Starting today, Folha is hosting ombudsmen from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Holland, Great Britain, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey and the United States for the 26th annual conference of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), the world organization devoted to defending newspaper and magazine readers, radio listeners and TV viewers.
This is the first time that the meeting is being held outside North America or Europe. From 1981, when the first conference was held, until 1996, the United States and Canada hosted all the meetings. Starting in 1997, they were held in Barcelona, Paris (2001), Istanbul (2003), London (2005) and now, in So Paulo.
The main objective for holding the conference in Brazil is to call attention to one of the tools of self-regulation and oversight in the media. Few newspapers, magazines, radio and TV outlets in the world, and even fewer in South America, have adopted the role of ombudsman to intermediate with their readers and listeners and society.
The work of the ombudsman arises from the necessity that the press must seek credibility, to protect and provide space for readers and assimilate the growing pressure by society for “exactness, impartiality and balance,” to use words of the ONO itself. Here are two observations:
1 – The ombudsman is not the only initiative available for self-regulation. Some companies adopt reader councils, carry out surveys with their audience, provide space for letters and opinion pieces, have professionals responsible for internal criticism, and devote space to correcting mistakes.
One of the serious problems in the Brazilian press, one that affects its credibility more than news organizations realize, is the difficulty of guaranteeing opposing information and recognizing errors. An ombudsman is not necessary to routinely correct mistakes publicly or to guarantee the right of everyone who is interested to be able to respond. All that is necessary is respect and editorial willingness.
2 – It’s not enough to appoint an ombudsman. The job only makes sense if the organizations publicly make a commitment to ethical values and a clear editorial position and guarantee total professional independence. In the case of Folha, the ombudsman, created in 1989, was another initiative assumed by the newspaper to made the commitment, through its stylebook and its editorial project, to exercise critical, non-partisan, pluralistic and modern journalism. Is the journalism that it practices in accord with these values? The ombudsman’s criticism does not summarize these points, but it should use them as a permanent reference.
Finally, here is a recurring question: why don’t more newspapers (besides Folha, “O Povo” of Fortaleza and “Jornal da Cidade” of Bauru), radio networks (besides Bandeirantes of So Paulo and Radiobrs) and TV stations (besides Cultura of So Paulo) have an ombudsman? There are many reasons, but I believe there are three main ones: the arrogance of journalists and news organizations who believe that they are above criticism, can’t tolerate pressure and won’t admit mistakes; the difficulties that news organizations have, because of their political and economic interests, to guarantee autonomy and independence to ombudsmen; and the lack of belief by many in the effectiveness of the job.
Observers
The annual conference of ombudsmen coincides with the 10th anniversary on the Internet of the Press Observer website (www.observatoriodaimprensa.com.br), the main organization that monitors the Brazilian media. It is curious that the main parties in these two events, Folha and Alberto Dines, joined together for the first experience in press criticism, “Newspaper of newspapers,” which he edited at Folha from 1975 to 1977.
It has been that way, furthermore, for 30 years, three decades of big transformations in Brazil as a country, society and in the press. The nation emerged from military dictatorship for a democratic regime, and one of the most interesting changes that we have seen is precisely in the relationship of society with the media.
The press lives today under healthy pressure from its readers, viewers, listeners and society. Among the tools of pressure starting in the second half of the decade in 1990 are the monitoring institutions.
In Brazil, the main reference is Press Observer, but other institutes are slowly gaining strength, including the News Agency for Children’s Rights, Transparency Brazil, the Brazilian Media Observer, the Doxa Laboratory and the Center for Studies about Safety and Citizenry, to cite those that I know from having already appealed to them.
These initiatives arise in questioning the highly concentrated model of communication and our willingness to understand that the press has a fundamental role in building citizenship. For this reason, they monitor journalistic coverage of topics such as social inequality, corruption, violence and the electoral process.
The press still is not accustomed to listening to these new voices and frequently seeks to ignore and disqualify them.
I don’t believe that they are always right in the criticism they make, mainly when they let themselves be contaminated by party viewpoints, but they should be heard. They express viewpoints different from those which dominate newsrooms, seek to make a critical objective starting with statistical surveys and trends and, most important, have improvement of these organizations as their objective.
ONO
Seeking credibility
I am reproducing here, from the ONO (Organization of News Ombudsmen, www.newsombudsmen.org) website, two topics that inform about the function of the ombudsman and objectives of the institution.
———————————————————————-
Why should a newspaper or broadcaster have an ombudsman?
To improve the quality of news reporting by monitoring accuracy, fairness and balance.
To help his or her news provider to become more accessible and accountable to readers or audience members and, thus, to become more credible.
To increase the awareness of its news professionals about the public’s concerns.
To save time for publishers and senior editors, or broadcasters and news directors, by channeling complaints and other inquiries to one responsible individual.
To resolve some complaints that might otherwise be sent to attorneys and become costly lawsuits.
———————————————————————-
What are ONO’s purposes?
To help the journalism profession achieve and maintain high ethical standards in news reporting, thereby enhancing its own credibility among the people it serves.
To establish and refine standards for the job of news ombudsman or reader representative.
To help in the wider establishment of the position of news ombudsman on newspapers and elsewhere in the media.
To provide a forum for exchanging experiences, information and ideas among its members.
To develop contacts with publishers, editors, press councils and other professional organizations, provide speakers for special interest groups and respond to media inquiries.
Translated by John Wright
