Purges at The New York Times and us
By Bernardo Ajzenberg
August 3, 2003
The New York Times on Wednesday announced the creation of an ombudsmans position after three months of an open self-dissection set off by the case of Jayson Blair, the notorious reporter-inventor who left the most influential newspaper in the world at the beginning of May.
This was the most striking measure among a series of internal reformulations suggested by the commission that is scrutinizing the causes of the embarrassing episode, the organization and the functioning of the papers newsroom.
The complete text of the report prepared by this group (25 Times journalists and three from outside, with the latter being especially devoted to investigating the defects that allowed the Blair scandal to happen), with almost 100 pages and a presentation by Managing Editor Bill Keller, was made available on the companys website (www.nytco.com).
For decades, there was strong resistance at the newspaper to the idea of having a readers representative, with the main argument that the job should belong to the editors those responsible for the newspapers different sections to manage the relationship with the public and vigilance over its own production.
The commission concluded, however, that after the Blair case and its various repercussions (among them the departure of another reporter involved in fraud and the fall of the pair who ran the newspaper), a dramatic demonstration of our openness to public responsibility was required.
The main support for any serious quality news organization when it is thrust into deep and unprecedented doubt is credibility. From that standpoint, the rationale is to be compelled to do its job effectively and to listen to what it says about content that is published every day by the newspaper in a systematic way.
Keller said that the ombudsman at the Times will be called the public editor.
Other measures
The newspaper also announced the creation of a managerial position to supervise the application of journalistic standards, a type of guardian of quality in charge of taking care of training programs in ethics, legislation and journalistic techniques and to observe whether they are being applied adequately, and when necessary, the publication of corrections of mistakes detected in stories.
It also created the position of editor in charge of recruitment and career development, in which it will reformulate its system of hiring, promotions, training policy and staff movement.
In addition, the Times announced that it will adjust its policy of defining credit given for stories; review criteria to reduce the amount of information from off-the-record sources; change the relationship between New York headquarters and its biggest bureau, in Washington; increase mechanisms that foment vertical and horizontal dialogue among journalists; guarantee the implementation of a system of goals and individual personnel evaluations; and create an ample system of meetings to generate a formal and informal permanent climate of discussion and collaboration in the newsroom.
Finally, on Thursday, the Times announced that instead of simply replacing the managing editor (according to hierarchy) who resigned in June in the wake of the Blair case, the position will be divided into two, with one giving priority to the production of news and the other working on operations involving the closure of each daily edition.
The list of measures, as you can see, is extensive. It involves profound and painful changes in a 150-year-old institution. We have yet to see whether they really will be put into practice and show true results or result in mere marketing, reflecting only a reaction to the public bloodletting.
But, by no coincidence, the report asserts that the story of Jayson Blair is not only about him, and maybe not even mainly about him.
Reflection
Beyond this, what would some student of journalism, researcher, professor, journalist or reader think all this has to say about the principal newspaper in the United States? When I speak in public, I always get asked why so few news organizations have an ombudsman, a journalist whose first name and last names are exposed to the public, who is always accessible, in charge of making public and independent criticism about the newspaper, hearing complaints and suggestions from readers, sending them to the right place and campaigning to get things right. In effect, there are only about 30 of them in the United States, and they reach only a small percentage of the total audience.
Among other motivations, I am accustomed to pointing out in my response that most news organizations, here and elsewhere, lack the courage to recognize transparently, in an open and permanent way, the incontestable fact that journalists and the press as a whole are not infallible and that in a daily newspaper they are not infallible on a daily basis.
It seems simple and small, but in practice, its very risky and difficult. Its likely and desirable that the historic gesture made by the Times (a newspaper with an honorable track record for a century and a half), resulting from ample reflection and also, it can be pointed out, a certain justifiable dose of desperation in the right for survival makes news organizations around the world revise their practices or at least reflect on the subject once again.
*
Folha has had an ombudsman since 1989, acting with autonomy and independence, publishing a weekly column and daily internal critiques. It has published a corrections section since 1991.
Since 1988, it has applied a rigorous training program with a goal of recruiting high-quality professionals. It organizes internal seminars and offers its employees subsidies for training.
For many years it has had a program of foreign correspondents, goals and individual performance reviews, productivity measurements and detailed controls on errors.
Starting in 1996, it formally instituted a quality program directed at overseeing the application of journalistic standards, which have been consolidated in the newspapers own stylebook. All of this constitutes a commendable structure and culture of prevention, filtering and correction of errors which the newspaper along with its employees and readers has something to be proud of.
But none of this is completely immune from failure, even from huge and serious mistakes.
The report in the Times, surprising in its depth and transparency, rich in detail of imperfections in internal procedures by a huge news staff and filled with concrete suggestions, should serve as a hook and instrument for every reporter or editor and for Folha, in its entirety, to again openly examine its modus operandi, or at least, some of its aspects.
Success routinely projects the defects of arrogance and accommodation and favors the fruition of situations individual or collective, more or less serious or crushing the type that are causing torment and that continue to afflict an icon of serious, independent and responsible journalism called The New York Times.
*
P.S.: I apologize to readers for offering today a column that is exceptionally long and detailed. I believe, however, that the topic required it. There is no way to imagine that we are talking only about a newspaper in the United States, right?
