Word that The New York Times plans to appoint an ombudsman after years of institutional resistance is bittersweet. Like other ombudsmen, I’m delighted the Times plans to appoint a public editor, but it’s sad that it took rogue reporter Jayson Blair for the newspaper, the best in the United States, to acknowledge it had to find a way to let readers know how deeply it cares about them and credibility.
Over the years, the Times has been adamant in its refusal to appoint an ombudsman, a position established at The San Diego Union-Tribune 28 years ago next month. In the United States, at last count, only 38 newspapers have ombudsmen, but among them are some of the nation’s largest and most influential including the Washington Post, The Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Oregonian, Seattle Post-
Intelligencer, Minneapolis Star Tribune and Chicago Tribune.
Why don’t more newspapers have ombudsmen? Like the Times until recent events, some editors and publishers are philosophically opposed to having an ombudsman, who is known variously as a readers representative, public editor or reader advocate. They believe editors should talk with readers. That would be ideal, of course, but in reality, editors are often too busy with daily deadlines to hear readers out. Other editors and publishers believe they cannot afford one when the truth is they cannot afford not to have one. Some simply do not want attention drawn to their mistakes.
Of course, there are newspapers that have small staffs, and it’s understandable that a publisher or an editor would choose to spend limited resources on a journalist who is involved in the daily production of the newspaper as opposed to one who is not.
However, some newspapers that truly cannot afford an ombudsman but are committed to readers have found a way around that by rotating the job among staff members or by hiring a part-time ombudsman. The point of the ombudsman’s job is to let readers know the newspaper cares about them and that there is someone to listen to them.
Now, because Jayson Blair besmirched the name of the Times with his plagiarisms and fabrications, the newspaper will join those that let readers know they consider credibility and accountability high priority.
In a note to the Times staff, newly named executive editor Bill Keller acknowledged the Times’ resistance to an ombudsman. “We worried that it would foster nit-picking and navel-gazing, that it might undermine staff morale and, worst of all, that it would absolve other editors of their responsibility to represent the interest of readers.”
However, a report by a committee that included Times staff members and three outsiders suggested an ombudsman and two other positions, a standards editor to act as an “internal guardian” and a staffing and career development editor.
Keller acknowledged in his note to staff members that he agrees with the committee recommendation that the Times “can profit from the scrutiny of an independent reader representative. A pair of professional eyes, familiar with us but independent of the day-to-day production of the paper, can make us more sensitive on matters of fairness and accuracy and enhance our credibility.”
Among the outsiders who conducted the Times investigation was Joann Byrd, recently retired editorial page editor at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer who served as ombudsman at the Washington Post from 1992 to 1995.
Byrd, who said she did not know if the recommendation for an ombudsman was going to be accepted, called the decision to appoint one “a huge statement” for public accountability. Byrd said there are other ways of letting readers know the newspaper cares, by devoting more space for letters to the editor for example, but appointing an ombudsman is probably “the most ostentatious way of doing it.”
Byrd, who was philosophically opposed to ombudsmen before she became one, said her two favorite recommendations from the committee that conducted an exhaustive examination of the newsroom culture that allowed Jayson Blair to flourish are for appointment of an ombudsman and a standards editor. The two will work hand-in-hand. The standards editor is to oversee the setting of journalistic standards for the newspaper, be the internal guardian for staff members who have journalistic concerns about works in progress and oversee corrections and editor’s notes. Bryd said she was impressed with the Times staffers who had an “absolute devotion to fixing…whatever needed to be fixed.”
Had Jayson Blair never entered the Times newsroom, the paper would still have had need for an ombudsman. An ombudsman does not operate as a shield for editors, but has an obligation to make sure they know what readers are saying and what concerns them.
With its decision to appoint an ombudsman, the Times has given readers a clear signal it cares about credibility, accuracy, fairness and accountability. It’s a huge step, one long overdue.
