A news ombudsman is no panacea.
The ombudsman should not be the only newsroom staffer assigned to dealing with the public, any more than a quality control director should be the only person interested in quality.
But an ombudsman is no frill, either.
In a newsroom culture that values accessibility to readers, an ombudsman is a key figure. A newspaper as prestigious as The New York Times should employ a person to have a regular dialogue with readers, to explain how a newspaper works and address questions about journalistic decisions and to disagree on occasion with management.
If the Times had such a person, I am confident that the Jayson Blair scandal would have been revealed in print long ago. It’s a shame that the Times has never employed an independent newsroom voice, since it was their staffer,
A.H. Raskin, who proposed such a position in 1967.
Writing in The New York Times Magazine, Raskin suggested: “There is a need in every newspaper for a Department of Internal Criticism to put all its standards under re-examination and to serve as a public protector in its day-to-day operations.
“The department head ought to be given enough independence in the paper to serve as ombudsman for the readers, armed with authority for more effective performance of all the paper’s services to the community, particularly the patrol it keeps on the frontiers of thought and action.”
The Courier-Journal in Louisville quickly accepted the challenge, the first newspaper to appoint an ombudsman in the modern era. Now there are ombudsmen at about 30 U.S. news organizations, many of them newspapers with large circulations. Ombudsmen have spread overseas, as well.
An ombudsman has plenty to do. Each newspaper with an ombudsman structures the job to fit its culture. However, the basic job description remains the same, as described by The Organization of News Ombudsmen:
- 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.
Some editors have opposed the ombudsman movement:
- It’s a luxury. Response: Newspapers have complaint departments, customer service departments and internal auditors. They’re considered essential. Why not include elements of all three functions in one newsroom position?
- An ombudsman is a cop-out. Staff should handle complaints. Response: Most staffers do not have the time to handle the volume of complaints that ombudsmen receive, nor do most have the disposition to deal effectively with angry readers. Ombudsmen do not prevent staffers from communicating directly with the public. In fact, they often facilitate communication by organizing forums and e-mail interaction.
But an ombudsman cannot be effective without the full support of top management and the respect of the newsroom staff. An ombudsman is indicative of a newsroom culture that values a dialogue with readers and is willing to accept the short-term embarrassment of dealing openly with mistakes and controversy in return for long-term credibility.
Many former editors, once they have experienced the give-and-take with readers, have realized the value of the position. Some outstanding ombudsmen once worked at The New York Times. I am sure the Times would have no shortage of candidates.
America’s readers need The New York Times to re-establish its credibility. America’s journalists need the Times to regain its status as a journalistic role model. Readers and journalists need to engage the Times in a continuing conversation about journalistic standards. An ombudsman can contribute to all of those goals.
