Q. How do you deal with stress?
A. It helps to have a support system. You will be isolated from the newsroom. You need to find healthy outlets, whether exercise, meditation, volunteer activities. Be sure to take some days off, especially after a trying period of complaints. Find some time to laugh. Our family tapes comedy shows and watches them together.

Q. I have a complaint that seems to fall outside the usual job description. How do I handle it?
A. You can handle it quietly, internally. Don’t worry about doing everything at once. If it’s symptomatic, you will hear about it again. Let’s say there are complaints about the editorial page, which is not normally in your jurisdiction. Then refer the reader to the Editorial Page editor. If the editor is non-responsive, direct the reader to write a letter to the publisher. You also will hear of Advertising and Circulation concerns. Generally, you can simply direct the reader to the most responsive staff member in those departments. If there is a serious complaint, such as an ad from a scam artist, you can make sure that an Advertising Department executive hears about it.

Q. Do you answer everything?
A. Ideally, you would try to acknowledge every communication promptly. Some readers don’t appear to want an answer and just want to vent.

Q. What are some of the options to offer readers when faced with a complaint?

1. Letter to the editor. (The letter writer can put comments in his own words without a rebuttal)
2. Inclusion of the complaint in an internal report to the staff. (For the writer who doesn’t want to go public, but wants management to be aware of the complaint)
3. Mention of the complaint in your column. (That means the staffer will be offered a chance to respond, but offers the possibility that you will support the complaint).
4. Speak privately to the staffer.

Q. What if the reader wants information from you?
A. If a request is newspaper-related and you can reasonably expect other calls, then a search is worth your time. Or tell readers how to find information themselves at the library or on the newspaper’s Web site. There is only so much a one-person department can do. You can’t be the library. For regular questions, keep standard answers in a computer file that you can cut and paste.

Q. How do you avoid the impression that you are a lackey of the newspaper?
A. You can’t force it. Over time, you will build a reputation. Presumably, there will be complaints made against the paper that deserve public response. The typical format for a column is to present a complaint by a reader, offer a response by the staff and conclude with your comments, providing context and background. Some would like you to be a “critic,” but intellectual honesty requires you to call ‘em like you see ‘em.

Q. How do you avoid the impression that you are a scold of the newspaper?
A. Even if you support the paper, it may be seen as airing dirty laundry by some in the newsroom. In my weekly internal report, I have a separate category for compliments. On occasion, you should recognize extraordinary work by the staff, especially when it draws comments from the readers. When the staff makes changes suggested by readers or with the readers in mind, you should applaud them. Let the staff know that you can be an effective advocate for dispelling myths and misinformation about the paper. Your independence carries weight. You can be a liaison and a resource for the staff. Help them avoid complaints. Here are some ideas:

1. Arrange visits of readers to the newsroom.
2. Arrange meetings by editors in the community.
3. Arrange reader forums.
4. Circulate questions to a panel of readers on your e-mail list.
5. Ask readers their opinions of a proposed change by the newspaper before it is set in stone. That could be a redesign, a new comic strip, a policy change.

Q. How do you communicate?

1. You may write a daily note or a weekly report, shared on the staff’s computer message board or distributed in print to other newspaper management.
2. You may attend news meetings and report reader reaction.
3. A weekly column

Q. What are arguments against ombudsmen?
A. You will hear of variety of them. Here is a sampling of the most common.

• It’s a luxury. Response: Newspapers have complaint departments, customer service departments and internal auditors. They’re considered essential. Why not include elements of all three functions in one newsroom position? The budget explanation doesn’t wash for newsrooms with large staffs. Let’s say that once a newsroom passes 100 employees, devoting one employee to this critical job is no luxury.
• An ombudsman is a cop-out. Staff should handle complaints. Response: Most staffers do not have the time to handle the volume of complaints that ombudsmen receive, nor do most have the disposition or training to deal effectively with angry readers. Ombudsmen do not prevent staffers from communicating directly with the public. In fact, they often facilitate communication by organizing forums and e-mail interaction. There is no accountability in the suggestion that the everyone in the newsroom should respond to readers. The reality is that nobody wants to do that dirty work. Add up all the devices newsrooms use to get close to readers – forums, public meetings, editor’s columns – and they don’t match the work of a single ombudsman. Plus, these devices tend to be occasional.
• It’s difficult to find good ones. Response: Yes, and it’s difficult to find good editors, but when an editor doesn’t work out, you don’t eliminate the position.
• They’re too kind. Response: Some would like ombudsmen to be full-time critics. Therefore, their role is viewed as more like public relations when they explain how decisions are made or take the newspaper’s side in a controversy. But ombudsmen, like other journalists, value their independence and resist being forced into any single position. By handling complaints promptly and professionally, there is certainly a benefit to the newspaper.
• They’re too mean. Response: Some in the industry think ombudsmen cause morale problems by displaying criticism in public. Under that theory, corrections should not be run, either. And it supposes that journalists are too sensitive to take criticism.
• Ombudsmen have conflicts. How can they be paid by the people they are hired to criticize? Response: The same way as internal auditors or customer service representatives are paid to deal with criticism. Some newspapers have tried contracts for ombudsmen, and that provides an extra level of independence. But if a publisher is supportive, a contract is not necessary. If a publisher is not supportive, a contract will only be temporary.

By Ian Mayes
The Guardian

I spent some time recently in Madrid at a conference on self-regulation in news organisations, convened by the Federation of Press Associations of Spain (FAPE). Its main purpose was to launch the country’s first nationwide ethical code for newspapers, to listen to practical advice from a panel of members of the Press Complaints Commission of the United Kingdom, and to consider other forms of self-regulation including that of ombudsman.

Some form of self-regulation is considered necessary in more and more countries, and by an increasing number of individual newspapers, radio or television networks, partly in response to the altered environment in which the news media work. The development of email, in particular, has created the expectation of quick and easy access and response, with lobbies sometimes seeking to apply pressure through weight of numbers, and sometimes urging haste where calm reflection is required.

Spain now not only has an ethical code. It has news ombudsmen on three leading newspapers, El País, La Vanguardia and La Voz de Galicia – something of a challenge to Britain, where the ombudsman is a peculiarity.

An ombudsman works independently within news organisations at the interface between readers, listeners and viewers on one side, and journalists and editors on the other. It is the only kind of self-regulation that can have the effect of building trust between a specific news organisation and its readership or audience. It does that through the systematic and impartial handling of complaints, and the open discussion of issues raised by readers. It offers a real chance to build a new, stronger relationship between journalist and reader.

You appoint an ombudsman because you want your news organisation to be a self-correcting one with a dedication to getting it right and no interest in getting it wrong. As colleagues in the United States have expressed it, you want to feed into the arena of public debate accurate information upon which the citizen can rely when he or she is forming an opinion on the affairs of the day.

The first step along this road is, I suggest, a very simple one – one that may work better if accompanied by an ombudsman but which does not absolutely need one. It is the voluntary and systematic publication of corrections: an easy matter for newspapers and now made easier for broadcasters through the advent of related websites. One only has to look at the way in which the BBC is using its website for this purpose.

Why has it been so difficult for news organisations to take this step? To quote a Spanish proverb – he is always right who suspects that he is always making mistakes. I can only suppose it is because of the strength of the cultural fallacy – and the strength with which, historically, it has gripped journalism – that the frank admission of error somehow undermines authority. There is no evidence for that and some evidence to the contrary.

What I believe does undermine trust among readers, listeners or viewers is not the admission of error – even when the error is of an extremely serious nature – but the discovery or revelation or forced admission of a significant error that has gone uncorrected. An honest piece of advice to readers might be: never trust a newspaper which never appears to get anything wrong, and treat the others with the degree of scepticism your experience advises. Every journalist who has ever worked in newspapers knows that the portrait is incomplete and misleading without the warts.

The same goes for radio and television news. It is a product of the way we work.

The desire to enhance trust through self-regulation can be very strong in countries with a difficult or complex political inheritance. This desire often accompanies the primary motive – that of protecting the news media from government intervention. The institution of ombudsman is perfectly compatible with that of a nationwide or industry body such as the Press Complaints Commission in Britain. Thinking people want responsive, responsible and accountable news organisations. I believe ombudsmen are one way to achieve that.

Outwards

The ombudsman handles readers’ complaints and comments, some of which are addressed directly to him and some of which arrive from editors to who these were addressed.

Complaints come from readers who feel hurt by something published in the paper, or who believe that the paper is wrong about something. The common complaints claim a prejudice to their reputation; an invasion of privacy; ethical offenses (for instance, failure to seek the reaction of the subject of a story, or publishing an abridged reaction); factual or interpretation errors; inaccuracies and improper balance in coverage, or what readers usually term lack of objectivity.

The acute political polarization prevailing in Israel, with the people divided more or less 50-50 into a political right and a political left, constantly leading heated debates on questions of peace and the territories, entails an avalanche of political complaints. That is, numerous complaints bear on the positions expressed in the paper, be it in editorials or in various articles by columnists, as well as in stories and news items which seem to some readers unbalanced and politically biased.

Handling such complaints is particularly difficult, as most of them do not really pertain to the ombudsman, whose role is definitely not censoring opinions in any way. It is difficult, however, to reason with such readers who are sometimes carried away by their ideological zeal to the point of saying: whoever does not think like me (or like the camp I adhere to) is a traitor, and publishing his ideas should be forbidden.

Let me say, in parentheses, that the majority of political complaints comes from right-wing people and are addressed against left-wing writers. The right in Israel, as a rule, is more millitant and reacts more, including reactions to what is published in the press.

Inwards

Every morning I review the day’s issue of the paper. Due to the short time at my disposal, I review mostly the news pages. I then write a comments report, which includes criticism of mistakes and misguided considerations, as well as praise for scoops, well-founded considerations, presentation, attractive graphics or photograpy. I also draw a comparison between our own stories and those of the main competitor.

This report is circulated to the paper’s senior editors and to those in the news section, and is discussed in the daily meeting of the news’ editors, which we hold every day at 11 a.m. I usually participate in the meeting, which opens with a short discussion of the day’s copy. Later on I send messages to the writers and editors who erred in writing or in editing, whether in regard to language or to the subject matter.

The nature of my message, varying from an observation to a serious reprimand, depends on the seriousness of the mistake and on the frequency of the mistakes committed by the same employee (these are recorded on a daily basis). Here too, when an employee has erred several times, he will be handled by those in charge of him and, in the most serious cases, sanctions would be applied. However, when a young editor or writer is involved, and I notice that he is repeating his mistakes and displaying a lack of knowledge in fields in which he is expected to know more, I summon him for a talk and some guidance.

Once a week I make a point of reviewing another part of the paper — the economic section, the sports section, the daily magazine, etc. In these cases I do not write a report, but rather make my observations to the editors and writers, as the need arises.

An additional internal occupation which I have volunteered to undertake, and which is specific to my term as ombudsman, is an attempt to improve language usage in the paper. Every few days I circulate two or three corrections of common language mistakes. All of these are stored in an assigned basket in the computer, accessible to everyone for the purpose of reading and studying but unassignable. We are thereby gradually creating an applied dictionary of correct words and expressions for use by the journalists.

I must say this initiative met with great enthusiasm of the employees, and without any prior intention to do so I have come to be considered as a high authority in matters of the Hebrew language, addressed by employees every day.

Avraham Tirosh is ombudsman for MAARIV in Tel-Aviv, Israel.

The concept of a newsroom liaison with the public was batted around for years at the Los Angeles Times, to no avail. Top editors weren’t fond of the idea; they were hesitant to publicly acknowledge mistakes and misjudgments or to incur negative reaction from the newsroom.

But Editor Michael Parks believed the newspaper was too distant from its readers. He asked me last fall to see what other newspapers were doing to connect to their readers. I contacted virtually all ASNE editors, and scores responded (thank you!). We learned what worked and what didn’t. From that information, we crafted our readers’ representative position, which Parks announced March 18 in a story on page A3. (One reader quipped: “If this job was so important, how come it wasn’t on Page One?”). In the announcement, Parks noted: “We need to draw closer to our readers, to serve their interests and meet their needs more fully. We also need to demystify our practice of journalism and to hold ourselves more accountable to our ideals and professional standards.’”

The first call came in that day at 4:54 a.m. from a reader wanting coverage of college lacrosse, and since then, we have received more than 15,000 calls and letters. Some are full of praise (“You’re one of the greatest newspapers anywhere”); many are critical (“I have noticed a glaring lack of attention to matters which may shed a bad light on the Clinton administration”); some offer story tips (“I’m calling from (jail) and there’s a riot going on here”); others point out factual and grammatical errors (“…a necessary criteria”). A few are amusing (“Would you please ask someone in the science department how long it takes for a pigeon egg to hatch? It was laid yesterday and I want to know how long I am going to lose the use of my balcony”).

Readers are overwhelmingly enthusiastic about having someone at the Times hear them out. Whether or not attributable to the readers’ rep office, subscription cancellations for editorial reasons dropped from 77 in the second quarter of 1998 to only 11 in the comparable period this year. Maybe it’s more satisfying — and just as easy — to pick up a phone and rant at someone than to call to cancel a subscription.

A box on A2 invites readers to contact us. It carries all my contact information and asks for questions or concerns about anything in the newspaper or the Times’ journalistic standards and practices.

I write an occasional column explaining our practices or commenting on issues that have generated reader comment. Examples include our coverage of the Balkan war, “The Boondocks” comic strip, and how we missed covering a large Iranian demonstration in Los Angeles. Future columns will deal with anonymous sources, bias, tobacco ads, and other areas where we have a credibility gap.

The readers’ rep staff prepares a weekly report for Parks and the publisher and a bi-monthly newsletter for the staff.

The main responsibility is to listen to readers — about 125 a day call and write. We also answer calls and letters forwarded to us from other departments if they have to do with readership issues. My best advice to anyone starting such an endeavor would be to be prepared for a massive response. When we announced the position, I was overwhelmed. My staff now includes a deputy, a temporary assistant, a part-time editorial assistant who returns calls 4 hours a day, and a secretary who processes letters and returns calls. Calls are taped and transcribed. It took three months to catch up to the backlog of calls and e-mail.

The job has paid off. Readers have challenged us and made an impact. Complaints about a new crossword puzzle prompted us to throw it out and send its authors back to the drawing board. Because of readers, we’re considering publishing bill numbers in legislative stories and case numbers in legal stories. We’re more sensitive to complaints of bias, and criticism of errors led Parks to create a team to examine why we make so many grammatical errors. We are also drafting a new corrections policy.

Some readers complain about noneditorial issues — print quality, circulation and advertising — and we forward those complaints to the senior vice presidents responsible for those areas. They respond to readers and send us copies of their responses. We forward many reader queries to the editors who can best handle the response. This is critical to the success of this operation — that everyone in editorial — not just the readers’ reps — realizes a responsibility to be responsive to readers.

How does the staff respond? Remarkably, while a few staff members have criticized aspects of the columns, the overwhelming response is highly supportive. The most uttered phrase I heard from editorial folks after the announcement: “It’s about time.”

Zacchino, associate editor of the Los Angeles Times, is also its reader representative.

Officially, the Organization of News Ombudsmen is a professional organization. In reality, it’s a lifeline and a resource for journalists who deal with readers, viewers or listeners on a daily basis.

Say you are the editor of the Daily Bugle and you decide the time is right for your newspaper to have an ombudsman. No one else on the newspaper has ever held the position. In fact, no one at your newspaper knows how to pronounce ombudsman.

That’s where the ONO can be of most help. We can supply you with a sample job  description. We can show your representative how we do our jobs. We can tell him or her how we’ve resolved problems, how we’ve handled ethical dilemmas.

As ombudsmen, we are passionate about what we do and want others to succeed.

We also know that most U.S. newspapers have room for only one ombudsman on staff. That makes our organization even more important. Only another ombudsman knows what it’s like to, on a daily basis, deal with readers who are unhappy, who sometimes have good reason to be angry, who think all newspapers are involved in a conspiracy, who think journalists are biased, too opinionated and insensitive. Talking with other ombudsmen puts things into perspective.

ONO keeps in touch with members through a newsletter. We also have an annual conference in a member’s city. Recent meeting sites include Chicago, San Diego and Barcelona. In 2000, we will meet May 21-24 in Montreal. The agenda will include shop talk, speakers and panels. Conference topics have included coverage of sex crimes, use of anonymous sources, invasion of privacy, conflicts of interest, news councils, credibility and covering minorities.

Also, some U.S. members participate in monthly conference calls to discuss news practices and problems. We think of these in mini-conferences and often find, for example,  what concerns a reader in St. Paul, Minn., also will be on the minds of readers in Phoenix or Kansas City or Ann Arbor, Mich. We also communicate by e-mail. Members sometimes send out queries when they are writing columns to ask other ombudsmen about policies or if their papers have faced similar situations or ethical dilemmas.

Our ultimate goal is good journalism.

The site contains the membership list, which includes ombudsmen for newspapers and radio and television outlets.

ONO, founded in 1980 as an international organization, includes members from the United States, Canada, Colombia, France, Great Britain, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Venezuela. Most members are employed by newspapers.

For more information, contact Art Nauman, ONO’s executive secretary at artnauman@aol.com, call (916) 391-1314 or write 6307 Surfside Way, Sacramento, CA 95831.

Lubrano is the reader representative of the San Diego (Calif.) Union-Tribune.

1. Shut up and listen. The reason this reader called was because he or she had something to say about your newspaper, and they want it to be better.

2. Take even irritating callers seriously. He or she may have a valid point obscured by an obstreperous personality.

3. Respond, somehow, to every call or letter. An acknowledgment may be all that is required, but avoid lectures or sarcasm.

4. Assure each caller that the message they bring will be delivered to a person in the newspaper management who has the authority to do something about it.

5. Deliver all the messages, quickly, to the right people at the newspaper.

6. Don’t promise what you can’t deliver. Don’t give the caller the impression you will change things.

7. If the call involves a correction or retraction, get as much detail as possible and relay the information immediately to the senior editor available at that time. Don’t make promises, and don’t leave word on phone mail..

8. Make no assumptions about a caller based upon the sound of her/his voice, self-deprecating description, or apparent age. Every reader counts and has something to say.

9. Make no assumptions about newsroom folks based upon your stereotypical views of reporters and editors, or that voiced by the callers. Professional journalists don’t want to make mistakes and most are not as defensive as portrayed.

10. Be polite. It costs nothing, may open the door to a wonderful conversation, and your mother and father would be proud.

LaMont is ombudsman of The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee.

By Sanders LaMont
American Society of Newspaper Editors © 1999

Some newspapers call them reader advocates. Others ombudsmen, reader representatives or public editors. The titles vary.

The concept, though, remains constant and the numbers are growing.

In Atlanta, Akron, Jackson, Los Angeles, Riverside, Miami, St. Louis and Mobile, daily newspapers have appointed journalists whose primary assignment is to listen to readers, make sure editors hear what was said, and use that information to help improve the newspaper. At least two more newspapers are considering the idea, following staff credibility projects that suggested a new reader representative would help the paper improve.

Is this recent growth spurt a millennial trend, or an attempt to ease editors’ concerns about credibility or just a positive bump in the budget cycle?

At The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution it was simply a matter of the timing being right after a decade of wait, according to Editor Ron Martin.

“I finally got around to it after 10 years. There’s never been any doubt in my mind we needed better contact with readers,” Martin said.

Improving contacts with readers is a goal at most newspapers, but there’s more to it than that for Martin and several other editors who use reader advocates to help deal with reader concerns.

Reasons for having a reader representative – like duties and titles – vary all over the country. But keeping the doors open to readers’ concerns, and subjecting their papers to professional constant self-examination, are on almost every editor’s list.

In Atlanta the time was right in part because the right person was available – veteran news executive George Edmonson. He had experience, maturity and a good feel for the job, Martin said. Plus, Martin was able to find wiggle room within the newspaper’s structure, and budget, to create the job this year.

In Miami, Publisher Alberto Ibargüen decided to add the position to meet the diverse demands of readers in the challenging Miami market.

Miami required someone uniquely qualified to represent the points of view of readers, Ibargüen said, so he picked the editor of the Spanish-language newspaper El Nuevo Herald, Barbara Gutierrez, an experienced journalist who happened to be a Harvard-educated Afro-Cuban female. She is both a reader representative and an advocate for the newsrooms at both the Spanish-language paper and the English-language Miami Herald. Ibargüen is enthusiastic about the concept, and results.

Gutierrez says readers reacted “with glee” at the announcement. “Many have told me they never thought The Herald would ever have a reader representative.” The newsroom staff is adjusting to the idea.

In Salt Lake City the veteran reader advocate Shinika Sykes agrees with Gutierrez about reader response. “Readers like having someone they can call about concerns… and they get to speak to a live person,” Sykes said.

The Tribune’s editor, James E. Shelledy, says Sykes provides an outlet for readers, and, “Sykes makes me think about why we do things the way we do. That’s why every newspaper in America ought to have a reader advocate.”

Not every newspaper editor agrees, obviously, but the eight reader advocates appointed since the beginning of last year bring to at least 36 U.S. and two Canadian newspapers with a reader representative on staff. The number of U.S. newspapers with ombudsmen, by whatever title, was 28 just 15 years ago. There has been considerable churn, but the trend in the second half of this decade – directly coincident with the ASNE push for credibility initiatives by newspapers- has clearly been upward.

No one knows exactly how many newspapers have reader advocates, reader representatives, ombudsmen or public editors, according to Art Nauman, secretary of the Organization of News Ombudsmen and a retired ombudsman for the Sacramento Bee. The ombudsmen’s group has approximately 100 members, including associates from academia and journalists who support the idea. Those numbers include broadcasters and members from 11 other countries.

The Los Angeles Times recently became the biggest paper in the United States to appoint a reader representative (see story, page 9). The Bradenton (Fla.) Herald remains the smallest.

A history lesson

Ombudsmen began in Sweden as  people who looked after the interests of justice in affairs between the government and citizens in the early 1800s. The definition has widened. It is now a person who investigates complaints, reports findings, and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties.

The giant Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun had a staff of reader representatives as early as the 1920s. Its competitor, Yomiuri Shimbun, soon followed.

But the innovation had actually been borrowed from yet another newspaper: Pulitzer’s New York World, which had a committee to address such concerns a full decade earlier.

Still, the Japanese newspapers probably devote the most resources to the idea. Journalist Osami Okuya, senior member of the Ombudsman Committee of the Yomiuri, has a staff of 28 ombudsmen. His group sits down every day in formal session with senior editors and critiques the newspaper rigorously.

As far as U.S. newspapers that are still publishing are concerned, The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., is generally credited with having the first news ombudsman. The idea caught on among several U.S. newspapers in the early 1980s, lost ground in the tight-budgeted early 1990s, but is now growing again.

Most reader representatives are based at large newspapers: the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, The Arizona Republic in Phoenix, the Star-Tribune in Minneapolis and the Los Angeles Times among them.

But the Bradenton (Fla.) Herald, weekday circulation 41,626, has had reader representative Paul Bartley in place for a decade, dealing with everything from errors in stories to circulation service. (See the list on page 11 for U.S. papers with reader representatives.)

Most newspapers still don’t have them

Most American newspapers, including almost all of the 84 percent that are smaller than 50,000 daily circulation, do not have a reader representative. About half the biggest papers in the country do.

Many editors concede they are unwilling to part with the dollars that would provide one more copy editor, reporter, or a better travel budget. Others argue an ombudsman might reduce accountability by keeping readers away from the newsroom. Privately, some concede they are not eager to be second-guessed in public, or in front of the staff.

Many argue that editors should take all the calls and deal with readers’ complaints and accountability is best handled by the newsroom. Good editors, the argument goes, should find time to hear what readers say and react appropriately.

USA Today, with 1.6 million daily circulation, does not currently have an reader representative on the staff.

“That does not mean we are arrogant or think we are perfect,” president and publisher Tom Curley said. The paper is not opposed to the idea, he said, but has pursued more pressing priorities such as adding reporters across the country.

The subject has not been discussed recently, Curley said, though the idea of staying tuned in to readers is taken very seriously. That function falls partly to the editor in charge of letters to the editor, who pursues complaints internally. Curley also said if an ombudsman’s position came up for serious discussion, he expects there would be some internal conflict over the idea.

At The New York Times there’s no apparent conflict, and the newspaper’s feelings about the matter have not changed through the years, according to Bill Keller, the managing editor.

“We believe the top editors of the paper, and the department heads, need to be personally accountable for what we print – accountable to our readers, to the broader public and to those we write about. Accountable, too, to our staff, for the way in which we evaluate their work and, on occasion, defend it.

“Historically we have believed that an ombudsman or similar reader representative, formally designated, would represent a dilution of those relationships,” Keller said.

In Miami, Ibargüen doesn’t believe newspaper executives can deliver, despite good intentions.

“The reality is much of the time we say ‘thank you very much’ and just pass it off,” Ibargüen said. A reader representative takes the time to listen that editors and publishers don’t have, he said.

The credibility connection

Sandra Mims Rowe, editor of The Oregonian in Portland, does not believe editors can do it all, given the demands of their job. “Based on my experience, that’s simply not realistic,” she said. Rowe addressed the issue in a speech last year.

As ASNE president Rowe pushed editors to tackle credibility as a survival issue. She has practiced what she preached about reader representation even when it hurt.

“I know it can be painful,” she said. “At both The Virginian-Pilot (in Norfolk) and The Oregonian I’ve cringed when the ombudsman has pointed out an egregious error in judgment or fact by our newsroom staff,” Rowe said, “… but I’ve never doubted that having an ombudsman was in the long-term interest of the newspaper.”

The Oregonian’s public editor, Michele McLellan, doesn’t want to make the boss cringe. She wants to make the paper better by taking a position outside the newsroom where she can “give an honest voice to public complaints.”

“At the same time,” she said, “the public editor needs to have a voice in newsroom discussions, although probably not be involved in making specific decisions. It’s a delicate balance and one that can succeed only if top management gives the position a lot of independence and a lot of support – even if top editors don’t happen to agree with every decision the public editor makes.”

At the Hartford (Conn.) Courant Elissa Papirno, the associate editor/reader representative admits it’s not fun dealing with defensive people on the staff, but one of her rewards is working with staff members who see the benefits and cooperate to solve problems. When that happens, “Then the institution is perceived as open to the public and not afraid of criticism,” Papirno said.

Karin Winner, editor of The San Diego Union-Tribune, doesn’t agree with every opinion expressed by her newspaper’s readers’ representative, Gina Lubrano, but she supports her and the idea.

“The newsroom respects her a great deal, because she is a person with so much integrity. … Gina’s Monday column … can sometimes be brutally frank in her opposition to what we’ve done in the pages of the paper. But she is always clear about the fact that she’s speaking for herself and her readers and not for the publisher. She is also very conscientious about giving me a heads-up when she is going to land on the other side of an issue. And goes to great lengths to give anyone who was involved in the decision the opportunity to respond.”

Variety among newspapers

No two newspapers use reader representatives the same way.

George Langford, public editor at the Chicago Tribune, plays a major role in the effort to reduce errors at the paper, deals with correction requests and sits on the editorial board. He feels his paper’s approach “has affected the way we edit the paper, from photo and graphics selection to how we weigh the news.” Langford mediates disputes, enforces policy, and is involved in the newsroom.

In Atlanta, Edmonson, the reader representative, serves as a primary contact for readers to reach the paper, and “as a way to help educate the staff about what we hear,” according to editor Martin.

Edmonson also studies the daily paper and provides a detailed note on the quality of that issue. He sees his role as providing a central place for readers to call, whatever their needs, and a way to make sure the staff hears. In addition, “We have a better handle on corrections.”

At the Star-Tribune in Minneapolis, reader representative Lou Gelfand, perhaps the longest-tenured reader representative in the nation, stays detached but watchful. He likes “to be able to bring about constructive change in policy and style.” He sees a practical benefit. “Credibility is enhanced because corrections are published.”

The reader advocate at The Arizona Republic in Phoenix was appointed by Pam Johnson, the  executive editor, because she felt it was important for the credibility of the newspaper at a time of great change in the community. Richard de Uriarte sees himself as a link for the community with the newsroom, not an in-house critic.

“I think we at the Republic think much more about the readers’ sensitivities and our own credibility than we did a few years ago,” he said. He believes his job helps foster that.

In West Palm Beach, Fla., The Palm Beach Post’s C.B. Hanif said “readers know we are willing to be accountable.”

“I am no authority, and don’t set policy, but I am a good listener and fairly easy to reach,” Hanif said.

San Diego’s reader representative, Lubrano, sees herself in the middle. “I may represent the reader, but I am independent in my assessments. It’s not my job to side with the reader, or to side with the newspaper.”

What do readers say?

Readers like the idea of a reader representative, according to the journalists directly involved, despite natural skepticism about who pays their salary. Every ombudsman hears complaints that readers simply can’t reach another human being on the telephone, or don’t know who to call, or the Web site doesn’t list the editors’ names clearly.

Some readers are intimidated by the idea of calling the editor of the newspaper, a sometimes mythical figure if you don’t happen to know one personally.

Most ombudsmen have been accused of being apologists for the company, but all ombudsman also hear people say “I’m glad you are there.”

That positive feedback helps, because the next caller may be a crazed individual who sees genitalia depicted in every locator map, or a colleague in the newsroom whose feelings are hurt.

Reader advocates report that some readers will rant about the newspaper’s perceived biases, an editorial position on gun control, or ghastly mistakes in spelling or grammar, but complete the call with a polite “thank you” because someone took the time to listen.

Many complaints seem minor, dealing with infractions of grammar or spelling which slipped through the net. But readers say those items reflect a lack of care, an inattention to detail which brings into question the facts elsewhere in the paper. Those errors show up as one of the reasons some newspaper readers find newspapers less credible than they used to be, according to ASNE’s Journalism Credibility Project.

Many complaints are not easy to resolve, and require research, persistence, skill and time to deal with.

Readers sometimes credit ombudsmen with quality improvements, whether credit is deserved or not. It is difficult to determine why a certain new columnist was added (or a bad one dropped), a tendency toward sensationalism was curbed, or a wayward reporter held accountable now that  readers have a channel to express their views.

When pressed for examples of changes for the better at their newspaper because they were there, most reader representatives were either cautious or polite. Most are quick to acknowledge, as did Papirno in Hartford, that the decisions are made in the newsroom. Readers may nudge editors to change, with an assist from a reader advocate, but it is the folks in the newsroom who take action and deserve the credit.

Has it worked?

How has it worked out in Atlanta, where the experiment is still new?

“We are very happy we did it,” Martin said. “It’s been very valuable for the readers and a great resource for (the staff) too.”

Back in Miami, Ibargüen had no doubts about his new reader representative’s impact. He says Gutierrez reaches into the communities and makes sure readers’ voices are heard in his newspapers.

She has respect and impact because “She is so honest,” he said. “People find it hard to be angry with her,” even when they wish she would “put a little sugar coating on it.”

Across the country in San Diego, where the idea was adopted more than two decades ago, Winner, the executive editor, remains enthusiastic.

“It enhances our credibility with our readers to have someone whose sole reason for being is to represent them. It helps to mitigate the perception that we journalists will do what we darn well please and the readers be damned.”

Winner is an advocate. “I wholeheartedly believe in this role. I know how important it is for us in the newsroom to have someone asking key questions about motivation, approach, sources, holes in stories, missed facts.”

Even if on some days you wish it had a little sugar coating.

LaMont is ombudsman of The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee.

Michele McLellan delivered this speech to the Association of Turkish Journalists on Sept. 13, 1999, at an all-day conference in Istanbul on “Quality and Self-Control in the Media.”

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today in Istanbul.

The first time I visited your city, I stayed three days and it wasn’t enough. Now I am here for 10 days and it still isn’t enough. So I am thinking perhaps next time I should stay for a few years!

I am equally honored to be invited to speak to you today on important topics of journalism: Credibility with the public and how the ombudsman can help strengthen public trust in media.

The fact that so many of you have taken the time to organize and attend this conference speaks well of the vitality of the Turkish press and the desire of Turkish journalists to attain excellence.

Unfortunately, right now American media may teach you more about how to lose credibility with the public than how to gain and keep credibility.

At the same time, much of the press in the United States is seeking to improve — even reform itself. And the work of ombudsmen is a key part of that effort.

So today I will talk a bit about some of the very serious problems with American media. But I also hope to make you understand the optimism I feel about journalism.

An independent press that strives to put the public interest first can help society accomplish much over time. An ombudsman can be a strong and consistent voice for the public in that process.

In the United States, the first newspaper ombudsman was appointed in 1967. But the position remains more the exception than the rule. For example, there are fewer than 40 ombudsmen in the U.S. even though there are more than 1,500 daily newspapers and many more television and radio stations and magazines.

Recently, American newspaper editors are giving more attention to the idea of an ombudsman. Several newspapers have added the position in the past few years. The interest is tied to a decline in the credibility of media in the eyes of the public. This is very much a time of turmoil and paradox in the American media.

One paradox:

The longstanding “watchdog” function of the press is more important than ever. The press must be alert for abuses or failures to live up to accepted standards by the powerful, including the government. This is a central role of a free press in the United States. Similarly, the role of the press in making intelligent and unbiased decisions about the news and information that appears in print or is aired is paramount to the functioning of a democratic society.

But even as these functions become more critical to society, the media stray from these traditional roles. As a result, the public is less and less likely to trust “mainstream” media. Even the most prestigious of the national and regional newspapers in the United States, which historically have been considered the most credible, suffer from this loss of trust by the public. And the press cannot play an informative and constructive role in public debate without public trust.

Tom Rosenstiel, a respected American journalist and press critic, puts it this way:

“If the public does not trust the press, it will turn away from public dialogue. The deep sense of boredom the public feels toward Washington…may be a warning sign.

“If the press turns away from the public service mission of journalism, from providing citizens with the information necessary to make self government work, that has equally frightening implications.

“As Joseph Pulitzer said 93 years ago, ‘A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself.’” Another paradox of the media in the U.S.:

The American media have remarkable freedom. The Constitution allows complete freedom of the press in recognition of the vital role we play in helping to further important public discussions and expose abuse of power.

At the same time, however, ownership of newspapers and other media has shifted dramatically, from small and local ownership to ownership by large corporations.

With this, much of the media is becoming more commercial and more short-sighted about profits over quality. And even as many editors and television news directors try to provide serious coverage of serious issues, newspapers and television are reaching out to readers more and more with entertainment news, celebrity stories, superficial trend stories and tear jerkers. We even have a word for this mix of information and entertainment: “infotainment.”

Here, the result is that the public increasingly sees the media trying to have it both ways. The media want to use the freedoms designed to guarantee they can assist the public debate unfettered in order to lure more readers for money-making purposes.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton is an example of press failure. This momentous event revolved around sordid details of an extra-marital affair.

No detail was too small and no source too unreliable to see print. The public got angry, and rightfully so.

One national survey said:

“Majorities of the public characterized the coverage as excessive (80 percent), embarrassing (71 percent), biased (67 percent), disappointing (66 percent), irresponsible (60 percent) and disgusting (57 percent). Moreover, two-thirds (65 percent) said the Clinton/Lewinsky story was not important enough to deserve the level of coverage it has received.”

The pollsters said: “This is not to say that Americans do not want the press to investigate vigorously allegations of presidential misconduct should they arise….Apparently, though, most Americans consider the Lewinsky allegations to be exempt from this mandate, defining them as a private matter and, hence, off-limits to the press.”

Eighty percent in the survey said the media were driven more by a need to attract an audience than by a desire to get to the truth.

The concerns about motivation hint at what may be the most disturbing lesson. The public supports the idea that a free and responsible press is vital. A press that lowers its standards at the first hint of competition may be an information source fewer and fewer people will trust.

As you might imagine, much of the competitive fervor that drives these missteps results from the increased availability of information from other sources.

The Internet, especially, sped up the pace of the Clinton story and drove down journalistic standards.

In the past two decades, the public’s trust in American media has been falling like a lead balloon. The Internet appears to be accelerating the process.

People who have access to a wide range of information from a wide range of sources are more apt to question what they see in mainstream newspapers and television.

Christine Urban, a respected American researcher, did a detailed study of public attitudes toward the media last year.

Her findings were harsh: “…there are too many factual errors and spelling or grammar mistakes in newspapers….

“Small errors undermine public confidence in the press….

“The public perceives that newspapers don’t consistently demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities….

“The public suspects that the points of view and biases of journalists influence what stories are covered and how they are covered….

“All we want is fair play and neutrality, and please keep your opinions on the editorial page, Americans say….

“The public believes that newspapers over-cover sensational stories because they’re exciting and they sell papers. They don’t believe these stories deserve the attention and play they get….

“The public feels that newsroom values and practices are sometimes in conflict with their own priorities for their newspapers….

“… the public places a much higher value than do journalists on protecting the privacy of people in situations that most journalists would consider ‘news.’

I think much of the problem arises from a growing disconnection between journalists and the public in America.

The traditional role of the press has been to protect the public from powerful elites.

Today, the media are part of the elite, culturally, educationally and especially economically. Without these key connections to the greater public, the media should be listening to the public more. Instead, the media in recent decades have listened less.

That is the overarching truth we all must face. We cannot be expert journalists or experts in the topics we cover unless we know how the general public experiences what we are covering, what questions they have about the topic and what insights they can offer.

Enter, the ombudsman.

As the important link between press and public wears thin, the ombudsman can play a critical role in helping re-establish the credibility of his or her newspaper or television station or other media operation.

The first job of the ombudsman is to investigate public complaints about the news organization and to hold it to account when it fails to meet accepted standards.

As you can imagine, this puts the ombudsman in a very difficult position, with one foot in the newsroom and one foot in the public and both sides usually complaining!

But the job also has significant potential to make journalism better. The ombudsman can work with the staff to understand public complaints and use them to improve journalism. At the same time, he or she can explain media practices and standards to the public in order to help put both routine and controversial decisions in context.

You will find that different ombudsmen perform the job in different ways in the United States.

Ideally, the ombudsman job is full-time. For one thing, this allows the person to fully develop the position — to be more than someone who simply passes on complaints. Also, this allows the ombudsman to be more independent — the person is evaluating a product in which he or she has less investment or stake than one working on the paper every day.

I will discuss six key tasks of the ombudsman.

1. Reader complaints and comments

These may flood in. I receive about 10,000 a year in telephone calls, e-mails, letters. People will call about errors in the paper — the usual names misspelled, or other facts wrong. People will call if they think a story shows bias. People will call if they don’t like a headline. Or if they think a photo is offensive. Or they don’t like the cartoons.

It is important to answer as many as possible. I have an assistant so I can usually respond to all.

This is important. People who feel their comments are ignored will see their complaints validated.

2. Reader outreach

Calls and letters represent the most vocal among the public. It is a good idea to find others willing to discuss the newspaper. The ombudsman may be invited to speak before civic groups. Or she can organize discussion groups. I do this often, at least once a month to get a reality check on the paper.

3. Communications with staff

It is important to let the staff know what readers are saying. Some ombudsmen write a daily or weekly memo to the staff summarizing the complaints and examining major ones. I post summaries of calls on a bulletin board and it is very well read by the staff.

The ombudsman may also organize discussions and training on topics, such as ethics. He should avoid involvement in actual decisions.

4. Reader communications

The ombudsman must not be the only one the public can call. And he or she should not become a barrier to direct communications. At my newspaper, every staff story has the writer’s phone number and e-mail address at the bottom. The same information about editors runs on Page 2 every day.

I ask writers and editors of major stories what calls or e-mails they have received and put summaries of those comments on the bullet board and in my columns.

As you might imagine, calls of praise usually go to the writer while complaints tend to come to me!

5. Corrections

It is important to acknowledge errors in print and provide the accurate information that should have been published in the first place. My paper places these on Page 2 every day. Others run them on Page 1 or in the place where the error appeared.

At some newspapers, the ombudsman has final say on running a correction and should lean towards publication. Many of us have a natural reluctance to acknowledge mistakes publicly. The ombudsman’s role is to bring detachment to the decision on behalf of readers.

6. Columns

Most ombudsmen write a weekly column that airs reader complaints and assesses whether the newspaper is living up to accepted standards. Columns may also explain policies of the newspaper or examine broad journalistic issues.

The ombudsman may also recommend other press criticism for publication on the opinion pages.

Independence is the key to ombudsmanship. Publishers and editors who want an ombudsman must be ready to take criticism, to see complaints aired publicly and to let the ombudsman offer his or her assessments freely even if they don’t agree. In short, it is no good to be the ombudsman for a news organization whose executives really just want window-dressing.

At my own newspaper, I have had wide freedom in offering my views to the public and within the newsroom. My own editor, Sandra Rowe, does not always agree with me and sometimes we debate quite a bit when I am writing my weekly column.

When it comes to the quality of the newspaper, she will often want me to see the situation as one where the cup is half full. I just as often see it as half empty. Both of us are somewhat right. But it is important that I try to present the situation as readers see it.

Even though we debate, it is understood that the editor will not tell me what to write and there will be no repercussions if I write something she or other editors do not agree with. And I have done so many times.

Above all, though, the key to maintaining independence does not derive solely from a guarantee from the editor or publisher. I think a good ombudsman must develop a mindset that challenges the thinking of journalists and the public alike while retaining empathy for both groups.

Another important qualification for the ombudsman is having experience as a journalist. I think someone who knows a lot about journalism and has been through many of the situations that come up is best qualified to judge the work. The more experienced journalist also will tend to have more credibility from the public and fellow journalists and a greater ability to put problems and accomplishments in perspective.

I had been a journalist, mostly an editor, for more than 20 years when I became the public editor at The Oregonian in 1996. I have drawn every day on my own earlier experience. I also have found it helpful that I have had teaching and management experience as I do a fair amount of public speaking and teaching in the newsroom.

It’s important that the ombudsman, who may be largely perceived in the critic role, be able to shift into the teaching mode in the newsroom and with the public.

As we all know, when it comes to dealing with our smart, strong-minded fellow journalists, it is important to show, not tell.

An ombudsman who is not fair and consistent will not be successful. The ombudsman judges the sins of journalism, so he or she cannot commit those sins.

This can be very difficult for a number of reasons. For one thing, the ombudsman may receive constant negative reinforcement from both public and staff. It’s easy to become what we call a nit-picker, someone who worries so much about the details that he is no longer able to see the larger picture.

For another, the ombudsman may be placed in a combative position, either by angry readers or defensive colleagues or both. I will be honest with you. It is sometimes very hard to hold one’s temper in check. But it is important to do so in talking to the people involved and in deciding what to write.

Another pressure in this area is the desire to have an interesting column. We all know a spanking makes more interesting reading than a balanced airing of all views. But ultimately, the balanced airing lends more to the public debate and understanding of the work of the journalist. And it also models for journalists and the public alike a fair-minded approach that everyone should try to take in public discussions.

This is far from easy.

For one thing, the public can be difficult to deal with and to understand. For example, the ombudsman may hear from a reader — usually a very loud and persistent one — that the entire newspaper is biased.

It may take a while of listening before the ombudsman can understand the reader really is angry, with justification, about the tendency of one or two writers to use loaded words or stereotypical labels to describe certain groups of people or their beliefs.

One example in the United States: Christians who espouse old-fashioned moral values. Many would consider this a good thing, others would not. But journalists refer to them as right-wingers or extremists, which makes them sound bad. I think it is for the reader to decide in this case what is good or bad. The journalist should provide precise descriptions of beliefs or proposals from which the reader will make a judgment.

Understanding the complaint is only the first step. We journalists have a variety of defense mechanisms that seem to come into play as soon as the ombudsman mentions a call from a reader.

One is the attitude that if we understood what we were trying to say, the reader should understand too. This excuse for lack of clarity strikes me as arrogant nonsense.

Another favorite defense is that the journalist didn’t have time to do the best job possible. Of course in our work, deadlines come very quickly. But if our professional responsibility is to strive for excellence, why can’t we listen to readers’ ideas for future improvements?

The greatest arrogance, I think, is the belief by many of us that we know what is best for the readers no matter what they say.

If journalism is first and foremost service to the public, how can we say the public cannot be involved in determining our standards and holding us to them?

The ombudsman provides this link. But I must say to you that he or she cannot do it alone.

The ownership and management of media must be willing to risk public criticism. And working journalists must understand that the discomfort of criticism is worth the opportunity to improve.

Together with the public we must define excellence for our publication and strive to achieve it.

The ombudsman plays a key role, but this is the work we all share.

Thank you.

By Lynne Enders Glaser

From a newspaper’s standpoint, having a designated person on staff to hear and respond to readers adds more to its worth than good will.

It boosts the bottom line.

Now, I can’t prove that through time-and-motion studies or court-case analyses that I’ve read. But, using an empirical base, I believe that valid economic argument exists for the news ombudsman, and it’s my hope that the financial types who control most of this nation’s dailies will someday wake up to that fact.

If they don’t on their own, then hopefully their readers ultimately will embrace the concept of fair and impartial representation, and apply whatever pressure it takes to bring that about. If ethical arguments don’t work, I suggest citing the potential reduction in lawsuits, improved circulation and increased advertising revenues as a trio of practical reasons.

Of this country’s 1,600 or so daily newspapers, only about 35 have an ombudsman, reader representative, reader advocate or public editor on staff to address the complaints, concerns, ideas and questions that readers have right and reason to raise.

The first news ombudsman was appointed by the Courier-Journal, in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1967. My own publication, the Fresno (California) Bee, assigned the task of responding to readers and writing an occasional column on the newspaper’s foibles to a senior editor for short periods in the mid-1970s and 1980s. It established a full-time position, divorced from newsroom management, in December 1990.

Before I present an economic case for the reader representative, I want to share my own bias: I think that newspapers ought to have an ombuds because, as a public trust, they truly care what readers think and because they are passionately concerned about credibility and quality. Still, as a reader advocate and president of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), I’m willing to talk money for a cause.

Enhancing papers’ credibility

In this country, credibility and salability have gone hand in hand.

Credibility is the stuff on which the reputation of a newspaper is based, and that credibility — or lack of it — just logically influences the numbers for circulation and advertising sales. Journalistic credibility is built on such things as accuracy, balance, absence of bias, tone, placement, independence, taste and sensitivity. All of these are subjects that a newspaper ombuds routinely is asked to address. “I have seen evidence that the presence of a news ombudsman does indeed prod reporters and editors to [do] more careful, more thoughtful work,” said veteran ombudsman Arthur C. Nauman of the Sacramento Bee during a symposium on press self-regulation in South Korea last year.

“Yes, they know that if their work is slipshod, they might very well find themselves being scolded in print [through a column in their own paper] by the ombudsman. That is a strong motivation for good work.” Said Nauman earlier, “…A frank admission of errors can be good for credibility — and credibility, after all, is a newspaper’s prime asset.”

“Any time that a newspaper makes an effort to reach out and improve its accountability, it has to generate more public faith in that paper,” said Joann Byrd, who in June completed a three-year stint as ombudsman for The Washington Post and now teaches journalism ethics at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“And I presume that if the public has faith in a newspaper, it is more likely to subscribe to that paper and to continue to subscribe,” says Byrd. Newspapers that invest in an ombudsman are public-service oriented, says Byrd.

“My presumption,” says Byrd, “has always been, in the first place, that the people who are calling just might be right and, in the second, that they deserve to have somebody answer the phone and listen to what they have to say.”

Nipping lawsuits in the bud

Defending against a lawsuit costs an average of “well over $100,000,’ according to media lawyer and newspaper executive Gary Pruitt.

“A newspaper is much better off if suits simply aren’t brought against it,’ said Pruitt, who is president and chief operating officer of McClatchy Newspapers Inc., which publishes the Bee.

The ombudsman, says Pruitt, “has the ability to practice preventative law without practicing law at all.”

This happens because the ombudsman serves as an active listener who has no direct involvement in the product that is under attack. Contrast the objectivity here with the natural defensiveness of reporters, photographers and editors who created the product. An ombudsman has nothing to win or lose because there’s no attachment.

Of 23 ombudsmen who responded to a 1993 ONO survey, only two said they received salaries between $100,000 and $125,000, the highest bracket. The largest number, seven, drew between $50,000 and $62,499 a year, and they were on papers with daily circulations ranging from 125,000 to 400,000 plus. By comparison, New York University Prof. Richard P. Cunningham figures that his active listening and subsequent action kept “from two to a half-dozen” readers from filing suits against the Minneapolis Tribune during his eight years there as the reader representative.

At the Fresno Bee, I am willing to bet that I save at least one case a year from litigation. That seems conservative. According to my last annual report, I handled 4,003 calls, letters and personal contacts from April 30, 1994, to this May 1.

Cunningham, who teaches press ethics, has written about news councils and ombudsmen as agents for appeasing angry readers. His analysis appears in the book “Beyond the Courtoom: Alternatives for Resolving Press Disputes.”

The ombudsman helps ward off lawsuits, in part, because -readers feel that they are being taken seriously and that the ombudsman really will find out what’s wrong,’ Cunningham said in a recent interview.

The objective listener

The ombudsman represents “somebody who can listen to the community with a different ear” than would a reporter, photographer or editor, Cunningham says. “He or she can effectively interpret the newspaper’s positions to the community and interpret the community’s positions to the newspaper.”

Robert Steele, author and teacher, says that “as difficult as it is to prove,” he believes that the reader representative “provides a substantive benefit to a newspaper when it comes to deterring legal action.”

“If you head off even one legal action, you are saving some significant dollars in terms of the cost of defending yourself — even if the paper wins, which it almost always does,” says Steele, who is director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Steele points to a study of 164 filings that is part of the Iowa Libel Research Project. The study, presented at ONO’s 1985 annual conference, is available as the book “Libel Law and The Press: Myth and Reality.”

“We found that typically the complainants go to the news source first, and it is the failure to deal them there that usually produces the suit,” says Gilbert Cranberg, one of three authors of the book and a former editor of the editorial pages at the Des Moines Register.

“When the complainants approach the news source, they are generally not in a great mood,” Cranberg says. “But after dealing with it, they are really angry — because they feel they’ve been met by a great deal of arrogance and unconcern.

“We found that people who wrote or edited the story usually dealt with the complaint and they displayed a great deal of defensiveness. We recommended that some distance be created between the complainant and the people who deal with the problem, or the problem as the complainant sees it.”

Thus, says Cranberg, “we made a case for the ombudsman.”

Results of the Iowa study are “somewhat skewed because people are not apt to admit they sued because they are greedy or mean spirited or litigious,” says Pruitt.

“Still, the element of truth is: That if readers are treated respectfully, if they are listened to and they feel they are truly being heard, this goes a long way toward taking a legal complaint outside of litigation,” says Pruitt.

“Most of the time, people sue over the issue of fairness. Legal standards are based upon fairness, and suits are based on deviation from those standards. An ombudsman makes the paper, as an institution, treat people more fairly.”

Beyond the realm of lawsuits, the reader representative offers “an intangible savings when it comes to the credibility aspect,” says Steele of the Poynter Institute. “Any time that you have a lawsuit filed, it is a kick in the shins of journalism.”

Ad sales and honesty

At the end of a pamphlet that explains my job to readers, I used a quote from a 1990 article in the Washington Journalism Review by Charles W. Bailey, who is a former editor of the Minneapolis Tribune and was Cunningham’s boss.

“The ombudsman’s job is not to make himself, or his editor, or even his newspaper either popular or beloved,” writes Bailey. “His job is to retain (or regain) the respect of readers. It’s not a wholly disinterested goal: In the long run, respect is the only sentiment that will keep the public reading, believing, supporting — and buying — a newspaper.”

And purchasing ad space, I add. Certainly, that has been “the American experience,” adds Pruitt, my former boss as publisher of the Fresno Bee. Journalism texts report that “historically, in this country, advertisers have bought space in those newspapers considered honest and reliable rather than those that don’t have the same commitments and traditions,” says Cunningham. “If that is true — and there is no doubt in my mind that it is — then there is every reason to believe that it will keep being true in the future.”

So, is improving the bottom line good reason to appoint a news ombudsman? Obviously, it’s not my first consideration, and others I’ve quoted said the same thing.

“The primary purpose of the ombudsman should be to serve the public and to scrutinize journalism as an independent voice,” says Steele. “The scrutiny angle should be the principle one.

“Newspapers are among the most powerful organizations in the community, not unlike local utilities, banks and government, and they should be scrutinized to the same degree that the others are scrutinized.”

A reader representative benefits that effort.

But if the ethereal approach isn’t your cup of tea, then — as a proponent of this concept — I’m willing to say, “Give your bottom line a boost.”

Not the norm

Some major newspapers employ ombudsmen — but many see fit to do without. Here is a partial list:

Some that have one

The Washington Post
Chicago Tribune
Philadelphia Inquirer
Orange County Register
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Boston Globe
Detroit News
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
San Diego Union -Tribune
Portland Oregonian
Salt Lake Tribune

Some That Don’t

USA Today
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Atlanta Constitution
Christian Science Monitor
Houston Chronicle
Dallas Morning News
Miami Herald
Seattle Times
Washington Times

Ethics augmenting profits

• The newspaper ombudsman listens to reader complaints and suggestions.
• He writes regular columns critiquing the newspaper’s lapses in journalistic rigor or pushing for editorial improvements.
• By building the publication’s credibility, he tends to promote reader loyalty, stimulate circulation and boost ad sales.
• By serving as an honest and objective sounding board for irate readers, he deters expensive lawsuits.

Lynne Enders Glaser was appointed as ombudsman of The Fresno (Calif.) Bee in 1990 after 30 years of newsroom experience. She was president of The Organization of News Ombudsmen in 1995-96.

By Lynne Enders Glaser
All rights reserved

I am pleased and honored to be here with you distinguished members of the Korean press and to discuss topics of mutual concern. I thank you for this professional opportunity and pleasure, and for the added personal joy of being able to visit to Korea for my first time.

Essentially, I will focus on my interaction with readers as ombudsman for The Fresno Bee.

By way of background, the city of Fresno rests in a rich agricultural valley in Central California and serves as the county seat. Fresno is approximately 175 south of San Francisco and 225 miles north of Los Angeles. It is approximately 90 miles inland of the Pacific coast and about an equal distance from the Sierra Nevada range to the east.

Historically, farming has been the largest employer, but in the last two decades there has been a dramatic increase in the retailing, government, construction/land development and service-industries sectors. The area has long-standing ties to the Midwest and to the Southern states, which accounts, at least in part, for its politically conservative nature.

One in five people has a Hispanic surname or heritage. There is a large and growing presence of immigrants from Southeast Asia. A third major influence is that of the Armenian-Americans.

The Fresno Bee is the San Joaquin Valley’s dominant newspaper, with a daily circulation of approximately 160,000 and a Sunday circulation of approximately 192,000. It is the second- largest daily within the publicly owned company of McClatchy Newspapers Inc.; The Sacramento Bee, at which Mr. Nauman is the ombudsman, is the largest.

In December 1990, The Fresno Bee created the position of news ombudsman. I was named to that post, taking with me approximately 30 years as a reporter, copy editor and editor at The Bee and other newspapers, television stations and magazines in the United States.

My charge, given by then-Executive Editor Beverly Kees, was to listen carefully to what readers say about The Bee, to investigate their concerns and, finally, to respond to those questions, comments, complaints and — yes, even an occasional compliment — in a timely and unbiased manner. My turf would be restricted at first to the news columns, or the part of the newspaper that should be free from writer and editor opinion and likewise divorced from the business side. Among the specific areas I would be asked to review, in addition to unwarranted opinion, were factuality, balance, tone, personal intrustion vs. the public’s right to know, sensitivity, story placement, headlines, photo captions, bias, good taste and the content of photos and artwork.

The position reported at first to the executive editor. Now it reports to the publisher, who has increased the scope of responsibilities and authority to include contact with all other departments, at least at information levels.

As it occurs, most of my time is spent in telephone conversations with readers who have a complaint about the paper. I listen, take notes and ask questions to provide perspective. The more angry the reader, generally, the longer the call. Often, it’s important to get past the immediate issue to identify a personal or political agenda. Mondays through Fridays, the newsroom receives a report on that day’s traffic via computer; editors get hard copy at the afternoon front-page planning session; a printout is sent by interoffice mail to the publisher.

Generally, I receive calls or letters from 60 to 70 readers a week, with an overall ratio of five calls to one letter. This number allows time for the kind of personal interaction that not only solves problems, when they exist, but creates good will for the paper.

In the 12 months ended April 30, I had telephone or mail contact with slightly more than 1,700 readers. Of this number, approximately 1,285 outside the staff identified themselves by name. Another 188 men and 192 women sought anonymity for reasons ranging from fear of job loss to presumed personal safety to racism. I received 33 unsigned letters and also heard complaints about the product from two dozen reporters and editors.

About 16 percent of the readers who identified themselves utilized the ombuds at least twice, and about three-quarters of that number registered opinions three or more times, either speaking to a single issue or several subjects. The most strident group of callers was that of women who declined to identify themselves. All together, I estimate that I responded to about 3,700 calls and letters from May 1993 through April of this year, for a slight increase over the previous 12 months.

The most common complaints were that headlines were inaccurate or, at least in the readers’ minds, carried an inappropriate tone. Readers admonished the paper for bad math and bad grammar. They adamantly opposed pictures of violence or bloodshed, voiced resentment over what they considered media invasion into the lives of grieving private citizens and criticized the media collectively and The Bee, in particular, for what they said was “liberal bias.”

The topics that prompted the greatest response were crime, immigration, gun control, abortion, the gay community and just about anything to do with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Readers who identified themselves as “conservative” probably outnumbered those who called themselves “liberal” by 20 to 1. Given the marketplace, and that The Bee’s editorial posture is centrist to moderately liberal, that is hardly surprising.

“Did the readers’ participation have any effect on policy or practices?” you ask.

In short, you bet your life!

Numerous stories were prompted by readers’ input, readers’ knowledge resulted in important corrections and new features, including an extensive weather page and legislative updates, were developed through readers’ suggestions.

And here is a concrete example. Recently, editors moved several of the daily puzzles from the second page of the lifestyle section to a roving “corner” in classified. They left the crossword puzzle behind, however, which meant that people who work the crossword and another puzzle or puzzles had to deal with two sections instead of a single page and that certain puzzles floated hither and yon from day to day. Readers howled, and within 10 days of the initial move, the puzzles were back, and all together, on the second page of the lifestyle section. Several readers responded with “thank you” notes.

In addition to talking a lot on the phone, I address between two and four community-based organizations each month. Last year, I spoke to three dozen service, social, school and special-interest groups. Included were 6 a.m. breakfast sessions, dinner meetings and weekend assemblies in four of the five counties that the newspaper covers. Crowd size ranged from three people who gathered one foggy night in the library of a small oil and cattle town to 250 social- service professionals at their annual conference. My subjects ranged from the role of ombudsman to how a newspaper functions to media performance in a specific situation to press ethics and the First Amendment.

I allow at least 10 minutes at the end for audience participation. The questions raised and comments made generally are similar to those I hear on the phone or receive in the mail, with headlines again as the greatest irritant. Readers and I have engaged in numerous discussions about the public’s right to know vs. an individual’s right to privacy. We frequently have talked about the fairly common perception that the media display a liberal political bias.

I have two questions that I will pose if members of the audience seem hesitant to ask their own. The first is, “What can you tell me about your last contact with the press/the media/The Fresno Bee? Was it a positive or negative experience? How did you feel at the time, and how do you feel about the coverage, or lack of coverage, that followed?” If that doesn’t get things going, I ask, “What is the one thing about The Fresno Bee you would most like to change?” Seldom do I need the first question; almost never have I had to pose both. These discussions appear in my daily traffic reports.

Most groups are a pleasure to work with. Indeed, I recall only one that I consider truly hostile, and I have accepted all invitations extended.

Once I accept an invitation to speak, I approach the engagement much in the same way I approached an interview as a reporter. That is, I do my homework. I gather as much information as possible about the group from the person who made contact. I use The Bee’s electronic library in order to evaluate the coverage it received in the last two years and help me figure out what issues that audience might want to address.

Learning what I can about a group also helps me to formulate my approach as a speaker — whether, for instance, I want to sit on the edge of a table or stand behind a podium — and to reflect on my physical presence. I tailor my appearance and manner to each group, and I neither view that as manipulative or toady. My intention is to remove unnecessary barriers so that we, as representatives of the press and public, can participative in a cooperative, unrestrained exchange.

I don’t contend that speaking to groups is everybody’s idea of a good time. But I believe that accepting this level of intimacy helped me to more fully and more quickly establish a voice — and reputation — as the readers’ representative and, when appropriate, the readers’ advocate. It has expanded the forum for discussion well beyond what the telephone and mail can provide. It has given new numbers of readers a chance to speak out on the editorial conduct and content of their Bee. And that’s a real payoff to the paper.

What I hear from readers, be it by phone or mail or through groups, provides the substance for the ombudsman’s column, which appears Sundays in an anchored position on what is called the “Vision” page. Vision runs inside the B section of the newspaper, immediately before the editorial and second-opinion pages. There is talk of establishing a free-standing Vision section, a move that would increase visability of this column and, as a consequence, I believe, prompt additional numbers to contact the ombudsman.

Sometimes I base my column on the most popular issue of the week, sometimes on a trend and sometimes on a topic that simply strikes my fancy. Most often, I use it to address areas in which I think the paper has erred — that is, areas about which readers have complained and I consider their complaints to be valid. I use the column that way because the power lies with the paper. As a result, it has become an effective means by which readers can hold The Bee accountable for its actions and content. Upon occasion, I devote a column to newspaper procedures so that readers can better understand the news-delivery process. I think this also helps them to better appreciate the product and the effort that is necessary to produce it.

In the last two months, among the subjects I have covered are: a headline that offended the Armenian-American community, management’s unwise decision to move several word games, a controversial story involving athletes at a state university, incomplete coverage given to a raging speech in Fresno by Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam and women’s sports coverage.

The Farrakhan discussion was spread over two weeks, which is unusual. Generally, I contain a subject in one writing and, frequently, columns deal with two or more topics.

I follow a general format of beginning with the readers’ concern, move to a response from staff and end with my evaluation of whose view is correct and why. When appropriate, I offer suggestions that are intended to prevent the repetition of similar mishaps.

I write Friday morning for Sunday publicaton. The column is read by a copy editor for purposes of factual errors, grammar and style. The column is not subject to an editor’s or to the publisher’s approval, but I do distribute copies on Friday afternoon to the publisher, managing editor and any staff members who are named as a matter of courtesy. That the column is not subject to prior approval — to censorship — is not just critical, it is vital and essential and central to the ombudsman being able to function effectively as an independent voice.

An uncensored column amounts to the willingness of a newspaper to “go public” about its mistakes, and on this subject Ben Bradlee spoke candidly to the Columbia Journalism Review before his retirement as editor of the Washington Post. Said Bradlee, a freely written ombudsman’s column “prevents editors from sweeping anything under the rug. You have a representative out there who’s saying, ‘Don’t do that. You guys goofed. You fell short of your goals.’”

Anything less than that sort of support from the highest levels of your publishing company should be unacceptable.

A final phase of the ombudsman’s job is that of public relations, and I consider it an important element, too. The ombudsman is there to give readers access to the paper that they don’t otherwise have. They don’t otherwise have it because they don’t know someone on staff or they don’t know whom to call or even that it’s OK to call, and they don’t otherwise have it because reporters and editors don’t always have the time — or inclination — to stop what they’re doing to answer a reader’s question or complaints.

Providing that sort of access is the first reason we exist. Spreading the message of a free press, making people feel part of the process and helping them with their newspaper needs and wants is an outgrowth of that. This can be as simple as sending someone a copy of a clipping she lost, greeting readers at the county fair, reading to kids at a school or spending an extra minute on the phone with an elderly person who lives alone. Whatever, it makes the reader — your customer — feel good and it doesn’t result in any compromise on the newspaper’s part. It creates an alliance that is especially important in these days of increased competition and discouraging advertising and circulation statistics.

My conclusions?

I have learned in my three-and-one-half years as a news ombudsman is that it is much easier to deal with the public than it is with the newsroom, which I suspect is true because the newsroom generally is the object of challenge. Few of us take criticism truly well.

I’ve also found that readers feel passionately about their paper and that they take a proprietary interest in its performance. They are personally disappointed when it errs — or they believe that it errs. To this end, I’ve found that most readers are polite in their criticism, even when wronged, and that the overwhelming majority will accept an explanation as to how and why something happened, even when they disagree with the outcome. What they want to know is that very real thinking, and perhaps even debate, occured in the decision making.

Let me end with a quote from one of my favorite ombudsmen, Joann Byrd of the Washington Post. Said Byrd in her maiden column, “To my eye, ethical journalism is a reasoning process, a careful weighing of moral principles and real-world consequences that can result in several morally right answers. I want newspapers to have good-enough reasons when they offend or harm people.”

The news ombudsman helps make that happen. It is a position that I feel should exist at papers large and small — for the good of the press, as part of our self-regulation, and for the good of readers.