Cem Uzan’s “Youth Party” ran on an ultra-nationalist, anti-Europe, and anti-America ticket- a stance more than justified by the conviction of his family in a New York court for fraud with a judgement to repay $2.6 to the Motorola Corporation and a further $1.7 billion to the mobile phone manufacturer Nokia. When Imar Bank collapsed the Star media group was seized by the government bank regulators to repay debts some of which were also fraudulently incurred, including the resale of government securities which the bank had neglected to purchase in the first place.

Yet while outside monitoring agencies rightly criticised the restriction which the Turkish government were using to confine the press they were found no voice to criticise the e corporate culture of Turkish news organisations themselves. Admittedly this is no easy task as two further examples illustrate.

The first concerns the dismissal of a columnist of the pro-government Yeni Þafak, a paper which is often cited as the most noxious in its wild accounts of US atrocities in Iraq. Husnu Mahalli, a Syrian national, was not a reporter but a columnist for the paper who expressed views common in the Arab world that the “irrationality” of terrorist violence has to be seen in the context of the abuse suffered by the civilian populations in Palestine, Fallujah and elsewhere. He was virulently opposed to Israel and infamous for having appeared to defend (September 5, 2004) the deadly Chechen raid on a school in Beslan by citing years of Russian oppression. He is quoted by the MEMRI website with an article its editors describe as detailing “America’s purported murderous activities [in Iraq] as emanating from a genetically ingrained tendency to murder. “Members of the prime minister’s press team deny they put pressure on Yeni Þafak to drop Dr Mahalli from its staff, the Turkish press community has little doubt that he was sacrificed to save the government from embarrassment. If this assumption is true then it would be a counter-intuitive example of an Islamic-leaning paper coming under pressure from a government it supports to adopt a more pro-American line.

The second example is more complex. On June 23, 2004 Milliyet, an aggressively secular and left of centre paper, published the first of a three part series by its Ankara bureau chief. In bold headlines above the fold it announced that it had exclusive access to the minutes of a secret meeting in Washington to discuss probable Turkish reaction to the hypothetical Iraqi Kurdish seizure of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. Such a story goes to the heart of Turkish concerns that the only tangible result to from the American invasion on the other side of its border with Iraq will be an independent Iraqi Kurdish state. This, Turks fear, will aggravate discontent among their own Kurdish population and point to a steady increasing level in terrorist violence by Kurdish separatists inside Turkey itself. Thus the story could be predicted to stimulate anti-American sentiment.

The problem is that many of the people reported to be at the State Department meeting and whose views were quoted in detail were not even in America at the time. Professor Henri Barkey, a professor at Lehigh University, who was in London, expressed outrage not just that he was reported to have attended a non-existent meeting, but that even the photo purporting to be of him on Milliyet’s front page was of someone entirely different. According to a press release issued by the US embassy (June 25, 2004) in Ankara “The alleged quotes by these experts that have appeared in the Turkish press are fabrications… Reports in the Turkish press alleging that such a meeting took place are false.”

Fortunately Milliyet had an ombudsman, the first in Turkey, a distinguished journalist who was elected president of the international Organisation of News Ombudsmen. It therefore had someone responsible to adjudicate the controversy. The ombudsman, Yavuz Baydar, came to the conclusion that his newspaper’s Ankara bureau chief had been hoodwinked by a Turkish academic based at Utah University, who had claimed to be at the meeting and who was acting from motives which were unclear. Baydar saw no option but to print a retraction.

This he did, against the wishes of the proprietor of his newspaper and at great personal cost. Mr Baydar was dismissed from his job as ombudsman and also removed from his position as the host of a nightly current affairs programme broadcast by CNN-Turk – a 24 hours news television station which exists as a joint venture between DYH and AOL Time Warner. Although not fired entirely, Baydar took these actions as a form of constructive dismissal and eventually found a job as ombudsman on another newspaper after waiting to receive his severance pay. He set out these events in a letter of complaint he sent to the publication committee of the Dogan Yayin Holding (DYH) which oversees a code of ethics for the group’s many publications. He also requested that the IPI issue a protest on his behalf as did other IPI members in Turkey. The new president of the ONO, Jeffrey Dvorkin, ombudsman for National Public Radio in America, similarly contacted the IPI as well as Milliyet.

Milliyet defended both its decision to remove Baydar and to print the story of the alleged State Department meeting. A letter from the paper’s then editor-in-chief Mehmet Yilmaz to a Turkish columnist and IPI member Fehmi Koru of Yeni Þafak newspaper, the lone journalist to cover dismissal, said that Baydar’s complaints were motivated by bad faith after he had decided to join a rival newspaper. The board of the International Press Institute was by chance meeting in Istanbul in November 2004 at the invitation of executive board member Vuslat Dogan Sabanci, daughter of the DYH chairman Aydin Dogan, and chief executive of a Milliyet’s sister newspaper Hurriyet. Following this meeting, Yilmaz reported to Mr Koru that “The IPI saw no need to accede to Mr Baydar’s request to put the matter on board’s agenda.”

Indeed in a letter to Baydar dated 10 January, 2005, the Austria-based IPI director Johann Fritz said that the IPI did consider the issue but came to no conclusion. “The Vienna staff cannot be expected to play the investigative detective,” he wrote. He disregarded Baydar’s central complaint that the IPI had an obligation to uncover the reasons why a newspaper would punish its own ombudsman for behaving honourably. Instead Mr Fritz described the issue as a labour dispute in which the IPI had no authority to become involved. Previously he had pleaded “pressures of time” for his refusal to meet with Mr Baydar during his visit for the board meeting in Turkey.

On the other hand, Mr Fritz on behalf of the IPI did find time to become involved in another labour dispute. He dispatched a stern letter to the Turkish prime minister (8 February, 2005) in which he protested the failure of the state regulator-appointed board of Star media group to re-instate nearly 700 workers from the Uzan era. That letter also described the closure of Imar Bank and the government take over of the CEAÞ electricity plant (presumably because of the Uzan’s group’s extensive media interests) actions (which) demonstrate a clear and open policy of repression and censorship against the free press in Turkey.”

Thus we have an example of the IPI failing to support a journalist in his lonely mission to write the truth, yet happy to criticise a government for failing to accept a situation whereby a business dynasty defrauds Turkish taxpayers and foreign shareholders on a massive scale and which moreover uses the money so extorted to finance a media group which supports the extremist and isolationist political ambitions of its proprietor.

So yes, the Turkish press is in need of radical reform and yes, the Turkish government frequently deserves criticism. The problem is finding someone to cast the first stone.

Are news ombuds an endangered specied. In North America, the answer now seems to be yes.

So it was with a certain amount of trepidation that I agreed in May to become the first executive director of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) in the midst of the largest economic downturn in the history of journalism.

Only a few years ago, newspapers and broadcasters around the US and Canada would point to their in-house ombuds (aka readers’ editor or public editor) as an example of openness and transparency with their readers, viewers and listeners.

In case the term is unfamiliar, whatever the position is called, the role of an ombudsman is essentially the same: to deal fairly and openly with public complaints to a news organization. An ombudsman is the in-house critic who is independent of management. His or her findings are always made public. Usually the position is for a limited term and many news organizations make it a condition of employment that the ombudsman may not be rehired to another position in order to guarantee the ombudsman’s independence and credibility.

But with the financial crisis of the past year, ombudsmen have been considered a luxury that struggling media organizations can ill afford. In the United States, 14 ombuds position have been abolished in the last year. In Canada, six positions have been axed, leaving only the Toronto Star and CBC/SRC with staff ombuds.

Yet surveys conducted by news councils and the ONO have shown that a news organization with an ombuds have more credibility than those that don’t. A similar conclusion was reached in a study by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE). And the Iowa Libel Research Project conducted an analysis of complaints to newspapers over a 15-year period that showed how harried and defensive editors who handled public complaints resulted in more lawsuits compared to an ombudsman who handled the calls.

If that weren’t enough, a study by The Guardian showed that hiring a readers’ editor reduced legal costs to the newspaper by 30%, more than paying for the salary of two people – the readers’ editor and an assistant.

Despite that evidence, newspapers and broadcasters in North America started targeting their ombudsmen even before the recent financial troubles.

According to the Ryerson Review of Journalism in 2006, editors were already casting a gimlet eye on their in-house critic: “The ombudsman’s role ran ‘out of gas,’” says Allan Mayer, editor-in-chief of the Edmonton Journal. ‘We worry about credibility every day,’ says Winnipeg Free Press editor Bob Cox, ‘but we’re not going to appoint one person to fix it. It has to be a part of the newspaper’s culture.’”

Often the reason given for abandoning the position is credited to (or blamed on) the Internet. Some editors think that blogs and media critics can do as good a job of holding a news organization accountable. In some cases, this may be true. But in my experience, accountability requires a systematic approach to complaints, combined with an ability to know the newsroom culture, and then have the capacity to make an independent judgment about a legitimate complaint.

Fortunately, some significant journalistic players in the U.S. continue to buck the trend and maintain the position of public ombudsman. These include the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, NPR, PBS, The New York Times and ABC News.

Even more optimistically, it is overseas where increasing numbers of ombudsmen can be found. Ombudsmen in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and India are being hired. News organizations in Lebanon, Morocco, East Africa and Taiwan, among other countries, have asked ONO to send its members to help establish the position. The need is compelling in these places because ombudsmanship is seen as an essential aspect of independent and self-regulating journalism, and the basis for effective democratic institutions.

The challenge for ONO – a thirty-year old organization – is to renew itself in this rapidly evolving media landscape. ONO needs to continue to support its members who are in-house ombuds and at the same time identify and support the best of those independent and often contrarian media critics who increasingly inhabit the web.

The challenge for all media organizations is to understand the value that an independent public ombudsman can offer by creating a less-defensive atmosphere inside a newsroom and helping the public understand better what constitutes essential and excellent journalism.

Jeffrey Dvorkin’s career in broadcasting includes many years at the CBC, where he was managing editor of radio news among other positions, and at National Public Radio, where he was vice-president of news and information, and later ombudsman. He also served as executive director of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. He is currently the Rogers Distinguished Visiting Professor of Journalism at Ryerson University and executive director of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO).