A detailed agenda will be sent out soon, but for your planning purposes and travel arrangements, there will be an executive meeting beginning at noon on Sunday, May 15. A welcoming reception will take place for all attendees that evening. The conference will conclude at noon on Wednesday, May 18.

The 2010 ONO Conference will be held May 12-15 at Reuters Institute, Oxford University in Oxford, England. The theme is “Expanding ONO’s Influence in a Digital Age.”

The conference will feature a session on how we all cope with maintaining values and ethics in the new media landscape ,which will take place in a modern lecture theatre at St Anne’s College.

Participants will have a chance to engage in the time-honoured pastime of punting on the river before drinks and dinner at an old boathouse, savour a splendid meal in venerable Exeter College (founded 1314), join a walking tour of the ancient university and much more besides.

The High Victorian Randolph Hotel has agreed to cut its price to £160 for a double room for conference attendees, and there are cheaper options available.

Following is a tentative schedule for the conference:

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 – Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Department of Politics & International Relations, University of Oxford, 13 Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PS, UK.

13h30 Executive Committee Meeting
– Approve conference agenda
– Financial report
– Executive director evaluation
– New business
– Adjourn

18h30 – Cherwell Boat House, Bardwell Road, Oxford

– Welcome reception, punting

19h30 — Dinner

Thursday May 13, 2010, St. Anne’s College Oxford, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6HS, UK
Day One: “CHANGING ONO FOR A CHANGING MEDIA?”

08h15 – Breakfast session with coffee and croissants
Welcome: Stephen Pritchard

08h30 – “Mutualized Media”, Alan Rusbridger, Editor, The Guardian

09h45 – Using social media to report on Iran. Blogger “Oxfordgirl”

10h45 – Coffee

11h15 – Dr. David Levy, Director, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism

12h30 – Lunch

14h00 – “Networked Journalism”, Charlie Beckett, Director, POLIS, London School of Economics.

15h00 – Coffee

15.15 – Defining an Ombudsman in a Digital World, (Sally Begbie, SBS, Australia)

16h00 – Shop talk

17h00 – End of day’s session

19h30 – Dinner at Exeter College, Turl Street, Oxford

Friday May 14, 2010, St. Anne’s College
Day Two: “NEW CONNECTIONS FOR AN EVOLVING ONO”

09h30 – Press Councils and Ombudsmen: A New Partnership? John Hamer Washington (State) Press Council, John Horgan (Irish Press Council); William Gore, Press Complaints Commission (UK).

10h45 – Coffee

11h00 –A Proposal: Extending the ONO Brand (and making some money as well). (Ed Wasserman.)

12h30 – Lunch

13h30 – Ombudsmen on the Road: A report from our far-flung emissaries.

(CB Hanif, Sally Begbie, Mike Getler, Jacob Mollerup, Taleh Shasuvarli).

15h00 – Coffee

15h30 – Shop talk.

17h00 – Adjourn

Optional walking tour of Oxford. Learn more about the history of the university city

Evening free to explore Oxford’s restaurants.

Saturday, May 15, 2010, St. Anne’s College
Day Three: Business meeting

10h00 — Business meeting
– President’s report (Stephen Pritchard)
– Financial report (Debbie Kornmiller)
– Executive director’s report (Jeffrey Dvorkin)
– Election of officers 2010-2011 (Yavuz Baydar)
– 2011 conference
– New business

12h00 — Adjourn

WHERE
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

PRELIMINARY AGENDA

Sunday, May 10
National Public Radio (NPR)
635 Massachusetts Ave, N.W.

1 p.m. – 5 p.m. — ONO Board Meeting in Board Rooms East & West, 1st floor (lunch not provided)

5 p.m. – 6 p.m. — Optional Gathering at NPR

All ombudsmen and their guests are encouraged to meet in the board rooms at NPR to tour the recording studios and observe a taping of the flagship show “All Things Considered” before going to dinner

7:30 p.m. – 10:30 p.m. — ONO-sponsored dinner at Busboys & Poets Restaurant, 1025 5th Street N.W. (5th and K St. N.W.)

ONO members and spouses are welcome to join us at the restaurant for dinner in a private loft reserved exclusively for conference attendees. Cash bar.

Monday, May 11
The Washington Post
1150 15th St., N.W.

9:30 a.m. — Registration and sign-in at the lobby auditorium

Option to purchase tickets for Wednesday’s trip to the Newseum

Coffee and breakfast pastries will be provided.

10 a.m. -11 a.m. — News Ombudsmanship: A Worldwide Survey
A visual presentation on the findings of a joint survey into the global impact of news ombudsmanship
Featuring: Jan van Groesen, Media-ombudsmen, The Netherlands, and Huub Evers, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands

11:30 a.m. – 1 p.m. — Emerging Ombudsmanship
Moderator: Ian Mayes (The Guardian)
Featuring: Miklos Haraszti, Representative of the Freedom of Media, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (Caucasus, Central Asia)
Panel: Tarmu Tammerk (Estonia), Yavuz Baydar (Turkey), Sally Begbie (Australia) and Jacob Mollerup (Denmark)

1 p.m. – 2 p.m. — Light lunch sponsored by The Washington Post
Welcoming remarks by Marcus Brauchli, Executive Editor

2 p.m. – 4 p.m. — Shoptalk: How We Do Our Jobs
Ombudsmen tackle examples of problems presented by members and offer their solutions, followed by breakout sessions on print, Web and broadcasting.

Moderator: Clark Hoyt (The New York Times)

Attendees may return to their hotels before arriving on their own at the Newseum for a reception and panel discussion. (See map for walking and metro directions.)

6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. — ONO-Sponsored Reception at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Knight Conference Center, 8th floor (Use 6th Street entrance)

Events are open to ombudsmen, guests and invited media professionals.

7:30 p.m. – 9 p.m. — Panel discussion: Why Have an Ombudsman?
Moderator: Jeffrey Dvorkin, Ryerson University (Canada)
Panel: Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director, Annenberg Public Policy Center; Kevin Klose, dean, University of Maryland Journalism School; Mark Whitaker, Washington Bureau Chief, NBC News; and Katharine Weymouth, CEO, The Washington Post)

Tuesday, May 12
National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Ave N.W.

Please join us at NPR’s headquarters for the second day of meetings in Board Rooms East and West, 1st floor

9 a.m. — Welcoming remarks by Vivian Schiller, president and CEO, National Public Radio

9:30 a.m. – 11 a.m. — The Ombudsman and the Blogosphere
Moderator: Alicia Shepard (Ombudsman, NPR)
Featuring: a 10 minute presentation by Siobhain Butterworth (The Guardian) on the blogosphere
Main Speakers: Le Anne Schreiber (Ombudsman, ESPN) and Jack Shafer (Press Critic, Slate)

11 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. — Coffee break

11:30 a.m. – 1 p.m. — State of Journalism and the Look Ahead
Speaker: Tom Rosenstiel, Director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

1 p.m. – 2 p.m. — NPR-Sponsored Light Lunch

2 p.m. – 4 p.m. — ONO Annual General Meeting, Business Agenda

5 p.m. – 11 p.m. — ONO-Sponsored Dinner Boat Cruise
All ombudsmen and guests are welcome aboard the Nina’s Dandy cruise ship, located at “Zero” Prince Street on the waterfront in Alexandria, Virginia

Free transportation will be provided to and from the pier. The shuttle bus departs Henley Hotel (026 Massachusetts Ave.) promptly at 5 p.m. and will return to the hotel at approximately 11 p.m. For those guests who have their own transportation, please arrive at the dock by 6 p.m. for boarding.

Wednesday, May 13
The New York Times Washington Bureau
1627 I St., N.W. (16th & I St., N.W.)

9:30 a.m. — Gather for our last day of ONO’s sessions
Coffee and bagels will be provided.

Don’t forget to claim any pre-purchased tickets for entry to the Newseum this afternoon.

10 a.m. – Noon — Shoptalk: How Do We Survive?
Discussion led by ONO President Stephen Pritchard on the future role, membership and composition of ONO in a changing and uncertain media environment

Noon — ONO Conference Adjournment
(lunch not provided)

Closing remarks by Stephen Pritchard

Afternoon activity
Option for Newseum Tour

This presentation was given at ONO’s 2009 conference in Washington, D.C.
By Huub Evers
Media-ombudsmen, The Netherlands

Two years ago, the Netherlands Media Ombudsman Foundation started its activities. This foundation has been set up by journalists to raise a voice from inside journalism about ethics and quality standards on a national level for traditional and digital media. It is the goal of the MON-foundation to speak out about ethics issues in journalism, to open a debate about the ruling journalistic standards and the need for adaptation of existing or introduction of new standards for the news media, including the digital ones. The foundation wants to raise more awareness among journalists of their responsible role in a democratic society, hoping this will underline the importance of quality journalism.

An important goal of the foundation is stimulating and facilitating scientific research. At this moment, two research projects are being done: one on ethics codes in journalism, paying special attention to online journalism. This is a project conducted by a PhD-student of Amsterdam University. The other one is the news ombudsman research we are presenting and discussing today.

My name is Huub Evers. I am a professor of media, ethics and diversity at Fontys School of Journalism in Tilburg. I have a BA and MA in theology and ethics and a PhD in communications from Amsterdam University. My thesis Journalism and Ethics dealt with the verdicts of the Dutch Press council. I have been teaching and researching since more than 25 years in the field of media ethics.

I have been a lecturer of communication ethics at Amsterdam University and a guest lecturer of media ethics at Syracuse University and Le Moyne College in the USA, Ankara University in Turkey and Groningen University in the Netherlands.

I am the author of several books and articles on media and communication ethics and intercultural journalism.

The news ombudsman research has been conducted by Fontys School of Journalism in cooperation with the Netherlands Media Ombudsman Foundation. These were our main research questions:

1. What different kinds of ombudsmen can be found in the Netherlands and elsewhere?
2. How do they work and what about the influence they have on journalistic processes and products?
3. To what degree they can operate independently and critically towards their editorial staff?
4. To what degree and how do they contribute to self-regulation and quality improvement of the media involved?

I. ONO Survey findings:

A survey has been filled out by the participants of the ONO conference held in Stockholm, May 2008. This is what we wanted to know:

* where do they work?
* what backgrounds do they have?
* do they have a statute and/or a column?
* what about their competences?
* what issues are mostly being complained of?
* what are the main topics of their columns?

The conference in Stockholm has been attended by about forty participants. 25 of them are working as an ombudsman or readers’ representative. Three participants were a former ombudsman. The survey has been filled out by 18 participants.

Worldwide, we found at least six categories of ombudsmen and readers’ representatives:

1. The independent ombudsman having his or her own statute.
2. The ombudsman without a statute.
3. The ombudsman doing this job as a sideline.
4. The ombudsman charged with PR and marketing duties as well.
5. The lawyer charged with the duty as an ombudsman to prevent insurance claims in legal cases and Press Council complaints.
6. The ombudsman charged with the duty to watch and, if needed, to censor the journalistic content.

There is a variety in function designation as well:

1. ombudsman (9)
2. readers’ editor (4)
3. public editor (2)
4. readers’ representative (1)
5. advisor on journalism ethics (1)
6. community advocate (1)

In almost all cases, (16 out of 18), the decision to appoint an ombudsman has been taken by management and/or editor-in-chief. Twice, the appointment was a consequence of a governmental decision in a media law.

Almost every ombudsman (17 out of 18) has a background in journalism. The other person is a lawyer. He is the one designing his position as community advocate.

A majority (11 out of 18) has been working in the company where they later on have been appointed ombudsman. Formerly, they were active as a member of the editorial staff or management team.

Almost everyone (16 out of 18) is doing his job as an ombudsman more or less full time.

They are performing following tasks:

1. dealing with complaints of readers, viewers or listeners (18)
2. mediating between public and editorial staff (13)
3. monitoring reports with regard to fairness and accuracy (12)
4. advising the editorial staff (7)

A majority (11 out of 18) has its own statute always laying down an independent position.

In almost all cases (16), the editorial staff has the obligation to cooperate with the ombudsman’s investigations. Four respondents mention the editorial staff has to adopt the ombudsman’s conclusions. One respondent says the editorial staff has to publish a correction if the ombudsman wants them to do so.

What subjects does the public complain about the most?

* Bias 9
* Factual mistakes 8
* Inaccuracy 6
* Unfair conduct 4
* Language issues 3
* Bad taste 3
* Lack of balance in reporting local affairs 2
* Paying less or none attention to issues 2
* Opinions and analyses 2
* Pictures and cartoons 2
* Need for explanation 2

Columns

Almost all ombudsmen (17 out of 18) do have a spoken or written column or a website or a blog. Ten ombudsmen having a column at their disposal, write it weekly. Two ombudsmen write their columns irregularly, two others monthly, two others (both on the internet) daily or almost daily.

All respondents say they decide themselves the subjects of their columns.

Almost all respondents write their columns on the basis of complaints and their own observations. Just one respondent says he writes his columns only based on his own observations.

Four ombudsmen beforehand offer their column to the editor-in-chief for inspection. They do so just to inform him. One of these respondents observed that this procedure actually is not a good one. Another ombudsman beforehand announces the subject of his column, so that the editor in chief can explain about it if desired.

Three ombudsmen don’t offer their column beforehand for inspection, eight do so sometimes. If columns are being offered to the chief editor, it’s just for his information.

Following issues are mostly being raised in the columns:

* Pictures 3
* Ethical problems 3
* Language 2
* Standards in online journalism 2
* Balanced reporting 2

II. Dutch ombudsmen and readers’ representatives

We made an overview of the Dutch situation: what papers and broadcasting organizations do have an ombudsman or a readers’ representative? Do they have an independent position, a statute, a weekly column?

Our inventory shows a great variety as well. There are three ombudsmen in the Netherlands, one working for a national daily, one for a local daily and one for the Dutch public service broadcasting organization. Then, there are eight readers’ representatives, all working for local dailies.

Three persons (two ombudsmen and a readers’ representative) do have an independency statute. In six cases, their independency is laid down in a contract or job description. Two readers’ representatives are not presumed to speak or write critically about their newspaper. The editor-in-chief doesn’t appreciate a critical stand.

Seven of them do have a weekly column.

Two persons are full time active as an ombudsman. The others do have a lot of activities such as editorial tasks, supervisor of trainees or public relations activities.

In the Netherlands, a variety of practice and task perception is to be seen: journalistic watchdogs and marketing and PR officers. Explainers of editorial procedures and organizers of readers’ events.

Readers’ representatives who just react to readers’ questions and explain what went wrong and how it could happen.

III. Analysis of ombudsmen’s columns

This variety is also to be seen in the analysis of the columns of the Dutch ombudsmen of Volkskrant and NOS and the readers’ editor of Rotterdams Dagblad.

We made an analysis of 200 columns of the Volkskrant ombudsman, 170 columns of the readers representative of Rotterdams Dagblad and 57 columns of the NOS ombudsman.

Till 2005, Het Rotterdams Dagblad was an independent local daily with a circulation of about 90.000 copies in the area of the city of Rotterdam. Now, this newspaper has merged into the national daily Het Algemeen Dagblad.

The readers’ representative of Rotterdams Dagblad particularly is the senior journalist who reacts on questions and remarks of the public and who explains the editorial practice, standards and rules. In his opinion, this reacting and explaining the daily newspaper practice must be an important part of his job. Readers come forward rather with questions than complaints. This readers’ representative, in charge between 2001 and 2005, was the only one in the Netherlands not originating from the editorial staff of the paper itself.

Main topics of his columns:

1. Most complaints and replies dealt with mistakes and inaccuracy in reports (29).
2. In 18 columns, he explained the editorial policy, e.g. the policy concerning publishing pictures or using press releases or not.
3. Language issues are the subjects of 14 columns, not always as a complaint but as a result of replies of language freaks.
4. In 14 columns, the issue of the news pictures has been discussed.
5. Privacy protection of suspects, criminals and victims is the subject of 11 columns.

It’s remarkable, that the subjects of more than half of the columns (93 out of 170) originate from observations of the readers’ representative himself and not, though not directly, from the readers. In 20% of the columns, the readers’ representative is critical of editorial processes or products, mostly in very reserved terms.

In 28 columns, ethical topics are under discussion.

De Volkskrant is a national daily, an Amsterdam based left wing quality paper with a circulation of about 265.000 copies.

The ombudsman of De Volkskrant is more a reviewer than an explainer. He is the watchdog of the editorial staff. Guiding principle is his opinion, that the editorial staff of his paper has to maintain high quality standards and that they have the duty to put in practice these standards every day.

Main topics of the columns:

1. The issue of ‘standards in online journalism’ is under discussion in 17 columns in a wide variety of aspects: do the same rules and standards apply to the newspapers website than to the paper itself?
2. Another topic that frequently is at stake, in 16 columns, is the privacy protection of suspects, criminals, victims and others: what about the papers carefulness?
3. In 15 columns the ombudsman deals with what he calls “being in moderation”: doesn’t the newspaper pay too much attention to some topics? Isn’t the combination of picture and text too excessive in some cases?
4. Language is a rewarding subject as well: 13 columns deal with style and spelling mistakes, suggestive use of words and vulgarization of language.
5. Frequently readers complain, that headlines don’t fit in with the content: suggestive or sometimes even incorrect headlines are being discussed in 13 columns.

Looking back over the full amount of 200 columns, the most striking finding is, that about a half the columns (98) is based on observations of the ombudsman himself, either because he got annoyed at reports in the paper, or because he explained the editorial policy or he paid attention to important events and developments in the media.

The other half deals with readers’ replies: sometimes a question, but mostly criticism and complaints, e.g. regarding editorial choices.

In the half of all columns (105), the ombudsman criticizes, sometimes very severely, the editorial staff or the editor in chief in particular. In the other half, he agrees with the staff or he explains the papers policy.

Almost the half deals with journalism ethics topics, e.g. privacy protection, the use of anonymous sources and the standards at the papers website.

Sometimes he uses his column as to clarify his own position: what about his independency? Does the editorial staff really take notice of his criticism or is it rather a matter of window dressing?

It has also struck me, that the ombudsman in his columns pays much attention to maintaining the own standards by the editorial staff. In his opinion, the paper must hold on to its norms and standards.

That’s what the readers want it to do. That’s exactly why they have subscribed to this paper.

I also have noticed, that he regularly stresses, especially in his latest columns, the need for transparency and accountability: to explain editorial choices and approaches to the public.

An important issue is the representativeness of the complainers: what does the ombudsman actually know about the people who come forward with their questions and remarks? Is it a matter of exceptions or the tip of the iceberg?

The NOS, Netherlands Broadcasting Foundation, rather late, in 2007, appointed an ombudsman. NOS means Dutch Public Service Broadcasting Organization. It’s the biggest and most important broadcaster of news, current affairs and sports programs on radio and tv in the Netherlands, 24 hours a day. The NOS site on the internet is one of the most favorite news sites.

The board of directors of this broadcasting organization had a varied goal. The presence of an ombudsman should lead to more transparency and accountability, to quality improvement of the reports, to a better access for the public and to an increasing awareness of the producers for what’s going on in society.

He deals with complaints and writes a column, where he comments journalistic processes and products. He tests this by the broadcasting code of ethics. Besides, he pays attention to general topics in media and journalism.

Formally, the ombudsman is independent. His findings and conclusions are submitted to the editorial staffs. His columns are being sent as a newsletter to the staff rooms and discussed in the staff meetings. Sometimes, he attends the meetings himself to discuss his columns. The columns are being published on the website and the teletext. He has a weekly talk on the public radio.

The ombudsman has been in charge over more than a year. In that period, he wrote about sixty columns. Following journalistic topics have been under discussion:

1. Neutrality versus values judgments (11). Viewers think, that a public service broadcasting organization has the task to be neutral and as objective as possible.
2. The newsworthiness (10)
3. Privacy issues (6)
4. Completeness and double check (5)
5. Accountability (4)

Compared with his colleagues, the public broadcasting ombudsman seems to take up a middle position. He regularly is critical to processes and products, but explains how these processes are going as well. Besides, he offers the opportunity to editorial staffs to give their explanations.

After having analyzed his columns, it’s our conclusion, that this ombudsman is a critical one, who contributes to transparency and accountability. He has the courage to pass negative judgments, well-founded with arguments and observations.

To our opinion, he refers too less to the ethics code. Making references to other media, he is too less explicit and sometimes he applies double standards: on the one hand he stresses that broadcasters have to keep to their own standards, on the other hand he uses other media as an apology: they did it the same way …

Summarizing the findings of this three ombudsman’s columns, we can distinguish three kinds of ombudsmen and readers’ representatives:

1. the in-house critic who acts as a quality watchdog, testing processes and products by ethics codes or guidelines
2. the in-house critic and watchdog who doesn’t test the editorial practice by ethics standards.
3. the senior journalist who reacts to the public and explains the daily practice of an editorial staff

IV. Conclusions

To our opinion, our research shows, that there are more than enough findings as to conclude, that the news ombudsman in an outstanding way contributes to improvement of journalistic quality. As soon as journalists know that there is someone critically and publicly (in his column) reviewing their daily practice and seriously dealing with complaints of the public on journalistic products, this unmistakably radiates a quality impetus.

For news media willing to increase their reliability to the public and to enhance their journalistic quality, an ombudsman is one of the most appropriate instruments. It seems to be plausible, that media gain reliability and soundness, if the editorial policies are being made accessible for the public.

As far as a shift in task description of an ombudsman is going on, namely from editorial critic to PR officer or even legal advisor, this development doesn’t help self-regulation in journalism. The self-regulatory effect of an ombudsman mainly exists in publishing well-founded judgments on journalistic practice.

The degree of independency of an ombudsman and its effect for his position is hard to conclude, even in cases where this has been laid down in a statute. Many ombudsmen, the ones with a statute included, notice to be accountable to the editor in chief or publisher. According to our research, it’s a well-founded impression that the really independent ombudsman, critically judging journalistic practice, belongs to a small minority.

V. Recommendations

Ideally the ombudsman is a person

1. who is dealing appropriately and adequately and in a fully independent way with complaints of the public,
2. who critically and publicly judges the quality and presentation of the journalistic products of the media involved,
3. who tests his judgments and opinions by the ethics standards of the media involved,
4. who places his judgments in the context of relevant topics of journalistic ethics.

To eliminate existing scepticism in society, the ombudsman must have the opportunity to operate fully independently. He does not form part of the editorial staff and does not participate in editorial meetings. He compares journalistic products with the ethics standards and communicates his analyzes and judgments to the public. That means that ethics standards must be public and accessible for readers and viewers, e.g. through the website. These standards must be made explicit in the ombudsman’s publications. His procedure must be transparent as well as his statute must be public.

It’s also important, that an ombudsman or readers’ representative is well accessible him- or herself. A newspaper or broadcasting organization must publish his e mail address, phone number and office-hours in the colophon and on the homepage.

To promote a worldwide uniformity of the news ombudsman’s role, it’s advisable to use the ONO Mission Statement as a basis for his way of working. It must be stated, that every news organization must have the freedom to draft its own ethics code.

Is it preferable to appoint an ombudsman coming from the editorial staff itself or from the outside? There is an advantage in being a former chief editor or staff member. They know the editorial culture. An outsider may have a greater possibility to act in a fully independent way, certainly if he is appointed for a limited period. That’s why it’s not an ideal situation to have an editor-in-chief, weekly publishing a letter himself or dealing with questions from the audience. On the one hand, his recommendations are more significant for the editorial policy than the ones of an ombudsman or readers’ representative can be, on the other hand there is no independent critical review.

Especially this independence is very important. Moreover, an ombudsman must be well informed about journalistic practice and the existing standards. And he must enjoy the confidence of staff and chief editor. To be reliable for readers or viewers, he must take a critical stand to the staff. That means that he permanently reviews processes and products to the journalistic and ethical principles and standards.

That’s the way people with their complaints and remarks have an easy access to a person who takes great paints over it and who challenges the staff to give chapter and verse. That’s an important contribution to the transparency and self-regulation of journalism.

This presentation was given at ONO’s 2009 conference in Washington, D.C.
By Jan van Groesen
Media-ombudsmen, The Netherlands

At the start of this conference it would be very easy to paint a gloomy picture of international journalism and the dark perspectives of the newsombudsman related to it. Because reality tells us a harsh story. It is the story that journalists have to adapt to a development in which the good old newspapers are overhauled by internet as the main source of news. According to a recent survey of Pew Research Center, television is the most popular source of information in the United States, but it is rapidly declining. 40 Percent of Americans are getting their news from the internet. Five years ago it was 20 percent. Newspapers are the main source of news for only 35 percent of the American population, against 50 percent in 2003.

In Europe and in other parts of the world the situation is somewhat different. Although the picture of newspapers having to struggle for survival is more or less identical, the closing down in this year alone of century-old newspapers like the Tucson Citizen, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Rocky Mountains News in the United States, is not yet seen elsewhere. In my own country, The Netherlands, many local newspapers disappeared in the last two decades, not for financial reasons but as a consequence of multiple take-overs and mergers, initiated by megalomaniac publishers. And if Dutch newspapers are struggling for survival at this moment, it is partly because of the economic downturn and the dramatic loss of advertising revenues but primarily because of irresponsible behaviour and mismanagement by greedy owners who are not interested in making newspapers but only in making money.

It is obvious that an international newspaper crisis is at hand. Traditional massmedia like newspapers and magazines are gradually moved towards the fringes of the informationsystem. Through internet and digital media, citizens have access to all the information they need to make their own personal newspaper, a Daily Me . Such a development is endangering democracy, as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently wrote, because individuals are not inclined to gather balanced news but only the information they want to consume. Sociologists have pointed out that human beings, in general, are only opting for news that mirrors their expectations, thus neglecting other opinions. This social phenomenon may lead to a lack of mutual understanding, miscommunication, and eventually intolerance and polarisation. In other words, a democratic society cannot afford to lose newspapers as an important means of information. Because newspapers still are the only newsmedia offering the public at one time the badly needed broadscaled mosaic of newsheadings. Thomas Jefferson already highlighted this opinion by saying:” Were it left to me to decide whether we would have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government I should not hesitate to prefer the latter”.

Everywhere efforts are made to prevent newspapers from closing down. In some cases printed newspapers in financial trouble have been transformed into online newspapers like the Christian Science Monitor. In other cases publishers are setting up crossmedia activities, trying to get a foothold in the market of the audiovisual media. In The Netherlands all the national and local newspapers have set up online editions, next to their print-editions. It is a positive development but one insufficient to compete succesfully with search engines, community-sites and personalised newspages. Therefore we should welcome initiatives in Europe and in the US that newspapers will be treated in the same way as public broadcasters. The upholding of newspapers in a democratic society is of public interest anyhow. So, turning newspapers into non-profit, endowed institutions, may be a solution. Because newspapers are institutions and without such an intervention any unruly government may well find inspiration by the absence of professional newspapers. I am not sure whether the plan of US senator Benjamin Cardin to create specific public newspapers will bring the solution because the independent position of the newspaper must be paramount.

As an important side-effect of the newspaper crisis there is an urgent need worldwide for redefining the role of journalism. Strengthening the quality of journalism and introducing large-scale initiatives of selfregulation are vital elements of this redefinition. The position of the newsombudsman has to play an important part because it is an instrument not only suited for print media, but for audiovisual and digital media as well. We have to rise to the challenges journalism is facing in this period of structural and economic crisis. About the difference between empirical reality and ratio the seventeenth-century English philosopher Francis Bacon argued that human beings are not primarily made for collecting data or spinning webs, but for changing reality.

To establish the position of newsombudsmen, which has not yet gained ground on a global scale, we have to change reality. The instrument of the newsombudsman is under pressure for reasons I have already indicated. In a time of shrinking budgets, the revolutionary surge of digital media and the easiness of direct e-mailcontact between consumers and journalists, newsombudsmen are vulnerable targets for cost accounting managers. As Nancy Barnes, editor-in-chief of the Minneapolis’ Star Tribune, said: “ At a time when resources are tight, we have had to make some very difficult decisions about how every resource is being used. Right now, I believe we owe the readers more smart journalists reporting and editing the news than critiquing the news”

In the US last year and this year at least 10 newsombudsmen lost their job. The same tendency can be registered in other parts of the world. And although some new ombudsmenpositions were created, the total number of ombudsmen went down. It is a very positive development though that ONO has welcomed new members like Andrew Alexander of the Washington Post, Mara Gama of a big Brasilian internetcompany and Mark Prendergast of the Stars and Stripes. And one should not underestimate the interest the president of ONO has signalled in African countries where ONO has been asked to help establish ombudsmen in Uganda, Kenya en Tanzania.

In The Netherlands, in order to outline the position of newsombudsmen, the Netherlands Media Ombudsman Foundation and Fontys University School of Journalism, started a research project on newsombudsmen which was completed very recently. Different from existing scientific data, our research was focussed specifically on the impact the work of newsombudsmen has on the journalistic output of their newsorganizations.

Our findings are mainly based on:

* an overview of the situation in The Netherlands: what newspapers and broadcasting organizations have an ombudsman and what is his position?
* international readings on the position of newsombudsmen worldwide. What are the different types of newsombudsmen, their duties and responsibilities, their accountability?
* a survey filled out by the participants of the ONO-conference, held in Stockholm in May 2008. Where do ombudsmen work, what is their background, do they have a column to vent their opinions and an official list of regulations and guidelines. What issues are mostly discussed, what are the main topics of their columns/contributions?
* a detailed analysis of 200 ombudsman-columns of the Volkskrant, a leading national Dutch newspaper, of 170 columns of the readers representative of the Rotterdams Dagblad, a local daily in the city of Rotterdam and of 57 columns of the NOS-ombudsman, the Dutch Public Broadcasting Company,
* And finally, and perhaps most importantly, do newsombudsmen really have the opportunity to speak out in an independent and critical way about the editorial output? What is their independent judgement of the journalistic processes and products?

The findings of our research and the methods the different newsombudsmen are using to make their case will be explained in detail by dr. Huub Evers. But the headlines of our findings are:

1. The newsombudsman is one of the most suitable instruments for selfregulation of the press and for maintaining a high-quality level of journalism.
2. The performance of the newsombudsman enhances the transparency and credibility of his newsorganization.
3. If there is a shift in the position of the newsombudsman from critic of the editorial output to PR-man or legal advisor , it is at the expense of selfregulation.
4. The recent development in the US and elsewhere that ombudsmen have seen their position being marginalised or even disappearing, is contrary to the universal call for more openness and transparency of the newsmedia and undermines the efforts to strengthen the credibility of the press.
5. Blogs, websites and social networks are positive instruments of communication but cannot be a substitute for responsible journalism and the role of newsombudsmen.
6. There are at least 6 different forms of newsombudsmen throughout the world. An example of the big diversity: from the 11 ombudsmen or readers representatives at Dutch newspapers there are at least two who have been forbidden to speak out publicly in a critical way about the journalistic production of their newspaper.
7. The newsombudsmen whose positions are completely independent belong to a very small minority.
8. There are a lot of advantages to have a newsombudsman from inside the newsorganization, but hiring someone from outside may strengthen his credibility and the ombudsmans image of independency.

Nowadays it is broadly recognised that the revolution in the mediaworld, prompted by the introduction of internet and digital media, has undermined the traditional forum of discipline and selfdiscipline. In the interactive domain the use of indecent language, of insulting, spitting and cursing, is spreading like a virus, inciting division and hatred in society. This may harm the values of a democratic society. The position of the newsombudsman is perfectly apt to fill this disciplinary gap.

Therefore we feel free to formulate some recommendations:

1. The ideal newsombudsman is a journalist or media-expert, not a legal adviser or PR-man, who has a full-time job, weighing the journalistic output in a critical way against the ethical standards of journalism
2. The newsombudsman, to take away the existing scepticism in society, has to be fully independent. He is not a member of the editorial staff and does not take part in editorial meetings or coverage planning meetings. He does not report to the editor-in-chief or the publisher. He shares his free judgement with the public.
3. The ethical standards of journalism used by the newsombudsmen for his judgement shall be made public. The same goes for the ombudsmans guidelines and regulations.
4. To promote uniformity in the position of newsombudsmen, the ethical code of the Organization of Newsombudsmen ONO has to be the basis of their activities.
5. ONO, in order to help the position of newsombudsmen gaining ground worldwide, must have the necessary means to carry out this valuable task.

Let me elaborate for a moment on this last point. Because here again we have to change reality. ONO is the only organization to promote and defend the interests of newsombudsmen worldwide. In view of the vulnerable position of newsombudsmen it is imperative that ONO raises the necessary funds to establish itself more and more as a professional organization, working to prevent the institute of the newsombudsman falling victim to the present economic recession. For those of us who are reluctant to accept funds from third parties I can tell you this. We, in the Netherlands, do have a deeprooted feeling of press freedom and of independency for journalism. I have been involved, at home and abroad, in journalistic projects funded by organizations like the Open Society Institute, Freedom House, the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, the European Commission and others. Never did I experience any effort from the funding organizations to intervene and to harm the independent character of the projects.

That is why I hope this conference will bring about the changes needed to give the instrument of newsombudsmen a better future.

Thank you.

Panel discussion: Why Have an Ombudsman? Moderator: Jeffrey Dvorkin, Ryerson University (Canada); Panel: Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director, Annenberg Public Policy Center; Kevin Klose, dean, University of Maryland Journalism School; Mark Whitaker, Washington bureau chief, NBC News; and Katharine Weymouth, CEO, The Washington Post.

• Play video, Part 1
• Play video, Part 2

Video courtesy of National Public Radio and TV4, Stockholm.

Photos by Marcia A. Apperson

STOCKHOLM — The “Readers’ Editor” for The Observer of London was sightseeing here last week when his cell phone rang. It was a Kenyan journalist asking how his newspaper company might create the role of a news Ombudsman.

In the last decade, Kenya has enjoyed a surge in press freedom, a trend that’s paralleled the opening up of Kenya’s political system. One of the best testaments is the phone call from the editorial director for the Nation Media Group, who wanted an Ombudsman for his papers in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and two other countries in East Africa.

Another journalist from Kenya visited NPR this week and made the same point. “Media in Kenya is not restricted in any way,” even following the recent violence, said Nairobi radio journalist Tole Nyatta. “You can criticize the government. Seven or eight years ago, the government would threaten to close you. But now we are very independent and very robust.”

As the link between the public and the newsroom, the Ombudsman plays a key role in ensuring a news organization upholds its own standards as well as making sure audience concerns are taken seriously.

Kenya is not the only place where the press is becoming more free and where news organizations are considering adding Ombudsmen. In Central and Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America, there is a greater interest in the position, according to a meeting last week in Stockholm of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), which I attended.

However, in the United States — where press freedom is taken for granted, even when it’s under assault — the number of Ombudsmen at news organizations is declining, largely for budgetary reasons. Just a few years ago, 40 news organizations employed Ombudsmen (sometimes called “public editors” or “reader representatives.”) That’s not many, considering the United States has some 1,500 daily newspapers, three broadcast TV networks, several national radio networks, scores of cable networks, and thousands of local radio and TV stations.

Today, there are only 34 U.S. news ombudsmen, most of them at newspapers.In broadcast, only NPR, PBS, ESPN and WJAR-TV in Warwick, R.I. employ someone to act as a liaison between the newsroom and the audience. In the last year, four newspapers killed the position.

Worldwide, there are only 100 news Ombudsmen for newspapers, TV, radio and the Internet, according to Esben Orberg of the Danish Union of Journalists, who researched the role and gave a report at the ONO conference.

“Ombudsmen are growing in parts of the world where a free press is starting to assert itself,” said ONO President Pam Platt, the public editor at the Louisville Courier-Journal in Kentucky, the first paper in the U.S. to create the position.

Estonia is another country now enjoying press independence after decades of dictatorship. In 2004, Estonia joined the European Union, an important symbol of its new freedoms. Last year, the government created the position of Ombudsman for its public radio and TV. The first to hold the position, Tarmu Tammerk, writes internal criticism four or five times a week and has a monthly TV show where he shares his views publicly.

Tammerk sees great potential for other news Ombudsmen in Central and Eastern Europe because communist-state censorship is gone.

“These countries – the new member states in the European Union – have been able to build up free and democratic media systems for the past fifteen years,” said Tammerk. “There’s an even bigger potential for media Ombudsmen in the former Soviet republics, which are still struggling with how to turn former government broadcasters into public broadcasters, which would be journalistically independent.”

In Bogota, Columbia, two private television stations have Ombudsmen, who each produce weekly 30-minute TV shows critiquing their employers. “There’s definitely interest in Latin America,” said Consuelo Cedpeda Cediel with RCN Channel.

Brazil has two popular Internet sites, each with their own ombudsman, iG and UOL (Universe online).

Why have an Ombudsman?

Having an Ombudsman is a form of self-regulation by a news organization that the public should find heartening. An Ombudsman can point out publicly when a news organization is not living up to its own written standards and ethics. Having an Ombudsman indicates that a news organization is confident enough in its journalism to be publicly criticized by someone on its payroll.

While it may seem self-serving for me to say so, an Ombudsman also lends credibility to a news organization — as long as the person is contractually independent and cannot be fired for her comments. The role encourages self-criticism within the news organization, something that editors and reporters often don’t have the time, or the appetite, to engage in. Think of it as quality control.

“Reporters and editors have a tendency to brush off criticism,” said Michael Getler, PBS’ Ombudsman. “If you have an independent Ombudsman who says, ‘You are wrong. You violated your own guidelines,’ that definitely makes them think.”

Getler knows. After 21 years with the Washington Post as a foreign correspondent, reporter and editor, he spent five years as the paper’s Ombudsman before joining PBS in 2005.

While it is true that some news organizations, especially in the electronic media, have editors for ‘standards and practices,’ the role is largely internal and doesn’t involve dealing directly with the public.

“The public likes to know there’s somebody there listening to their criticisms,” said Getler. “An Ombudsman makes news organizations live up to their own standards. An editor is too close.”

Meanwhile, the editorial director for Kenya’s Nation Media Group has asked ONO for help in writing a job profile so he can hire an in-house critic. Considering the dozens of polls that repeatedly tell of the media’s loss of credibility in this country, it is unfortunate that more U.S. news outlets aren’t willing to take this same step toward regaining public esteem.