Perhaps it is time to explain again what an ombudsman does.
After last week’s column, in which I expressed doubts about certain criticisms of NPR, I received this rebuke from Dr. James McGregor:
I would like to ask for a clarification of the balance of your responsibilities to the public versus National Public Radio (NPR) in your role as Ombudsman.
It is my observation of late that your column is becoming something of a public relations space for National Public Radio rather than a forum to address the concerns of listeners. Comments by listeners are largely dealt with in two ways: presented without response or comment or, more frequently of late, presented then refuted by your defense of NPR’s decision, or your assertion that NPR was in the right and [that] the listener misunderstands the situation…
What Does an Ombudsman Do?
I was not surprised by the question. The role of ombudsman is not well established in American journalism. There are, at last count, only 60 of us in the United States. I am still the only network broadcast ombudsman in the country. Even though I have been doing this job for almost five years, listeners (even longtime listeners) still express astonishment that NPR has such a position. So do some journalists.
My official role is described on the NPR Web site (see links below):
The description states, in part:
1. The Ombudsman is the public’s representative to National Public Radio, empowered to respond to significant queries, comments and criticisms regarding NPR programming.
2. The Ombudsman will serve as an independent source of information, explanation, amplification and analysis for the public regarding NPR’s programming and NPR’s adherence to its programming standards and practices.
How Independent Is the Ombudsman?
I think the most critical aspect of ombudsmanship is found in that single word “independent.” That attribute is the sine qua non of the job. NPR has protected that concept from the beginning and has allowed me complete independence.
I am paid by NPR, but I am not listed as an officer of the company. I am not in management, but I also am not officially part of the journalists’ union.
I cannot vote in union elections, but I do hold a union card in order to appear on the radio; I do so from time to time, mostly on phone-in programs on member stations.
The ombudsman answers directly to the NPR board and to the president of NPR, Kevin Klose. I file a quarterly report for each board meeting. These reports are available on the NPR Web site (see links below). They give a summary of the main issues addressed by listeners and describe the volume of correspondence received on each topic.
Through the mandate of the office I have the freedom, and the responsibility, to determine which complaints require an answer.
The job entails handling thousands of e-mails, letters and phone calls every month. The volume of complaints about NPR, public radio in general and the overall state of the media increases every year. My assistant, Chantal de la Rionda, and I look at every e-mail that comes in. Not all e-mails, letters and phone calls can be answered. But as our e-mail auto-reply states, every e-mail is read. I estimate that I am personally able to answer about 20 percent of the e-mails. At last count, they were running about 50,000 a year.
What Is the Process for Filing a Complaint?
If I determine that a listener has a valid complaint, I forward it to the appropriate person in the news department (or, occasionally, to someone in the cultural programming department).
That person is required to respond to the listener in a timely manner. If an answer is not forthcoming from the NPR staff member, I am able to go to that person’s supervisor — or to Bruce Drake, the vice president for news — to help get a response for the listener. I have, in almost five years, rarely had to resort to that force majeure.
I look into a complaint only if a listener has received a response from NPR but remains unsatisfied. The results of my inquiry go directly to the president of NPR. Since I have no managerial authority, the acceptance of my reports and any consequences inside the program areas are entirely up to NPR management. Management can act, or not act, on my reports as it sees fit. My sense is that, for the most part, anything I bring to the attention of management is eventually reflected on-air.
How Accountable Is NPR and Its Ombudsman?
I see the role in two ways: first, it is to make NPR both accountable and transparent to the listeners. News organizations are by their nature defensive institutions that guard their prerogatives jealously. This is a good thing, since the notion of freedom of the press is deeply held and often assailed, especially these days.
But that freedom works best when the information can move two ways: both out to the listeners and back in again in the form of constructive criticism and argument. This is an essential aspect of our democracy.
Second, the ombudsman, as the listeners’ agent inside NPR, has an obligation to defog the more obscure processes of journalism. Why was one story reported and another not? Why do certain experts get interviewed and not others? Does NPR have an agenda on certain issues? Is there bias or self-censorship inside NPR? Why does the public have expectations of journalists and journalism that is at such variance with how journalists see their role? If journalists try to serve the interests of their listeners, is that a form of pandering to the public?
All this is hugely complicated, because these tough questions touch on the economics of journalism, power relationships and media control.
I write a weekly column for the NPR Web site. It is not seen by anyone inside NPR until it is posted on the site. I have engaged an outside editor, Hope Keller, to copy edit and to make sure my prose doesn’t get away from me.
The column tends to be the part of my job where I can also be accountable to listeners.
But going back to Dr. McGregor’s letter, am I starting to go soft on NPR?
‘Stockholm Syndrome?’
In order not to assume the journalist’s usual defensive crouch, I will say that I hope not, and that I take his criticism very seriously.
I will confess that I like, admire and respect NPR for what it represents. Not everything it does is a paragon of journalistic rectitude, but overall I think NPR provides an essential service in American journalism for one simple reason: It treats its listeners as citizens first and as listeners second. And like NPR itself, not every criticism from the public may be right or fair.
Dear Dr. McGregor, there is still much to criticize, and I assure you that I will. Your e-mail was a booster shot to ensure that I not succumb to any NPR-induced ‘Stockholm Syndrome.”
Confronting the Next Issues
Here are some of the issues I plan to address, aside from individual complaints that come my way:
NPR can be parochial in its story selection. It doesn’t consider the concerns of its listeners as seriously or as often as it should. It needs to find ways to embrace a more culturally and politically diverse America without alienating its longtime listeners.
As I have said, I take my role seriously. But I don’t take it personally.
In the end, the role of the ombudsman at any news organization is to make sure that the public is served. As part of the mission statement says:
NPR is committed to providing diverse and balanced viewpoints through the entirety of its programming. NPR recognizes that its credibility in the minds of the general population is its most precious asset and must be protected.
Clearly, there is much left to be done.
