Nearly 31/2 years ago I introduced myself as the new public editor for The Oregonian. Today, thousands of telephone calls, e-mails and postal exchanges later, I am about to make room for a fresh perspective in this position.
Michael Arrieta-Walden will take over the public editor duties June 16. Arrieta-Walden most recently has been coordinating editor, a role that has involved him in significant roles with all parts of the newsroom.
His appointment reflects the importance that the newspaper ombudsman position continues to hold at The Oregonian in the eyes of Sandy Rowe, the newspaper’s editor, and of the publisher, Fred A. Stickel. Arrieta-Walden will be the fourth public editor dating to its inception in 1994.
The public editor position provides readers a contact inside the newsroom who is not personally involved in writing, editing or selecting stories. That independence from the daily decisions allows the public editor to step back and assess the newspaper’s performance.
The duties include listening to readers who want to air a gripe, make a suggestion or cite a mistake. The calls and e-mails get attention here. In a given month, half to three-quarters of The Oregonian’s published corrections begin with a call from a reader or a source.
In 2002, we averaged 57 corrections a month. Although the newsroom is watchful for mistakes, human error inevitably finds its way into the tens of thousands of facts in print each week.
When we learn of an error, we correct anything significant. The threshold for “significant” is low. For instance, we might correct a small historical reference that has no current ramifications.
Most often, corrections address a misstated name, location, time or date or perhaps a numerical matter.
Whatever the problem, the newspaper that does not publish corrections is lying to itself and to its readers.
I have learned a few things while in this position, and I have become tougher in my expectations of this newspaper and of myself. Among the lessons:
We raise reader eyebrows with small, unneeded judgments and labels. Reader allegations of sharp bias often are broad and, in truth, off the mark. The newsroom is neither a left-wing nor a right-wing movement. However, labeling in little ways encourages such doubts.
A few examples: a reference to a “wildly popular” state income tax refund kicker; a statement that supporters of a property tax proposal in the Beaverton School District waged an “expensive” campaign; a comment that a public agency offered a “frugal” budget.
The natural reaction to such terminology is, “Who says?” We need to provide context and let the reader decide the frugality of a budget or the popularity of a state program.
We damage our credibility when we make basic geographical errors, including spellings of place names. “Camus” is a city in Washington? No, it is Camas. Minnesota has assumed Wisconsin’s name, and the reverse? So a map told us. Lithuania is a Balkan country? No, it is a Baltic country.
Newspapers can be slow to pick up on issues that are drawing the attention of their readers. With myriad sources of information from print to broadcast to the Internet, people’s appetites for and awareness of specific information have grown.
For example, the depth of sentiments that fed antiwar protests was great — locally, nationally, internationally — before editors across the country fully understood that the movement had grown beyond routine opposition.
Internet-fed discussions questioning details of the rescue of POW Jessica Lynch were on the minds of numerous readers before many newspapers in this country reported on the debate.
In the end, the most important lesson has been this: Everyone has a right to ask any news source, print or broadcast, “How do you know that?”
If the reporters, editors and commentators cannot provide the answer, something is wrong. Readers and listeners need to call them on it.
